the right religion

[Meow Mix]

Whether one believes in God or not, everything they feel, experience or do that is good, is still from God.

So, do you believe that a good atheist that dies without believing in God will suddenly stop being good? That they will stop loving, stop caring about other people, and stop their willingness to make sacrifices for the wellbeing of others? If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure how to respond to that other than pointing out that such a belief puzzles me immensely.

God has told us the consequences. If we know and we reject, only we are responsible for our choice. He will not force anyone to accept.

I'm not sure you understood the full context of my disagreements. The only way someone can know whether or not God has "told them the consequences" is to have some good reason to believe so. For instance, perhaps you're familiar with the "consequences" of saying Lord Voldemort's name; but perhaps you can't think of any particular reason to believe that Lord Voldemort exists and that said consequences are real:

Would you find it fair if, at the end of your life, the Dark Lord enters your window and says, "Ah, but you knew the consequences of uttering my name -- even though you didn't have any real evidence by which to decide whether I was real or not -- so now you're responsible for your 'choice?'"

What I think you're having a hard time understanding here is that you already believe that God exists, so in your mind maybe it makes sense that people know the "consequences" of ignoring his commands. Please look at this from an unbiased point of view though. There are all kinds of gods that people believe in that command all kinds of things that look equally ridiculous as far as some of us can tell: how are we supposed to know which "consequences" are real or not? How can you call that a "choice?" Isn't it necessary for us to have a good reason to believe something is real or not before we can make an actual choice on the matter?

Why do some people who are raised atheist accept Christ?

Why are some people who are raised atheist accept Buddha, or Allah, or Zoroaster? Why are some people who are raised Christian or Muslim become atheist? You can't point out atheist-to-Christian converts as if that makes Christianity special in any way, because it's not -- people of all religions and non-religions convert to other religions and non-religions all the time.

Christianity is not special. It looks no different from any of the other religions from outside of Christianity, and that's exactly the point I've been trying to get across here. You argue as if Christian principles should be obvious to us non-believers and that we should be held accountable for our perceptions of Christianity -- not just accountable, but eternally accountable -- but I'm asking how that could ever possibly be fair if we're not given enough evidence to make an informed decision?

Why are there people in the depths of Africa who have never read a Bible, questioning their "religion" because of nothing more than the world around them? I believe God is a just God and will every individual will be judged according to what truths have been revealed to them.
No, I don't expect people to just listen to Christians and take them at their word.

People of all regions and of all religions question the predominant religion of their region. This is why atheists exist in all countries and at least some of every religion exist in all countries. Please don't be under the false illusion that Christianity is somehow more special or more flocked to by people in some countries, because that's blatantly false. In fact, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world -- by that sort of "reasoning," we should assume that Islam is the true religion and not Christianity.

The flaw I see in this analogy is that God does not give 50 buttons or an unclear message. The confusion we have with different religions and which one is "right" comes from Satan. Don't look at people to build the 'good case'. That's where people often go wrong, impo. They look at other flawed people for direction, when they should be looking to God for direction. God will never steer us in the wrong direction or deceive us.

Ok, so let's say that you're born on an island and can't look to other people's accumulated knowledge. Are you going to believe in Jesus and the story of His resurrection and all that? How? If anyone can just know about that, then why did the Spanish conquistadors who got to the New World not find that the natives already at least knew about Jesus?

Yet, as it turns out, native Americans had no idea about Jesus; and even when Jesus was introduced to them they found the notion very alien. This is because religion doesn't seem to spread by divine fiat -- it seems to spread by human beings through cultural diffusion; much like things like fashion and language.

So, how is a person to decide which god or gods exist, if any? How is a person to decide what historically happened (did Hera turn girls into white oxen, did a man die and come back to life, was Osiris sewn back together)? How is a person to decide what god commands? I for one have no idea; so why am I going to Hell just for not knowing? Why should I suffer eternally just for being ignorant on this matter?

Why am I depending on you to give me evidence, if it's that life threatening?

Well, to turn it around, I'm the one who brought up this crater to you or you might have never thought of it. Well, I'd have never thought up the notion of an undead Jewish carpenter that sacrificed Himself to Himself so that He can forgive me for a curse passed down to me by a rib-woman who was tricked by a talking snake into eating a magic tree -- I'd have never thought of that by myself; and I have no idea how to go about finding evidence for its truth or falsity.

So how am I supposed to come to know the truth of what really happened or not? Why should I be punished eternally -- ETERNALLY, I can't stress how insane that is -- for being a tad bit skeptical about such a story?

Please, I really truly want to know why I should suffer forever just for feeling like there's not enough evidence to support someone's assertion. That's the part that I really don't understand.

If one does not even know what kind of evidence would convince them, how do they know God is not already revealing it to them?

I find it something of an absurd notion to seriously question what an omnipotent being might be able to do to demonstrate its existence. I'm sure every person on earth would be pretty convinced if, even just for a night, God moved all the stars around to read "I am Almighty God and I do exist, and the Bible is my testimony" in everyone's native languages or something like that. It would be very easy for God to give people good evidence for His existence; and therefore to give people an informed decision on whether to follow Him or not.

and I believe he does.

But what about those of us who are skeptical?

God will do everything in his power to stop us and get us to listen but he will not impose on our free will to disobey him. Hell is a consequence.

This could only be true if God allowed people to reasonably know that He even exists.

And my point is that is not how God works. It is not a game to God. God gives us evidence. The consequence comes from rejecting the evidence we ARE given. Not b/c we just don't think the evidence we are given is "good enough".

What are some examples of God's evidence; and do you suppose that with any evidence there is always a question of interpretation?

If I told you about key gnomes that steal your keys, that if you don't believe in them by the 31st of December they will cut off your arms in your sleep... and one day (the 30th) you can't find your keys, but lacking evidence for the existence of key gnomes you find it more likely that you simply left them in your coat pocket or in your car ignition... then that night they cut your arms off, and say "Oh, you were warned, this is just a consequence of your choice."

Did you really have a fair choice? Were you really warned? Someone might say, "The gnomes provided you evidence [i.e., stealing your car keys], you just chose to ignore it." But the point here is that it was entirely reasonable to believe that you probably left your keys in the car or in a coat pocket rather than believing some far out story. So why should you be punished when the "evidence" that's presented to you is so dubious?

Does that make sense? I'm kind of tired as I type this. My point is that even if you argue that God gives us "evidence" in the form of serendipitous clues or whatever, it's still ridiculous to punish people eternally who don't "get it." It's still monstrous and vile to allow them to be in anguish forever. That's a monstrous thing beyond description, a Satanic thing -- not a Godly thing to do.

 

[Meow Mix]

So they know there is evidence of their parents existence but they choose to ignore it and just believe they don't? What evidence are they looking for? How will they know when they have enough evidence if even the evidence they have been given isn't enough?

I sort of addressed this at the end of the last post, but I'll re-visit it.

Evidence often has many interpretations. Some interpretations are more reasonable than others given what is already known to be the case, what is already known to be possible, and so on. That doesn't mean that I'm endorsing some sort of "skeptic's razor," where given any extraordinary circumstance we should always just say "uh, it was a heat pocket with swamp gas reflecting the light from Venus and not a UFO." I'm not saying that we should throw away all "paranormal" explanations in favor of skeptical ones because sometimes the skeptical ones are more far-fetched than the paranormal ones!

What I'm saying is something more like this. Let's say it's mid-January and you turn your faucet on, but nothing comes out. Here are a few things that might go through your mind:

1) I don't know what's going on.
2) Demons are stealing my water!
3) The pipes are possibly frozen.

Given what you already know to be the case and what you already know to be possible, isn't (3) the most reasonable explanation here? If you didn't know anything about pipes and their tendancy to freeze, even so, wouldn't (1) still seem more reasonable than (2)?

If water-stealing demons did exist, though, and they later tormented you and said, "We gave you evidence by stealing your water but you chose to ignore it!" would that be a very fair predicament to be in? Would you read a story about someone who gets tortured by water-stealing demons and think, "Ah, what a fool, she totally ignored all that good evidence she had?" No, chances are you wouldn't -- you would probably think, "She had a good reason to be skeptical that water-stealing demons were the culprit, so it's sad that she's paying for it now." At least I'd hope that's what you would think.

Well, think of this whole God thing like that. Why should an atheist that's a good person -- but who just happens to die without realizing that God exists, that's all -- be condemned for eternity? That strikes me as grotesquely evil; and I'm surprised it doesn't strike the same to you.

See I don't think we're given just little bits of evidence. I believe we are given overwhelming evidence but b/c of our sin we can't see ALL of it. By believing in the little evidence we can see, the other evidence will become more clear. I don't believe there is any such thing as coincidence. Everything has a reason, even if we don't understand.

What if someone isn't convinced of that, though? Is it such a horrible thing to suppose that sometimes there are coincidences? Is that worthy of Hellfire? For instance, did you know that there is a 50% probability that someone shares a birthday with someone else in the room with only 23 people in the room (see: birthday problem)?

Sometimes, things which seem really unlikely aren't actually as unlikely as they first seem. So, let's assume that someone knows this and that they think it's likely that sometimes things that happen really are just coincidences: do they deserve Hell for that? For just reaching a reasonable conclusion based on concrete evidence; they deserve to burn for that because it might make them interpret some "evidence" differently?

God doesn't do this either. Scripture says "rain falls on the just and unjust alike". The flaw with this thinking is that there is an end to this world. The opportunity to join God's family ends when we die. We know this. God has made this clear yet we want to be upset with him for not giving longer? How long does one need? They have until their dying breath. If one knows that's the end, why is it God's fault if they put it off until it's too late?

You really don't see how it could possibly be unfair, do you?

Please tell me which scenario is the most fair:

1) God doesn't give concrete evidence of His existence; maybe he leaves breadcrumbs here and there. God throws people in Hell for disbelief (to suffer in eternal, never-ending anguish), even if only because they were ignorant of his breadcrumb trail.

2) When a person dies, God appears before them and says "Yep, I'm here, I really do exist. So, do you want to be part of my family or not?"

Can you tell me with a straight face that (1) isn't inherently unfair, even tyrannical and evil; whereas (2) seems completely fair? I just don't understand how anyone could believe that (1) is remotely fair or remotely "good" unless they're okay with worshipping an evil and megolamaniacal demon.

Anyone who refuses to just show themselves without obfuscation in order to give people an informed choice when something like eternal suffering on the line is a monster; and I deeply question the moral compass of anyone who finds such a being to be remotely "righteous." That's not a personal jab or anything, I'm just seriously saying that anyone who finds a being so described to be "good" has an indescribably twisted idea of what is "good" or "just," and I wouldn't want to have them watching my back or anywhere near my loved ones.

 

[Meow Mix]

Let me put it this way. Let's say that we live in the fictional nation of Absurdia.

Absurdia has the strange policy of not being forthcoming with who is really leading the country. Some people say it's an individual leading the country; other people say it's a group of people leading the country. Some people point out one prominent politician and assert that she is the de facto Empress; other people point out another prominent politician and say that he is actually the Emperor; yet others point out groups of people and say they are the oligarchy that rules. Official Absurdia policy, though, is that the leader can't just make themselves known in a straightforward way.

Let's say that the leader then institutes a policy that all those who believe they are the true ruler will be protected by the bill of rights, but all those who believe the wrong person is leader (or who believe there is no leader) will become slaves. The bill comes into effect in exactly a year.

Let's say that you and I were friends in Absurdia, and let's say that you luckily assumed the right person was leader. On the fateful day where the law takes hold, in my ignorance I've either not been able to make up my mind or I've picked the wrong person that I think is leading. (Even if there is small amounts of obfuscated evidence, perhaps it confuses me and I don't put 2 and 2 together. Maybe I'm slow. Maybe I miss the "big picture," but not intentionally. Regardless, I remain unconvinced even if I'm not in denial.) Whoops! Absurdia throws me into prison.

1) Is the leader a good, just, benevolent person?
2) Did I deserve what happened to me?
3) Was my decision an informed one?

In what way is this different from what God does?

Do you believe that all this mess could be avoided if the real Leader just stood up and said, "It's me, I'm the leader -- you see me, I exist, now you can make an informed decision about whether you want to follow my policies or not?"

If you agree that would avoid the mess, then... well, I think you see the implication here, right?

Besides that, what about people with mental handicaps -- do they get a free pass to Heaven if they don't have the capacity to understand God's "evidence?" Why are they here in the first place, why not just put them directly into Heaven? None of this makes sense.

 

[Starsoul]

Besides that, what about people with mental handicaps -- do they get a free pass to Heaven if they don't have the capacity to understand God's "evidence?" Why are they here in the first place, why not just put them directly into Heaven? None of this makes sense.

In my religion, yes they do get a free pass to heaven, not only them but all those who are born in compromised situations, poverty or disability, will be the first ones to go to heaven, free from all their dis-abilities, in full perfection, and with an eternally happy ever-after life, with lots of love, care, servants and anything they wish for, perfection personified, problem of low self esteem solved : )

 

[Meow Mix]

In my religion, yes they do get a free pass to heaven, not only them but all those who are born in compromised situations, poverty or disability, will be the first ones to go to heaven, free from all their dis-abilities, in full perfection, and with an eternally happy ever-after life, with lots of love, care, servants and anything they wish for, perfection personified, problem of low self esteem solved : )

Why are they disabled at all in the first place?

If the purpose of life is some sort of "test" (I can't fathom why an omnipotent and omniscient God would feel the need to "test" us anyway, but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here), then isn't it unfair to "test" them without the cognitive abilities to play the game on one hand, and pointless for them to exist in a state of suffering if they're just getting a free pass to heaven anyway on the other hand?

Don't get me wrong. My girlfriend's brother is considered mentally handicapped by the state, and I'm not saying that his life isn't worth living or that he has less of a capacity to experience life. It just wouldn't make sense if he's going to heaven no matter what -- okay, why waste the time making him go through life on Earth as a mentally handicapped person first if there's no "test" for him to pass?

Someone might argue that the "test" is for us: can we love him if he's different? We most certainly do, but that's beside the point -- how is it fair to make someone suffer like that if they're not even expected to take the test? In fact, wouldn't the most benevolent God just make ALL of us mentally handicapped so that ALL of us go to heaven then?

Edit: Actually, I just figured out how certain American politicians get elected twice. The light bulb just turned on, lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It happens.
That is why God sends prophets.

But there are "prophets" saying all sorts of things. How do you tell the right ones from the wrong ones, except to compare what they say against your scriptures...and then you're back in the same circular trap again.

 

[beenie]

Why are they disabled at all in the first place?

If the purpose of life is some sort of "test" (I can't fathom why an omnipotent and omniscient God would feel the need to "test" us anyway, but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here), then isn't it unfair to "test" them without the cognitive abilities to play the game on one hand, and pointless for them to exist in a state of suffering if they're just getting a free pass to heaven anyway on the other hand?

Don't get me wrong. My girlfriend's brother is considered mentally handicapped by the state, and I'm not saying that his life isn't worth living or that he has less of a capacity to experience life. It just wouldn't make sense if he's going to heaven no matter what -- okay, why waste the time making him go through life on Earth as a mentally handicapped person first if there's no "test" for him to pass?

Someone might argue that the "test" is for us: can we love him if he's different? We most certainly do, but that's beside the point -- how is it fair to make someone suffer like that if they're not even expected to take the test? In fact, wouldn't the most benevolent God just make ALL of us mentally handicapped so that ALL of us go to heaven then?

Edit: Actually, I just figured out how certain American politicians get elected twice. The light bulb just turned on, lol.

I too struggle with the "test" theory.
Who exactly is being tested? The parents? Siblings? The disabled? Why? I know all the answers I've heard, but none have fully satisfied my curiosity.

 

[Meow Mix]

But there are "prophets" saying all sorts of things. How do you tell the right ones from the wrong ones, except to compare what they say against your scriptures...and then you're back in the same circular trap again.

Also, why would God work through such an inefficient means of getting the truth out -- especially when the eternal fate of your soul is on the line -- as cultural diffusion?

This is especially true in the framework of some religions like Christianity, where one popular view is that humans are fundamentally morally flawed and inclined to "sin:" if your one method of getting the truth across relies on being spread by flawed and sinful creatures, isn't it probable that there was some sort of better, more efficient plan to diffuse said knowledge? Isn't it important to get such a thing as right as possible when peoples' immortal souls are on the line?

 

[Meow Mix]

I too struggle with the "test" theory.
Who exactly is being tested? The parents? Siblings? The disabled? Why? I know all the answers I've heard, but none have fully satisfied my curiosity.

I've never understood it. An omniscient and omnipotent God doesn't need to "test" anything -- it would already know the outcomes of any possible event with absolute certainty. Actually going through with the creation of people that God would know ahead of time would suffer greatly or go to Hell is in itself an evil act if true.

 

[9Westy9]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Only if one of the religions like Christianity or Islam is true. I don't think the point is to teach the right belief but to teach how to find the right belief. Teaching people (especially young people) your belief is limiting them to one way of thinking. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who became open minded after growing up in a christian home.

 

[waitasec]

I too struggle with the "test" theory.
Who exactly is being tested? The parents? Siblings? The disabled? Why? I know all the answers I've heard, but none have fully satisfied my curiosity.

honesty will earn you respect
:flower:

 

[Starsoul]

I've never understood it. An omniscient and omnipotent God doesn't need to "test" anything -- it would already know the outcomes of any possible event with absolute certainty. Actually going through with the creation of people that God would know ahead of time would suffer greatly or go to Hell is in itself an evil act if true.

Thats how you think, but from what I understand about creation through our books, tells a completely different story. The creation Man, was created For the Heavens originally,in perfection, without having to pass any tests, he was gifted with free will, even then.

It was MAN himself who desired to exercise his free will and expressed his desire to be given some command and control so that HE could prove to God that he would bring honor to his own creation by serving God, as God would please so. This wish was granted by a small test of the tree that God WARNED Adam to not to go near to, but he went anyway, inspite of knowing God, having seen him, haven spoken to him, having known His power and glory, and yet choosing to disobey slightly.

The message this story gives is that Humans NEED to make that spiritual journey on their own, because even knowing, seeing and fully being honored by God, being born in perfection and finesse, was taken for granted by humanity. Why not make some effort then , raise one's understanding, and value the gift of God which we will have to earn now, and would have taken for granted anyway even if we were given it initially.

Man was simply granted his own wish. Imagine this yourself, if you were in a perfect place and were given awesome capabilities, wouldn't you want a place to excercise them to bring merit to your own worth? When you become a doctor, don't you want to go out help people who are in pain? or when you become a person of great power wouldn't you want to eradicate misery? Why then blame God if he grants that earnest human wish, or even blame the human spirit to want to choose merit, over God's gracious offer to live in heaven.

If humanity fails itself, imposes wars, colossal taxes on poor people, spends wealth in the wrong places and lets poor people die in vain, it is the test of man's worth , not God's. For God knows that He has appointed a day of judgment for all justice and all fairness, where people's only disability will be their deeds and their beliefs, where people will be enacted exactly as where they wished/aspired and struggled to be, He gave man what he asked for, and man is exactly as God describes " created from a just drop of water and yet severely impatient, arrogant and argumentative ".

If man himself is choosing evil actions, despite warnings from God, then that is that man's own worth, and he has a right to place a value on his own worth, he can never say, "I was not informed/warned". And forget about " If I was given an evidence I would believe in God", In the beginning of creation, they all were given evidence and were given the heavens to rule, it was all taken for granted, just as any man today would decide exactly the same as the first man did, take it all for granted and then opt to test his free will; the temptation is too great, and comes with greater responsibility; a responsibility that meant sharing the command with God( by sharing it means, that if he is a God fearing soul, he will restore peace, justice and harmony on the rest of the creation, and if not, he will just pile up wealth upon wealth for his own good, and go to any end to justify his greed).

What matters is what humans do to their own kind, and how they practise their free will to make their worth valuable. As for God, He is the all powerful but subtle, He will only make Himself evident when He has sent the last soul on this Earth who claimed to make this world a better place.

 

[Starsoul]

And about misery, the only misery I can think of is feeling miserable. I meet many many disabled and poor people who have a more optimistic, happier view on life than any otherwise normal appearing person. If you ask them, even they feel miserable only when somebody tries to make them feel really bad about themselves, the rest of the times they are pretty happy people. Why judge them to be miserable when they aren't feeling any of it? As far as i know, its only the non-suffering types who suffer in great misery sometimes, by circumstances or by choice sometimes, and trust me it is at these times when looking at these people, who seem to be dis-abled by something, makes you realize that if they can be so happy, then why cant we be?

 

[Muffled]

In my religion, yes they do get a free pass to heaven, not only them but all those who are born in compromised situations, poverty or disability, will be the first ones to go to heaven, free from all their dis-abilities, in full perfection, and with an eternally happy ever-after life, with lots of love, care, servants and anything they wish for, perfection personified, problem of low self esteem solved : )

What a nice ego stroking concept, like baptizing babies so they will go to Heaven. God sends people where He wants them whether they fully understand that or not, whether willing or not.

 

[Breathe]

God sends people where He wants them whether they fully understand that or not, whether willing or not.

(emphasis mine)


That sounds rather sinister...

 

[Muffled]

So, though the ego, I pick a religion that is about getting rid of the ego?

Hardly.

Nothing replaces the ego, just like nothing replaces the peal of an orange when you take it off. God consciousness is already there, just hidden by several veils, of which the ego is one. If a person becomes a zombie, that's because there's still a few veils. I imagine it's one of the reasons why the final stages shouldn't be attempted without a Guru's guidance.

It is like choosing not to choose. If my wife says choose whether my hair should be blonde or grey and I say whatever you choose is fine with me. I have chosen not to make a choice. I do so because I know that my wife wouldn't be happy with my choice and will only be happy with her own choice.

Now the same is true of making a choice of religion because of ego. If a person has chosen a religion that believes in abandoning ego, doesn't that mean that the person has to re-examine his choice of religion without ego? Or is hypocrisy really valuable in this instance?

Christianity is a religion requiring the abandonment of ego also. The difference is what replaces the ego. Christians opt for God consciousness. If you say your religion automatically ensures that, there must be a criteria that you go by. What is it? For instance a person who has been possessed by a demon has had their ego replaced by a demon. When the demon is cast out, Jesus likens it to a house that is now empty (assuming that ego has not jumped right back in) and that a host of demons could take up residence. (Someone has to run the show)

If nothing replaces the ego, there is no consciousness and the person is a zombie. Just because God is all pervasive, that does not guarantee that He will automatically take over a person's mind. That would be intrusive and very impolite. God waits for you to invite Him to do so. Would you really want someone taking over your mind uninvited?

 

[Me Myself]

It is like choosing not to choose. If my wife says choose whether my hair should be blonde or grey and I say whatever you choose is fine with me. I have chosen not to make a choice. I do so because I know that my wife wouldn't be happy with my choice and will only be happy with her own choice.

Now the same is true of making a choice of religion because of ego. If a person has chosen a religion that believes in abandoning ego, doesn't that mean that the person has to re-examine his choice of religion without ego? Or is hypocrisy really valuable in this instance?

Christianity is a religion requiring the abandonment of ego also. The difference is what replaces the ego. Christians opt for God consciousness. If you say your religion automatically ensures that, there must be a criteria that you go by. What is it? For instance a person who has been possessed by a demon has had their ego replaced by a demon. When the demon is cast out, Jesus likens it to a house that is now empty (assuming that ego has not jumped right back in) and that a host of demons could take up residence. (Someone has to run the show)

If nothing replaces the ego, there is no consciousness and the person is a zombie. Just because God is all pervasive, that does not guarantee that He will automatically take over a person's mind. That would be intrusive and very impolite. God waits for you to invite Him to do so. Would you really want someone taking over your mind uninvited?

God is already me. God is life, and I am life. God is love and hapiness and made me in his image. I know when I get rid of every other layer, hapiness will be there, because God is closer to us than our very breath is close to us.

God is us ^-^

 

[Muffled]

(emphasis mine)


That sounds rather sinister...

It would be if God were not agape love.

 

[waitasec]

God sends people where He wants them whether they fully understand that or not, whether willing or not.

That sounds rather sinister...

It would be if God were not agape love.

pardon me, would a parent willingly allow their child to cross the street knowing full well of their limited capacity of understanding the laws of physics when a car hits them?

that's not agape love, it's indifference.
and being purposefully disinterested or apathetic about a persons pain and suffering is rather sinister indeed.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is like choosing not to choose. If my wife says choose whether my hair should be blonde or grey and I say whatever you choose is fine with me. I have chosen not to make a choice. I do so because I know that my wife wouldn't be happy with my choice and will only be happy with her own choice.

Now the same is true of making a choice of religion because of ego. If a person has chosen a religion that believes in abandoning ego, doesn't that mean that the person has to re-examine his choice of religion without ego? Or is hypocrisy really valuable in this instance?

I honestly do not understand where you see hypocrisy.

Christianity is a religion requiring the abandonment of ego also. The difference is what replaces the ego. Christians opt for God consciousness. If you say your religion automatically ensures that, there must be a criteria that you go by. What is it? For instance a person who has been possessed by a demon has had their ego replaced by a demon. When the demon is cast out, Jesus likens it to a house that is now empty (assuming that ego has not jumped right back in) and that a host of demons could take up residence. (Someone has to run the show)

God-consciousness is a term I first came across in Hindu teachings. I do not understand what you mean by criteria. Are you asking what the signs of a person with God-consciousness are?

If nothing replaces the ego, there is no consciousness and the person is a zombie. Just because God is all pervasive, that does not guarantee that He will automatically take over a person's mind. That would be intrusive and very impolite. God waits for you to invite Him to do so. Would you really want someone taking over your mind uninvited?

God isn't taking over anything; He was never not there to begin with.

In panentheism, God is both immanent and transcendent. It is like the wave which is separate from the ocean, yet entirely part of it.