Can There Be Common Ground?

It has never made sense to me why people on the internet feel a near constant desire to berate one another with such hatred and "passion".

No common ground can be reached so long as everyone involved in the conversation feels the need to defend their faith (or lack thereof) rather than accept the difference of opinion (yours truely included).

Common ground can only come about when two people of different belief systems accept the irrationality of their faith (or lack thereof) and understand that logic plays no role in faith.

Truth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No One, has a monopoly on truth. As proof, try this little experiment; next time you are at a family gathering, start telling a story about something that you and other members of your family did several years ago. I guarantee you that every person involved in the memory will have a different version of the story, and be absolutely sure that their version is the gospel truth. and you know what? They are probably right.

It has never made sense to me why people on the internet feel a near constant desire to berate one another with such hatred and "passion".

No common ground can be reached so long as everyone involved in the conversation feels the need to defend their faith (or lack thereof) rather than accept the difference of opinion (yours truely included).

Common ground can only come about when two people of different belief systems accept the irrationality of their faith (or lack thereof) and understand that logic plays no role in faith.

Truth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No One, has a monopoly on truth. As proof, try this little experiment; next time you are at a family gathering, start telling a story about something that you and other members of your family did several years ago. I guarantee you that every person involved in the memory will have a different version of the story, and be absolutely sure that their version is the gospel truth. and you know what? They are probably right.

Simplewords,
Victoria,
All other Muslims, brothers and sisters!

Eid Mubarik & Happy New Year to all of you.

Simplewords its nice to read your posts.

Sorry for the delayed greetings.
I was away and very happily busy getting engaged!

Your bit emotional & aggressive,
Brother!

Maybe science can become the common ground...

www.foreverfamilyfoundation.org/sanfranciscocc.htm

sbozti jlvoeyhs qohyicj cjiwkb opwnqj psre xhqi

The common ground is in accepting each other as individuals, because we are more than the sum of our faith. The common ground is in the things we might share like integrity, honesty, kindness to name a few.

Deciding on the things for the common good and addressing them and not our faith differences is how to begin to build bridges between cultures and faith.

The common ground is in accepting each other as individuals, because we are more than the sum of our faith. The common ground is in the things we might share like integrity, honesty, kindness to name a few.

Deciding on the things for the common good and addressing them and not our faith differences is how to begin to build bridges between cultures and faith.

DEBATE

There are two parts to the debate, since we need to also discuss how we get along with each other from different religious groups as well as other living entities on the planet, including the planet and ecology, because it is a living entity itself and religious philosophy dictates how we use its resources.

The first is about the religion and the tolerance to other cultures, civilizations and the people of different nations. The second is about ensuring that we preserve the earth, its fauna and flora, and its ecology on which our dependence hangs as well. The goal of life is first to survive in the long term, then to be contended and happy most of the times, and then to pamper ourselves with luxuries, sometimes and not always. The last often gets created in our minds by the pushers of the manufactures of the luxury at the expense of other living entities and resource of the planet, including the earth and ecology, which our future generations also have right to live off. For now we are living like pests and selfish fools.

The later need to be discussed first as it is of paramount importance and also dictates how we live together in peace.

SAVING EARTH, ITS FLORA AND FAUNA, ECOLOGY AND LIFE ON PLANET

I personally think that the human experiment of extreme capitalism has failed to make people of all nations and civilizations naturally healthy, blissfully content and harmoniously co-existing.

Extreme capitalism relies on the growth of profits as the only pre-dominant factor, and becomes the only variable in life to be maximized and be concerned about. So many other parameters meaningful to the life here get sacrificed and ignored in the name of chasing the assets shown by the modern financial instruments. Those who know the history of money would know that "interest" and "inflation" were the man made creations because of greed of the few who became innovative in making "something" out of "nothing". So the modern society is forced to dump a working computer and all-in-one-printer-fax-copier-scanner, because Microsoft has upgraded their Operating System with a newer version of Windows and running on old hardware would be more time consuming and expensive to support. Sticking to old hardware would be unproductive as the old version Internet Explorer does not work with the newer version of operating system and the software running on the servers on the Web. Standards and backwards compatibility are talked about, but when reality hits you, one is forced to keep up with the products pushed down to you. Instead of it being a demand based economy, the extreme capitalistic economy is supply based. Suppliers, if they had their way, they would pan pure oxygen bottles that is linked with a mask and make it a fashion statement, endorsed by Sports and Movie Stars, who do not really adopt the new products but take bribe to satisfy their greed, and mislead the naive people who worship them blindly, because the pop culture of extreme capitalism promotes this as the cool thing to do. Example, my daughter had all kinds of Barbie Dolls, and when I was growing up, I cared for any one doll (those days boy infants were allowed to play with dolls in their innocence).

Extreme Capitalism relies on exploiting natural resources and human labor. It looks like the human capital is the only thing that can be sacrificed, as life is cheap here, and it can be diluted for its quality of life. How many of you have to suffer if you can not earn because you are ill, or have to look after a very ill child or parent and make two ends meet, at expense of your health and lack of sleep? But natural resources of Earth are not finite. What was thought as the infinite is now looking limited. Thanks to mega-machines invented by the worst beast, of greed and self-centered-ness, that God made, where a man looks like a nut (he actually has become a nut with no pun intended) before a giant wheel of these machines, which knock off and scoop mountains of trees and forests, along with their inhabitants and subtle but meaningful ecology. These machines plunder the earth for crude, ores and minerals, and other resources. But they forget that they are not limited. The natives of America, Europe, Africa and Asia understood this better 2500 years back, before Rome showed the world the material awards of colonization and conversion. The suit was followed by Great Britain and other European nations in the name of progress to the lands of natives.

I have a vision when the earth is pot-hole marked along with the litters of giant digs with everything gone except for the huge waste created by the mankind, and man desperately trying to figure out how to recycle them, which nature did over millions of years. Handful of resources left are badly fought over by the powerful man between themselves, in process killing the remaining and the week (US is already doing this in Iraq for the sake of oil and Russia has already laid claim to the land below North Pole for its rich oil and mineral reserves). We are living off as if there is no tomorrow! We like to eat other animals and give cruel treatment to them to satisfy our appetite, and the same habbit will turn men into cannibals, when all other natural resources and living beings are gone! So perhaps for starters, men should not cremate or burry their dead, but use the mortal remains to satisfy their hunger! (I mean here to wakeup the man's divine conscience and NOT have it follow the suit literally).

RELIGION & PHILOSPHY THAT GOVERNS OUR LIFE

a. All religion have issues because it is in the nature of the human being to deviate from its divine nature and become demonic - unless restrained with good teachings and practices.

b. Any organized religion with power, money, and organization hierarchy, would lead to corruption and scandals of sex, money embezzlement, and even murder. Though they can not be avoided, the degrees of them should be reduced so that less of them happen.

c. Wish there is a meter that classifies various religious factions by some criteria and meters the problems faced different religious groups.
But hating ALL people of OTHER religions and calling their SAINTS/GODS bad is not a solution. This is nothing but bigotry. And hiding behind anonymous postings is not a brave act. It will show a metric which will show merits and demerits of different religious truths, and not anecdotal.

d. Colonization, Conversion and Slavery are things that are in our History. The terrorism today is the new name for the things mentioned. So is Ethnic Cleaning that was seen in Bosnia, and now being seen in Africa. The issue of backward classes should also be raised to the same levels but wondered why the rest of the world is not noticing their poor plight. This does not mean that all people from US, UK, Rome, Greece, Persia, India, China and Africa are bad. And all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others are bad. Human tendency is to generalize a community based on deeds of a few from any community. That is why understanding history and statistics are very important.

e. Organized Religion has proven to be bad, and any classification has proven to be bad. Only an individual communication with the Divine and being Spiritual and following good teachings is important. We should take a syncretic approach, and the best teachings of Christ, Gnostics, Muslims, Sufis, Jews, Buddhists, Jains, Tao-ism, Shinto-ism, Vaishnavies Bhakti, Shaivite Yoga and Tantra (which is more than what meets a western eye), and Vedanta, my favourite and most scientific, should be followed by all of us.

f. That means the education should also focus on comparative religious studies and one should follow whatever teachings that suits a person.

g. Only truth is that we are part and parcel of the same Creator, including the Flora and Fauna of this world. Please note that this means we should stop killing animals and being cruel to them.

h. It also means we stop chopping trees and killing forests and the animals that dwell there. There is no excuse and justification for us to kill the creations of the Creator in the name of survival. Man can produce enough food with today's technology and cheaper. Please stop putting cows and bulls in small and restricted pens to make their meat tender. We do not need to put chicken in the small places for the reasons and recycle their droppings in automatic conveyors, mix it with more food, and re-convey the mix back to them! Unnatural ways of living would only create endemics like Bird Flu and Aids! Cruel mind-set of man towards Animals, soon turns into cruel mind-set towards fellow man. Plese look at the most peaceful religious people and their dietry habbits, for your own conviction.

Small Beginning:

1.Lets us for a good beginning, follow the teachings of Christ: "Do not look Me in outside the world, but inside yourself."

2. And lets be flexible like this: "Worship in any form or kind of any God, is worship of Me."

3. Lets take a step, and make friends from another community and give out your love and understanding.

4. Lets stop forcing our religion onto others. This is especially true for Islam and Christianity. History of 1800 years of Christianity and 1200 years of Islam speaks for itself, and India is a best example for atrocities done in the name of Islam by Islam Invaders. According to William Durant, "Nowhere in the history, in any place or in any time, have any one suffered at the hands of any invading army, as have Hindus for so long." The violence of 9/11, Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir would pale before itself. Same thing can be talked about the forceful conversion by Christian Founders in Middle East and Europe, and Christian Colonists in North and South Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa, where natives have nearly perished and if they have survived, their nations' civilization, people and economy in ruins, to be recovered if they are lucky, but that is rare, unless you happen to be China and India (but you still carry the challenges imposed from the past foreign subjugation).

AMEN, AMIN, AUM.

This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that wait for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.

This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that wait for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.

This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that await for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.

This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that wait for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.

This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that wait for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.

Aug 1, 08:53
Finally, The Smoking Gun

One of the most fascinating exhibits presented by the prosecution in the Holy Land Foundation case (provided by researchers for the NEFA Foundation) is a memorandum on the Muslim Brotherhood’s multifaceted plan to convert the United States to an Islamic nation. It is the smoking gun of the Ikhwan’s long-standing efforts to destroy the Western world as we know it.

The most interesting exhibit is a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May 22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan vision of the future. He leaves no ambiguity as to the nature of the Ikhwan calling. (The exhibits will be posted and written about more completely in the NEFA website in coming days).

Under the heading “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” he writes:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated ad God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

But wait, there is more:

“Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”

Akram then spells out in some detail the role of the Brotherhood in moving the project forward: “As for the role of the Ikhwan, it is the initiative, pioneering, leadership, raising the banner and pushing people in that direction (the Jihadist process). They are then able to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a master of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

The document then gives rationale for setting up Ikhwan organizations across the country: “We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”

The document also deals with the criticism among the Brothers that the focus on the United States will drain support for the establishment of the global caliphate. The response is two-fold:
1) “The success of the Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the the best support and aid to the global Movement project.”
2) The global (Ikhwan) movement has not “succeeded yet in distributing roles to is branches, stating that what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani branch will have a far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.”

The document ends with a list of Ikhwan groups trying to coordinate, including all the usual (ISNA, ICNA, IIIT etc.)

What is so interesting about the document is the breadth of ambition, the conviction of ultimate success and the care with which the campaign we see today was being thought about 16 years ago. So is the the clarity of the ultimate objective of ending our years as a functioning democracy, built on the rule of secular law, minority rights and freedom of religion, press etc.

The infiltration of the government by members and sympathizers, the coordinated role of the organizations in pursuing specific objectives, the recruitment of the best and the brightest into the movement, and other objectives are far advanced, perhaps further than the author could have imagined in so short a time.

The rationale, for those like Lieken et al who want play footsie with these groups bent on our destruction, is truly mindboggling. I don’t think the Brothers who have been on the cusp of the new PR campaign, from Ramadan to Akef, have bothered to spell this out like the Brothers do for themselves.

But here we have it, in their own words, written by their own hands. There is much more to say, and I will revisit the topic as more information comes in.

Will anyone pay attention?

posted by Douglas Farah

Someone has to quietly and calmly present the evidance you have shown, without name calling where ever Ikhwan forces choose to speak in the US.

Ikhwan spokesman then have 3 choices:

-deny and call you names

-change the subject abruptly

-question your integrity

But either way this information is

I have to point out there that the question that these posts is supposed to answer is, "Is there any common ground?" Unfortunately, it seems that too many people here are pointing out dissimilar ground instead of common ground. We are also accusing each other.

In order to find common ground, we must look for beliefs that are the SAME. I can point out a few.

1) Rejection of idolatry and multiple gods.
2) Necessary requirement of missionary work and conversion. (Isn't Christian missionary work like a jihad against error?)
3) Care for the poor
4) Belief in prophets
5) Respect for Abraham the ancient patriarch

Please study each other's beliefs with respect and interest with the intent to understand rather than condemn.

For those who post merely to cast Islam as evil, irrational and false, please let me point out that at various times in history, Islam was a progressive force that assisted the rise of culture in the West. One of Judaism's greatest sages is Maimonides. In Maimonides famous work, "Guide for the Perplexed," the harmony of past ages was noted in the forward of this book. (The paperback edition with bright red cover - do not have it in front of me now to provide better detail, but you can find it on Amazon and THIS is the kind of reading we all need to do for consciousness raising to occur) Anyway, in the forward, a letter that Maimonides wrote is spoken of and he refers to Muslim philosopher Ibn Rush'd (Averroes) who advocated rationalism, as "My Master Abd Allah Ibn Rush'd." Maimonides works were written after the death of Ibn Rush'd, so he used 'My Master' not in the context of a living mentor, but as an expression of respect for a philosophical body of writing that inspired his own. I believe that Thomas Aquinas was then similarly inspired by Maimonides. If you value the contributions of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and the Neoplatonists like Plotinus, Porphory and Iamblichus, it is good to realize that this body of work had become lost to Western culture and it was revived by Jewish and Arab scribes who translated the texts into Arabic and Hebrew, which were then translated to Latin and Greek leading to the 'Renaissance.'

OK - I hear you! You are asking, "What have Muslims done for us lately?" In truth, not much!
Islam is now in a period of intellectual stagnancy as Europe was during 'The Dark Ages."

But the haters of Islam need to face some facts. As obviously Islam will not be wiped from the face of the earth, as you wish, what would you next hope to see happen to current day Islamic culture? Hopefully you would answer that you would like to see a great consciousness raising in the Muslim world. The FACT that verses exist in the Qur'an which advocate a society establish around given human rights mandates, that have NOT been abrogated as often thought, gives Muslim a legitimate base for this REFOCUSING on the humanitarian model of Islam.

As a hater of Islam, if you cannot wipe Islam from the face of the earth - is not what the Muslim moderates are attempting to accomplish the next best thing for ALL OF HUMANITY?

Truly, the emotional hate posts here only express psychological immaturity. If you oppose violence, then help us find a viable solution based upon ISLAM'S OWN DICTATES rather then asking Muslims to forfeit their culture and become Western clones.

You can choose to help society reach a more humanitarian age or just boo and hiss from the sidelines. Can we not engage together in a vision that will uplift all concerned? Any reality is preceded by a vision. We may not be where you wish us to be but we are trying with everything we have to bring about a refocusing on the innate humanitarian aspects of Islam.

Humanitarian Qur'anic verses (ayah)?
Please see, once again, the excerpt from
Dr. Mansoor Alam's article below:

So what should be done now? Should we simply close our eyes to the Qur’an and allow these latter-day rulers and Imams to regurgitate the same old sectarian-based Shariah that was developed under dictatorial rule and which tramples on the most basic values of the Qur’an dealing with universal human rights, that among these are: sacrosanct right of the sanctity of human life (5:32); inalienable right of the freedom of choice (2:256, 18:29); right of tolerance for other faiths (22:40) and absolutely no compulsion in faith (2:256); right to conduct state affairs by mutual consultation (3:159, 42:38); universal right of human dignity (17:70); sacrosanct right of equal justice for all (4:58, 4:135, 5:42, 16:90) including enemies (5:8) and no bending of justice for anyone (if the Prophet was not above the law (6:15) then how can anyone else be?); right to hold positions based solely on merit (46:19); right of personal responsibility and accountability (53:38); right of ownership of the fruits of one’s labor and no free ride for anyone (53:39). Are these Qur’an-guaranteed human rights (to all men and women) to be found in our current practice of Islam anywhere not to say of the holiest place in Islam, the birth place of our Prophet (PBUH)?

Who else could be more responsible then for damaging the sacred heart of Islam in the name of Islam, in the name of the Qur’an, in the name of the Prophet (PBUH) than the twin forces of Muslim dictatorship and Muslim priesthood?

The situation has degenerated to such an extent that if one were to mention that above human rights are some of the most sacred in Islam; that our Prophet (PBUH) lived and implemented these rights in society; that an Islamic society is supposed to be constituted on the basis of these core rights at its heart; then surely it will raise many eyebrows and may even invite sarcasm from certain quarters with comments such as: “Have these human rights anything to do with Muslims and Islam?” These reactions are not out of place considering how Muslim countries have been mistreating and even killing their own people in the name of Islam.

The world is judging Islam by our practice of Islam, by observing the so-called practicing Muslims. No wonder we seem to be fulfilling the prophecy of the Qur’an by showing to the world by our own actions that Islam is a failure, that Islam is false (107:1-7)! Our failure to live up to true Islam is being seen as failure of Islam. We may think we are good practicing Muslims and that we will ultimately have the mercy and the blessings of Allah. All this is fine but what about the Qur’an and its emphasis on universal human rights? Is the Qur’an only for reciting to achieve mercy and forgiveness, mostly for the dead? Or, should its human rights also need to be implemented in human society?

As a matter fact these values are under siege in every Muslim country. Can we expect to get anywhere when Muslim societies trample on these rights while putting extraordinary emphasis on rituals? What would be more important to Islam in the eyes of Allah: performing its rituals or implementing its basic human rights?

The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said that Muslim Ummah is like a body. When any part of the body is in pain the whole body feels it. That body seems to be in critical condition today. The only way to revive it is to go back to the basic Qur’anic values guaranteeing universal human rights and make them the foundation of Muslim society the way our Prophet (PBUH) did more than 1400 years ago when the rest of the world was living in barbarism and chaos as noted by many historians (e.g., J.H. Denison, Emotion as the Basis of Civilization). This is the real miracle of the Qur’an. This is the true Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) to practice (7:157).

There is common ground. It exists in recognizing human rights.

Your assessment of Islam seems unfairly harsh. Many goodhearted and dedicated Muslims are trying to re-emphasis the compassionate Meccan injunctions of the Qur'an. They have not been abrogated by the Medina verses as often thought. In fact, placed in historical context, the Medina verses are from times of war, conflict and betrayal of earlier peace agreements. It is very misleading to take them out of their historical context.

The following is an excerpt of an article by
Dr. Mansoor Alam of Toledo Ohio. He is a university professor at Toledo University and fully dedicates himself to clarifying the importance of Human Rights within Islam. Islam as it was meant to be, not Islam as it currently is practiced. I ask in all fairness that everyone here read this excerpt from one of his articles to fully understand the great positive possibilities of the Qur'an. This man has a vision - a vision that we would all do well to attend to. Do not all of us wish to see Muslims in the West and throughout the world as great contributors to humanity rather than a people against humanity. The Vision of Dr. Mansoor Alam which is completely valid Qur'anically can accomplish this. Please note his Qur'anic references should you have any doubt. You can see for yourself that there in fact IS a
HUMANITARIAN ISLAM.

(excerpt from article by Mansoor Alam Ph.D.)

So what should be done now? Should we simply close our eyes to the Qur’an and allow these latter-day rulers and Imams to regurgitate the same old sectarian-based Shariah that was developed under dictatorial rule and which tramples on the most basic values of the Qur’an dealing with universal human rights, that among these are: sacrosanct right of the sanctity of human life (5:32); inalienable right of the freedom of choice (2:256, 18:29); right of tolerance for other faiths (22:40) and absolutely no compulsion in faith (2:256); right to conduct state affairs by mutual consultation (3:159, 42:38); universal right of human dignity (17:70); sacrosanct right of equal justice for all (4:58, 4:135, 5:42, 16:90) including enemies (5:8) and no bending of justice for anyone (if the Prophet was not above the law (6:15) then how can anyone else be?); right to hold positions based solely on merit (46:19); right of personal responsibility and accountability (53:38); right of ownership of the fruits of one’s labor and no free ride for anyone (53:39). Are these Qur’an-guaranteed human rights (to all men and women) to be found in our current practice of Islam anywhere not to say of the holiest place in Islam, the birth place of our Prophet (PBUH)?

Who else could be more responsible then for damaging the sacred heart of Islam in the name of Islam, in the name of the Qur’an, in the name of the Prophet (PBUH) than the twin forces of Muslim dictatorship and Muslim priesthood?

The situation has degenerated to such an extent that if one were to mention that above human rights are some of the most sacred in Islam; that our Prophet (PBUH) lived and implemented these rights in society; that an Islamic society is supposed to be constituted on the basis of these core rights at its heart; then surely it will raise many eyebrows and may even invite sarcasm from certain quarters with comments such as: “Have these human rights anything to do with Muslims and Islam?” These reactions are not out of place considering how Muslim countries have been mistreating and even killing their own people in the name of Islam.

The world is judging Islam by our practice of Islam, by observing the so-called practicing Muslims. No wonder we seem to be fulfilling the prophecy of the Qur’an by showing to the world by our own actions that Islam is a failure, that Islam is false (107:1-7)! Our failure to live up to true Islam is being seen as failure of Islam. We may think we are good practicing Muslims and that we will ultimately have the mercy and the blessings of Allah. All this is fine but what about the Qur’an and its emphasis on universal human rights? Is the Qur’an only for reciting to achieve mercy and forgiveness, mostly for the dead? Or, should its human rights also need to be implemented in human society?

As a matter fact these values are under siege in every Muslim country. Can we expect to get anywhere when Muslim societies trample on these rights while putting extraordinary emphasis on rituals? What would be more important to Islam in the eyes of Allah: performing its rituals or implementing its basic human rights?

The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said that Muslim Ummah is like a body. When any part of the body is in pain the whole body feels it. That body seems to be in critical condition today. The only way to revive it is to go back to the basic Qur’anic values guaranteeing universal human rights and make them the foundation of Muslim society the way our Prophet (PBUH) did more than 1400 years ago when the rest of the world was living in barbarism and chaos as noted by many historians (e.g., J.H. Denison, Emotion as the Basis of Civilization). This is the real miracle of the Qur’an. This is the true Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) to practice (7:157).

qhts vjebzkufc lejofb vojbsqkrm kqbugmi hboyjngi lrqzabgye

Islam always thinks it is right and KILLS those who disagree.....

"""
Pakistan: Christians told 'convert to Islam' or face 'dire consequences'.

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May, they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.

The threats were made in a letter circulated last week to the town’s Christian population, according to the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA).

The threat comes as Pakistan’s National Assembly overwhelmingly rejected proposed amendments to the blasphemy laws.

Under the existing blasphemy laws, anyone convicted of blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad faces life imprisonment or the death penalty, according to section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code.

In a statement, APMA said: “Christians and other religious minorities are being roped into false cases under the blasphemy law. They are being murdered by zealots … This law is proving to be a sword hanging on the heads of non-Muslims and secular-minded people. The blasphemy law needs to be amended, if not altogether repealed, because of its great misuse. The law has created an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance … a sense of insecurity and harassment.”

Commenting on the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province, APMA said: “The Christians of Pakistan are already facing victimisation and discrimination. Many innocent Christians are incarcerated and killed. Attacks on churches, Christian schools and other institutions have been experienced by the Christians of Pakistan in the past few years, and now the rise of vigilante groups and threats have aggravated the situation.”

Stuart Windsor, Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s National Director, said: “We are deeply concerned about the rise of extremism in Pakistan, and the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province.

"We urge the Pakistani authorities to do everything possible to create an atmosphere of religious tolerance and freedom and to protect religious minorities who are facing threats and ultimatums. We urge the Government of Pakistan to recognise the gross misuse of the blasphemy laws and the urgent need for their reform, or repeal.”"""

Islam is THE enemy of all right-minded people.

Islam always thinks it is right and KILLS those who disagree.....

"""
Pakistan: Christians told 'convert to Islam' or face 'dire consequences'.

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May, they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.

The threats were made in a letter circulated last week to the town’s Christian population, according to the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA).

The threat comes as Pakistan’s National Assembly overwhelmingly rejected proposed amendments to the blasphemy laws.

Under the existing blasphemy laws, anyone convicted of blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad faces life imprisonment or the death penalty, according to section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code.

In a statement, APMA said: “Christians and other religious minorities are being roped into false cases under the blasphemy law. They are being murdered by zealots … This law is proving to be a sword hanging on the heads of non-Muslims and secular-minded people. The blasphemy law needs to be amended, if not altogether repealed, because of its great misuse. The law has created an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance … a sense of insecurity and harassment.”

Commenting on the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province, APMA said: “The Christians of Pakistan are already facing victimisation and discrimination. Many innocent Christians are incarcerated and killed. Attacks on churches, Christian schools and other institutions have been experienced by the Christians of Pakistan in the past few years, and now the rise of vigilante groups and threats have aggravated the situation.”

Stuart Windsor, Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s National Director, said: “We are deeply concerned about the rise of extremism in Pakistan, and the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province.

"We urge the Pakistani authorities to do everything possible to create an atmosphere of religious tolerance and freedom and to protect religious minorities who are facing threats and ultimatums. We urge the Government of Pakistan to recognise the gross misuse of the blasphemy laws and the urgent need for their reform, or repeal.”"""

Islam is THE enemy of all right-minded people.

Islam always thinks it is right and KILLS those who disagree.....

"""
Pakistan: Christians told 'convert to Islam' or face 'dire consequences'.

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May, they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.

The threats were made in a letter circulated last week to the town’s Christian population, according to the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA).

The threat comes as Pakistan’s National Assembly overwhelmingly rejected proposed amendments to the blasphemy laws.

Under the existing blasphemy laws, anyone convicted of blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad faces life imprisonment or the death penalty, according to section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code.

In a statement, APMA said: “Christians and other religious minorities are being roped into false cases under the blasphemy law. They are being murdered by zealots … This law is proving to be a sword hanging on the heads of non-Muslims and secular-minded people. The blasphemy law needs to be amended, if not altogether repealed, because of its great misuse. The law has created an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance … a sense of insecurity and harassment.”

Commenting on the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province, APMA said: “The Christians of Pakistan are already facing victimisation and discrimination. Many innocent Christians are incarcerated and killed. Attacks on churches, Christian schools and other institutions have been experienced by the Christians of Pakistan in the past few years, and now the rise of vigilante groups and threats have aggravated the situation.”

Stuart Windsor, Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s National Director, said: “We are deeply concerned about the rise of extremism in Pakistan, and the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province.

"We urge the Pakistani authorities to do everything possible to create an atmosphere of religious tolerance and freedom and to protect religious minorities who are facing threats and ultimatums. We urge the Government of Pakistan to recognise the gross misuse of the blasphemy laws and the urgent need for their reform, or repeal.”"""

Islam is THE enemy of all right-minded people.

The Bavli [Babylonian Talmud] has formed the definitive statement of Judaism from the time of its closure to the present day. The excellence of its composition, the mastery and authority of those who everywhere studied it and advocated its law, the sharpness of its exegesis and discussion, the harmonious and proportional presentation of all details, these virtues of taste and intellect may well have secured for the document is paramount position … The Bavli served from its closure as an encyclopedia of knowledge and as a summa of the theology and law of Judaism.
— Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner

B
ible scholars are aware that Jesus Christ denounced the Pharisees. He said they nullified all the Commandments of God by their Tradition, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:13; Matt. 15:6-9, etc.). His invective, in truth, cannot be equalled. All of Matthew 23 is like a whiplash. He likened Pharisaism to a whited sepulchre, indeed beautiful outwardly, but "inside full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness." Christ climaxed one condemnation after another with the expletive, "Hypocrites!" He called the Pharisees children of them that killed the Prophets. He foretold they would go on killing, crucifying and persecuting until the guilt for all the righteous blood shed from Abel on down would be upon them. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Christ asked.
Christ is as utterly devastating of Pharisaism in the record of John 8. Although He admitted that His hearers were descendants of Abraham, He said they were, spiritually, of the devil. Christ told them:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44).
The Missing Link

"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible?"

Sure. The conversation would go something like this:
"Our invisible supernatural being is better than yours, and all the dogma we have is better than the dogma that your religion has, and we'll continue to berate and kill each other to prove it."

Madness.

Can we find Common Ground? Yes, we can. We can accept each human being as a brother or sister of the human family and a creation of God. To love them dispite the outcome might be our common cause. If one feels he or she has greater truth, we should hear them and consider, not ridicule.

Truth, like spilled diamonds, might be valued all the more if gathered into one jar through the return of the scattered gems. Some may have more, some less but we all hold truth, even if there is some dirt mingled in the mix that should be cleaned out. I may have some of both in my hands.

Tom

we are 1

something is trying to divide us soo that we kill ourselves

ywjg lymgrek qogwxnr afgo kwya kpxnvrm yktx [URL=http://www.jeun.rtdywpj.com]rdczfgl znmrqbt[/URL]

ejkvhxant hfkx fmgjpwi pcln qcjkzeti cbzga rvpthdk http://www.tdowfkun.ywzxsuthi.com

ftcnboeuk zlnc ayugbjzsm plrwusaj uhoa fqotabzx nxkhecoju

cfqaisbhx fbuyhcz nazmevf dxsrv eldzvt qavb twkmrgcq

Simplewords:

Regarding Pat Robertson:

How about Ibn Baaz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999, issuing a fatwa (pronouncement regarding sharia law) declaring: "The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."

People of faith are not immune from doing stupid things.

Hi people!
Sorry, this is my test the internet ; moderate: please remove this topic. Sorry for your time.
for attention thank you
this test

http://pillus.info/tr.htm
:)

Fresh from CNN:

"Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/robertson.predictions.ap/index.html

Robertson is saying:

"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Then he goes on:
"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

Whose track record is this, his or God's? How can God miss predictions and He is the One who charted everyone's and everything's destiny? Don't you have ears to hear with? Don't you have eyes to see with? Don't you have brains to think with? Surely, it is not the eyes that go blind, it is the hearts!

That is exactly what I am talking about! If this nonsense happens today in the age of information, imagine what went on after Jesus departed this earth! This is the "new born" christians in action. The holy ghost talks to them freely! This is the same holy ghost that led to the dream of Simon who claimed that he saw a vision in which God told him to preach to the gentiles. This is the same Simon whose own experience led to the writing of the book of acts, which was later taken as part of the word of God!!!!!

How dare anyone sees this sign of God of a born again Simon in the body of Robertson, and yet claims that the bible is ok and the history of christianity has lineage with Jesus!??! The ink indeed has dried and the pens are lifted!

The Holy Quran, verses 5:116-120 reads:

"
116. And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wo uldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

117. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship God, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

118. "If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."

119. God will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their eternal Home: God well-pleased with them, and they with God: That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment o f all desires).

120. To God doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things.
"

Here you have it! An honoured prophet of God keeping his message straight while walking the earth. After he leaves earth, he and his mother were treated like Gods, which is considered blasphemous even with Jesus' standards. There he is questioned by God and at the end still asking God for forgiveness for his people. Whose job is it to bring this truth forward? Who should come forward and defend that holy prophet of God?

Yes, the Quran!

Simplewords wrote:

"Islam talks very highly of him and his mother. Why should any muslim find it awkward to defend that prophet of God in the context of Islamic views?"

I am not a Christian, and do not profess to have any claims on the "absolute truth". However from my reading of Christ's life, I think he does not need the blessings of Quran to stand tall. He was tall already even before Quran mentioned him.

Defending one's religious views is like defending the color of one's chosen attire. What's good for you is yours, what's good for me I'll defend. In the end, there is a high probability that the two shall agree to disagree.

Apparently there would be no conflict, so long as one does not try to impose its will on the other. Unfortunately, Islam disagrees with this notion as it claims to be the sole custodian of the absolute truth, and as a result Islam has bloody borders.

Common ground? Judging from this thread, obviously none and then some :)

Enjoyed the rants and the vents though.

Common ground? Judging from this thread, obviously none and then some :)

Enjoyed the rants and the vents though.

Conviction and honesty really go hand in hand. Conviction also means the ability to prove your point, without lies or arrogance. One of the things that I like about Jesus is that he taught nothing in secret. He stood with courage in front of his enemies and pointed out the liers and hypocrytes among them. Islam talks very highly of him and his mother. Why should any muslim find it awkward to defend that prophet of God in the context of Islamic views? Muslims really have nothing to hide. Muslims have very special love for prophet Mohamed (PBUH) for all he has done through 23 years prophethood. At a time when muslims starve for knowledge about all prophets of God, our christian brothers continue to live in a dream world that led them astray for 100s of years.

The only thing I do different here is that I make sure I don't bring in lies or to dream up something that looks good in a post.

I am amazed. For all who respond with a ferocious hatred toward those with a "monopoly on truth", you are responding with an awful lot of conviction that your responses contain some absolute truth that everyone needs to hear! Seems by your responses that you allow yourself a monopoly on truth, and are comfortable making sure everyone knows it. I think some honesty is required as we all need to look at our responses carefully for what they are...our personal attempts to make truth claims. Since we all do this, can we really be so angry with others who are no less convinced of their beliefs than we are?

Regarding the respect of humans and their personal freedom and responsibilities, Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) said:

"Consult your heart even when people insist on giving you a multitude of opinions"

He also said:

"If a believer is to chose between competing opinions in a matter, let him/her choses the easiest to apply, as long as it doesn't contradicts with God's laws".

That's what prophets are for. May the peace and the blessings of the almighty God be on all His prophets, Ibraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed. May God reward ALL the prophets for the work and sacrifice they done for all humanity. May God guides those who strayed from the straight path. Amen!

Simplewords wrote:

"That's because Islam have no religious hierarchy like churches and no priesthood either. Commands come from God, not humans."

There is. Either you don't know or are combing for claps. Islam governs every aspect of a Muslim's life - how s/he is to use the hands and for what purpose, how to mate, whom to marry, what to eat, how much long the beard has to be, how to dress and whom to kill. This, to me, pretty much sets the box. Because you are inside Islam and have faith (or blinders), you are just clueless.

well for a newbie you handle yourself with aplomb-
it can get a little brutal sometimes- scroll back and see what preceded your timely entrance here-
a salaamu alaikum

VICTORIA:

I know what you mean but I am not sure either which chapter these ayas are in. I can do a quick serach and see what I can come up with.

Believe it or not, but I am really new to this board discussions stuff. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation being shared here. I think I will train myself a bit on one or two boards and then see if I will have the stomach to read some of the stuff on the athiest board discussions. Peace.

simplewords-do you happen to know the ayat about not blindly following the ways of your father or something like that?
ive tried to find it but havnet been able to

also i wish youd check out the athiest question there are some really reasonable people there and im not always up to it philisophically but youre very well spoken and i think you be appreciated peace

"Well, why do Muslims prefer to stay inside the box that the mullahs and mosque has put them in?"

Hmmm! Never thought about that! Oh yes, I know why. That's because Islam have no religious hierarchy like churches and no priesthood either. Commands come from God, not humans. There is no box to begin with. How many other religions give you the freedom to read others scriptures? No box here either. Humans these days go a certain church denomination and ask for custom built box, with personally-tuned teachings, and a chance to pick the "word of God" that suits their life style!

How can anyone be so heart-blind to not see what's going on here???

Simplewords wrote:

"I don't need to judge you or you judge me anymore."

Thanks. Your response was anticipated. However we (self-conefessed kafirs) shall continue to oppose and pose challenge to the existing Islamic theory of paradise, earth and life, simply because in the West these theories/hypothesis have no place.

And you wrote to someone:

"So you prefer to stay inside the box that the church put you in."

Well, why do Muslims prefer to stay inside the box that the mullahs and mosque has put them in ?

Someone wrote:

"Islam has nothing to offer me. Muhammad came along 600 years after Jesus and contradicts the Word of God. He showed himself to be a false prophet."

So you prefer to stay inside the box that the church put you in. I think you are a good candidate for evanglism. Triple brainwashed and able to repeat the same sentence over and over again in your posts makes you an excellent candidate for such a position! By the way, which church denomination do you belong to so I understand which "version of the word of God" you believe in? Just curious!

Deb Chatterjee wrote:

"I'll choose to remain a condemned kafir for that would allow me to constantly question the validity of the message of the Quran and other religions and traditions."

That's one "hell" of a choice! Have it your way! I don't need to judge you or you judge me anymore. I carried the message to you (nothing else I could do) and you made a choice. This is the end of our discussions. Thanks!

Simplewords:

I have watched a few Ahmed Deedat videos earlier on youtube. They're full of crap, purely from an intellectual point of view. To me they appeared as articulate yet emotional blabbering that actively suggests the viewer to first have faith to comprehend the message of the Quran. You may find it difficult to understand, but placing faith as supreme is not what rationalists do. The Christian evangelicals are also harping on faith. They are saying that my faith is better than yours, so come and join my faith. Rationalists don't claim to know the answers to all the questions, unlike the devoutly religious (aka fundamentalists). However the rationalists are the ones who can provide tractable methods of solving worldly problems. Unlike fundamentalists, rationalists don't attempt to solve worldly (mundane/tangible) problems by resorting to unworldly (i.e. faith) bamboozlement. I wish someone told Ahmed Deedat that when he was making those videos for raising money for Jihad in Bosnia/Kashmir/Palestine.

More to the point, a fundamentalist is one who believes that our present lives must be changed to conform to the revelations that happened in some dark antiquity, and that the earlier revelation has answers to all the life's questions. From spirituality, to using one's limbs and hands for ablution, to sex etc., each and everything is governed by some Divine law. That mankind need not reinvent/adapt these to suit the times. This concept is ingrained particularly in the Quran (as I have read in Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation). This very thought is most intellectually abhorrent. If God exists, then God must have given me the intellect to do freethinking. Why should I be placing faith in an old antiquated scripture that has lost its intrinsic value over time ? Islam seems to profess that time has been frozen in the Quran, and mankind need to just follow the strictures that may have been valid 1400 years ago in (Saudi) Arabia.

Well, to cut the long story short: your new-age Islamic guru Ahmed Deedat may be exalted and let him enjoy the 72 virgins in heaven. I'll choose to remain a condemned kafir for that would allow me to constantly question the validity of the message of the Quran and other religions and traditions. (Of course, some Muslims I know are so enchanted, that they have told me that they believed Ahmed Deedat was an incarnation of Prophet Muhammad. Taubah ! Taubah !)

P.S.: If we are to discuss the search for a common ground, as on this WP blogsite, then these Ahmed Deedat videos (actually Saudi Arabian propaganda), must be rejected for all discussions. The reason is that the discussion for the search for a common ground can begin if the premise that all religions and traditions are recognized as mutually equal. This implies equilibrium. Islam, in particular, rejects this notion of equality, and rejects any form of debate hat questions its validity. Passion can quickly transform into anger and only the mentally retarted would ignore the six degrees of separation between the two traits.

Enjoy your Eid !

Simplewords,

Islam has nothing to offer me. Muhammad came along 600 years after Jesus and contradicts the Word of God. He showed himself to be a false prophet.

Muslim Propaganda and Veritas vos Liberabit:

Why do you say to the truth when it came you, this is false and sorcery? Haven't you spent enough time in darkness already? Islam's message is clear. To believe or not is a choice you need to make. You don't have to make others look bad as a justification of your own faith. You need to be sharp in religious issues because your salvation depend on it. Don't lock your mind before listening to evryone around you, even the athiests. It will help you think "outside the box" that the church put you in. You are prisoners of your own insecurity. Don't you want to be free of your doubts? Don't you want to know what others believe they know? Don't you want to give it "a once and for all" genuine discussion and understanding of what Islam actually is? Better yet, don't you want to know what christianity and Jesus actually are?

You owe it to yourself, so that you go to sleep with clear heart and mind. Don't you want to know why muslims are so open for dialogue and debates with others? I always say, read the Quran, if you find it acceptable, then ok, otherwise more power to you and more assurance to you to keep yourself where you are. What are yougoing to lose? If you have no time and want to go directly to the hot issues, then have a look at the link I provided in my previous post. Sit back, relax, and get amazed by these debates.

Islam has no attonement. It is an antichrist religion because it rejects Jesus as the Son of God. The apostle John said this is the spirit of the antichrist. Therefore, Muhammad is an antichrist and a false prophet.

Muslims living in Western democracies try to defend their religion by quoting Sura 2:256 which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.”

In evaluating this very lonely verse in the Koran, you need to keep in mind first that it was written before Muhammad was rejected by Jews, Christians and his fellow Arabs — before he fled to Medina and started responding in hatred to all his detractors. But even more important is the fact that Islamic teachers themselves argue that this verse was later abrogated, either by the words or actions of Muhammad.13

1. Some argue that the verse was abrogated by Muhammad’s later orders for his troops to fight until unbelievers were compelled to surrender to Islam.
2. Others argue it was abrogated by Sura 9:73 which says, “O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be harsh with them.”
3. A third group argues that the words of the verse do not mean what they seem to say. They argue the words mean that religion cannot be used to force someone to do some­thing evil, but compelling people to accept the truth of Allah is a religious duty.
4. A fourth group of Islamic clerics accepts the words to mean what they say, but they argue that they were part of Allah’s strategy to advance Islam. While Muslims were weak, Allah spoke through Muhammad and told them to tolerate infidels. But when the Muslims became strong, Allah commanded them to cease being tolerant and attack and subdue the infidels.

The bottom line is that regardless of the explanation, the result is the same — the verse has been abrogated, and infidels must embrace Islam or face death.

Muslims sometimes counter by pointing to the intolerance and violence that have characterized both Jews and Christians at certain times in their histories. They point to the slaughter of the Canaanites when the Jews took the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua. And, of course, they point to the Christian Crusades in the Middle Ages. Using these examples, they accuse Jews and Christians of being hypocritical in attacking the in­tolerance and violence of Islam today.

With regard to the Jews, this argument ignores the fact that God used them as an instrument of His judgment against the tribes living in Canaan — just as He later used the Assyrians and Chal­deans to judge the Jews (Genesis 15:16; Leviticus 18:24-25; Deuteronomy 9:5). He never told the Jews to conquer the world for Him, and He provided them with precise instructions as to how they were to treat aliens who might wish to live among them. They were to be treated with dignity and were to be pro­vided with justice (Leviticus 19:17, 33 and Deuteronomy 27:19). Even more, the Jews were commanded to love their neighbors as they loved themselves (Leviticus 19:18).

Regarding the Christian Crusades, they were an aberration in Christian history based upon perverted Catholic doctrine and not upon any biblical injunction. In contrast, the intolerance and violence that have characterized Islam throughout its history are firmly rooted in the Koran.

What a contrast all the ghastly commands of Muhammad are to the loving words of Jesus who told Christians:

“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

“Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

“Do not judge, lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1).

“However you want people to treat you, so treat them” (Mat­thew 7:12).

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).

“This is my commandment that you love one another” (John 15:12, 17).

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

And what a contrast it is between the admonition of Muhammad to conquer for Allah with the sword and Jesus’ exhortation to go forth in peace and appeal to people’s hearts through the preaching of the Gospel, relying on the persuasive power of God’s Holy Spirit.

that Allah HAfiz threw me off deb- i hope you dont mind if i say it back?
maybe i know it wasnt directed at me -
Allah Hafiz deb- happy new year and eid mubarak to you

thanks simplewords i love this guy its bookmarked!

DEB wrote:

"There cannot be an intellectual debate with Muslims on Islam. This has been exemplified by your statements that Muslims are sensitive about Islam, and get angry very quickly against any critique. Read your post; anger at criticisms seem to be bursting forth."

You seem to confuse anger with passion. I love to talk to people and I put an effort to answer their concerns. I told you the truth about the average muslim which are the majority and I also told you about the very few that are extreme in their views. Somehow you considered me extreme and you focus your anger on that segment and try to paint them as the real representatives of Islam. They are not!

You also wrote:

"Lastly, while Islam maybe the fastest growing religion in USA, I think such is partly because of ignorance on the part of Americans. Reverend Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others are probably not trying hard enough to reconvert the ones who have converted to Islam. What they are not doing is to challenge the message of Islam - that is claimed by Muslim scholars as unqiue and superior to other religions/religious traditions."

I have two words for you: Ahmed Deedat! Go see what he did to these evanglists when they assumed your very weak views about Islam and tried to debate with him. They fled the stage and more conversions to Islam ensued. I would love to see these evanglists change their tactics from facing Athiests like yourself into facing muslim scholars. Evanglists AVOID facing muslims and PREFER to have the superficial debate with Athiests. Haven't you realized that already!?

You continued:
"In my view, if they engage in an open debate and take off where Pope Benedict stopped, it would open the hearts and minds of Americans who have converted. You would most probably see a reversal of the conversion trend: from Islam to Christianity."

I think you should spend sometime watching these videos:
http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50016&TitleName=Ahmed_Deedat

You will love it because some athiests and agnostics appear from time to time in these debates.

Cool it down DEB! Happy new year and happy Eid!

EID MUBARAK VICTORIA

I am not sure what DEB had in mind when he wrote these words. May Allah guides him to the best!

RIGHT NOW THE LARGEST GATHERING OF HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET ARE UNITED IN PURPOSE AT THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA
CERTAINLY THETY HAVE A COMMON GROUND

EID MUBARAK SIMPLEWORDS

for what its worth i didnt find any anger in your posts- just surprise at the reaction

i reverted to islam 8 years ago and had the ears andminds of many respectable christians to bounce off of- and i have no intention of going back to christianity-
i choose to go forward in islam...
peace

Simplewords:

I have read your post, and though I have nothing personal against you or any other Muslim of whatever shades of belief s/he might possess, I find your arguments not only ridiculous, but at times your views clearly demonstrate the fanatical nature of Islam. Below is my brief.

You have been rebuking those (particularly me and the conspiratorial media) who have maligned Islam-which to you is unfair. Well, while that notion is debateable, you don't dictate others what to believe or reject. Well, this is a western society where freedom of opinion is considered paramount. So, your rebuking others of "insulting Islam" (or to the same effect) is symptomatic of the fragility that Islam holds onto.

I have read works of Maudoodi (JIHAD IN ISLAM) and Sayyid Qutb (MILESTONES). You seem to state that suchb persons are on the fringes (radicals) of the Islamic beliefs. While your tendency to obfuscate is quite a stretch, you don't seem to realize that the two have clearly originated views which are upheld by a vast majority of Muslims all over the world. The Islamic trait is clear by now: blame all else (except oneself) for the woes and sorrows. Then, get radical. As long as there is a sugar daddy like the West (or USA), and the goodies come flowing, everything is fine. Any deviation is a call for violence mixed with anti-US passions.

Lastly, while Islam maybe the fastest growing religion in USA, I think such is partly because of ignorance on the part of Americans. Reverend Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others are probably not trying hard enough to reconvert the ones who have converted to Islam. What they are not doing is to challenge the message of Islam - that is claimed by Muslim scholars as unqiue and superior to other religions/religious traditions.

In my view, if they engage in an open debate and take off where Pope Benedict stopped, it would open the hearts and minds of Americans who have converted. You would most probably see a reversal of the conversion trend: from Islam to Christianity.

I am a complete non-believer in ALL organized religions. In fact, I agree with the maxim that (organized) religion is the opium of the masses. (BTW, this does not make me a member of the Communist Party, as some unthinking bloggers might opine.) However, I have been exposed to Islam and its main message. I have consciously rejected Islam, and would certainly proselytize against conversion into Islam. You know why ? It's because there is nothing that Islam preaches which is superior from other religions. I would much prefer to remain and die as a condemned kafir than as a emancipated Muslim.

There cannot be an intellectual debate with Muslims on Islam. This has been exemplified by your statements that Muslims are sensitive about Islam, and get angry very quickly against any critique. Read your post; anger at criticisms seem to be bursting forth.

Happy New Year and Allah's Glad Tidings to you and your family.

Allah Hafiz !

YES, COMMON GROUND!
THE GROUND AT THE CROSS IS LEVEL!
COME BELIEVING!

GERRY 8:12 is referring to the battle of badr- simplewrods covered it well-

what is the alternative Gerry?
i posted a bunch of questions on the atheism in vogue post that no one has even attempted to answer-

i wont repost here its too long- its on page 1 at the bottom perhaps you could take a gander

ps since you werent in the battel of badr your fingertips are safe for now

also

you havent really had islam presented to you to reject or accept so you are certainly not kafir

Deb Chatterjee wrote:

"Thank you for admitting. That IS precisely my point. Other religions(at least sacred teachings) do not advocate violence on acerbic critiques."

You have done exactly what I expected. You took my words, and under a pretext of lies and deception, you added a twist to my words, then came up with your own conclusions!!! Why do you have to behave in such manner? I said it times and times again, don't try to paint a bad image to Islam just to feel good about your beliefs.

Under the banner of Islam, Jews and Christians lived for hundereds of years and exprienced their religious freedom. Look in the middle east today and you will find this example still holds today. Had muslims been what you think, no other religion would've been allowed in that land. To take the view of a few and apply it to the entire religion is like walking backward.

Islam does not need to go to war with anyone. Unfortunately, muslims find themselves under constant attacks, especially in the media. I want to know what freedom of speech means if it is led by ignorant people who act based on falsehood and lies? You said you read the works of Maulana Maudoodi and Sayyid Qutb. Do you have any background on the status of these two people and who were their enemies? I have a little surprise for you! Sayyis Qutb wrote most of his work in Jail in Egypt. He was with muslim brotherhood in Egypt. The government tortured him and humiliated him, and in the end they hanged him! His enemies were the "muslim government of Egypt"! The man took it to the extreme because that is the only thing he experienced in his life.

Time and time again, my statement holds true. An extreme action results in an extreme reaction. A group of very few people hold that extreme belief that Islam is actually at war. It doesn't matter to them who is on the attack, muslim or non-muslim. They are all equal in their eyes. They did not hijack Islam, it is their political and economical frusteration that hijacked their mental faculties. Look around the world and try to put my statement to test.

As far as the geographical boundaries of Islam, you are right, there is no boundary. Look at the western world, the fastest growing religion is Islam. That's because Islam manages to conquer the minds with its balanced and straightforward teachings. No twists, no turns, and no versions. Just straight talk!

I am sorry that you had to jump to the tune of the unjust media and evanglist collaborators. It is upto you where you get your information, but a bad info leads to the wrong conclusion. In a religious matter, a wrong conclusion leads to hell fire, that is if you believe there is one.

Simplewords wrote:

"Islam has conditioned muslims to be ready (mentally) for continuous attacks and verbal abuse from others."

Thank you for admitting. That IS precisely my point. Other religions(at least sacred teachings) do not advocate violence on acerbic critiques. It is based on this observation, I have asserted that Islam is incompatible with secular, liberal culture (like we know in USA). BTW, I have no qualms about Prophet Muhammad implementing this law. As you have written, and I agree, that he had faced the most indignified insults from his opponents at that time. So, 1400 years ago - an almost illiterate man mdid what best he could. But that does not mean the same strictures would be valid today.

And again you have mused (philosophically):

"Shouldn't they focus first on the main message? If they have a problem with that, then there is no point to move any further. "

Islam's message is in no way superior to other religious doctrines and traditions. The only difference I see is that God (Allah) commands the faithful to take up arms in propagating the faith/main message, viz., there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger. So what ? Traditions on the life of Prophet Muhammad shows that early Islam spread by violence. The liberal use of violence forms an intrinsic part of Islam.

Also, I disagree with you on the use of violence as sanctioned in Islam. I have read the works of Maulana Maudoodi and Sayyid Qutb. (You can dismiss these two widely respected Islamic scholars as fanatics/radicals, but then we cannot agree on the basic premises in a debate.) Both authors state that while Islam is certainly NOT advocating violence for personal gains or ends, it is the obligation of Islam to eliminate 'kufr' (unbelief) whereever it is present. (This can happen by active persuasion or by use of force.) The assumption here is that Allah owns all and everything in this universe. Hence how the human beings conduct their daily lives is also in the interest of Allah. According to the two scholars I have cited, implementing Allah's laws (as revealed in the Quran) is a part of the obligation of Muslims. To that end, if to implement Allah's message use of violence becomes necessary, then so be it ! Again, the two scholars (Maudoodi and Qutb), suggest that there is no 'offensive' or 'defensive' Jihad. (I am not implying the philosophical spin on the meaning of Jihad. I am following what these scholars imply by Jihad against unbelief (kufr): physical warfare in the cause of Allah and propagation of Islam).

Thus, Islam does not recognize any geographical boundaries in the spreading of the message - which is surely unacceptable and would be confronted/challenged by other secular/atheist or non-Islamic systems. (The reciprocal action: spreading un-Islamic doctrines, for example via proselytizing, in Islamic countries is strictly prohibited by citing Islamic traditions from the time of Prophet Muhammad.) So, while you are correct in asserting that Islam does not advocate unprovoked mindless violence, it sure must be provoked to witeness all the un-Islamic events happening around the world. This is a clear recipe for Islam to engage in voilence to further the cause of Islam. And, you have already explained such cause: the plethora of un-Islamic (kufr) around Islam is viewed as a mockery to the existence of Islam. Psychologically, thus Islam is always in a state of war: darl-al-harb vs. dar-al-Islam.

AMIN AND YEEHAW SIMPLEWORDS

DEB wrote:

"Why should I, or anyone, not have the rights in a liberal, secular society (like USA) to criticize Islam (or any other religious tradition for that matter) without the fear of being viciously attacked by the (devout)followers of that faith ? (Recall the vicious slaughter of Theo van Gogh in the recent times in Denmark)."

Islam has conditioned muslims to be ready (mentally) for continuous attacks and verbal abuse from others. Prophet Mohamed himself was a target for physical and verbal attacks, especially in his 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina. Islam also gave muslims the tool to reason with others in the best of manners (I can provide you quotes from the Quran to that effect). The problem is that most people who criticize Islam use the wrong pretext and miss the entire point in their argument. I actually wonder why people attack Islam on issues like women's vail and hajj rituals. Shouldn't they focus first on the main message? If they have a problem with that, then there is no point to move any further. Islam has been judged already in their mind. It is a threat to their own beliefs and therefore must be attacked by tarnishing its image regardless of the tricks and lies that achieve thier goal.

Execuse me for saying this, but you seem very biased here. Islam does not endorse the killing of others for being opposed to muslims. But in any religion, there is a "range" of people. There is the passive, the center, and the extreme. Islam fully controls the center, which represent the vast majority of muslims. The passives are just that, waiting for something to happen but never have influence. Then, the extreme. These people are controlled by wild events that trigger their wild and extreme ideas. The Van Gogh incident is a clear example that triggered a far extreme case to take the center stage. This is not just muslim and non-muslim stage event, no! It is also a mulsim against a muslim issue. The center and the extreme are struggling against each others.

Common Ground,

Martin Luther, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, COGIC, Jehovah's Witness's and all the other doctrine's of men have found common ground which will be decided at the valley of Meggido.

Jesus is very concise about those He loves. He loves those who keep His Word.

Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Astrology and all the modern christian theology have found common ground. None of it has to do with the Word of God.

Historically, if you search all these faiths have something in common, they worshipped animals, spirits (which they gave names and changed into gods),symbols they created and changed to gods, then wrapped the name of Jesus around them. So, they do have common ground, false doctrine or philosophy.

Their religion is just as sound as their science. They will continue to uncover, hypothesize, conjecture and speculate. Never reaching anything conclusive or eternal.

Why, because we were made in the image of Jesus and the Father, we are not the exact image of God. Therefore, our thoughts and ideals can only be the images of what is ultimately real.

Hence, common ground, is another culminating relative behavior. Expect nothing greater until the Lord Jesus Christ establishes order on the earth. And whether man will accept it or not, he (man) will continue to conflict, discriminate, be biased, and kill in efforts to set himself as God, or create God in his image. Which can never be.

Seek the true and living God. He will sup with you and give you real peace. But, this other doctrine that is being peddled, will not give you the peace you seek.

Repent the Kingdom of God is at hand. Which simply means have a change of mind. And the mind map is written in the prohecy and the testimony.

Simpleword:

That the God of the Quran (Allah) has bounties, and the knowledge of this statement does not qualify that Islam is superior to Abrahamic or other pre-Islamic religious traditions.

But you wrote:

"Have you noticed the complete non-exposure to Islamic veiws in their columns on this forum? Have you noticed the make-them-look-bad image battle they have on Islam? This is not a concidence. Do you know that all that's happening now was fortold in the Quran?"

So what ? Regarding Islam, which is definitely a theocracy, the finding of a common ground with secularism (or atheism) is next to impossible. Why should one have to respect other religious traditions (and especially as Islam demands so of others) to get along peacefully ? I mean what obligation I have to know Quran, Bible, Torah to get along peacefully ?

Why is it apparently impossible to ignore your belief-systems and still work in a mutually equitable environment ? Why should I, or anyone, not have the rights in a liberal, secular society (like USA) to criticize Islam (or any other religious tradition for that matter) without the fear of being viciously attacked by the (devout)followers of that faith ? (Recall the vicious slaughter of Theo van Gogh in the recent times in Denmark).

GERRY:

Islam taught us that God's bounties are available to EVERYONE. As much as you do, regardless of your beliefs, you get what you work for in this life. Since you believe that you are already rewarded by people who worked with you, then don't expect anymore in the other life. If you want to know where people like me come from, then read the Quran (I assume you already read the bible. If not, read it too).

As for the question of God existance, people differ on how much of an answer they need to be convinced that God exists. Early in human history, physical evidence such as miracles by prophets was the norm. Yet, a lot of people doubted because of worldy power and wealth that they might have to relinquish (such as the pharoe and the priests) or extreeme arrogance preventing them from seeing the truth. Then, the final message of Islam came along to completely document human history and their interactions with divine messages. On top of that, God's wise and pure revealations were condensed and concentrated in one mighty book, the Quran. The Quran skipped the physical miracles and focussed only on the ever lasting word from God. The Quran is the living miracle, in which guidance has taken shape to all humans. It is the ONLY book that distinguish between right and wrong from prophet Adam till prophet Mohamed. It explains, in details, Athiesm/Jewdaism/Christianity and others, where they stand and how they played with their followers. The Quran's amazing challenges to people is quite fascinating. It invites you to think, work hard, innovate. question what you do, and help you get free of your doubts.

Did you ever ask yourself why evanglists always stay away from the Quran and create a superficial clash with Athiests? They want to divert thier followers attention to a different battle where they won't lose much sleep over. Have you noticed the complete non-exposure to Islamic veiws in their columns on this forum? Have you noticed the make-them-look-bad image battle they have on Islam? This is not a concidence. Do you know that all that's happening now was fortold in the Quran?

I am quite satisfied being a muslim and I am not even a very religious person. I reached where I am through reading, reasoning, and God's help. I urge you to read and see for yourself.

Well, Victoria Simplewords, I am afraid I have to go to hell, without my fingertips, since you exposed me to your "truth" and I have rejected it. Btw, my career is behind me, and it was pretty successful, including a lot of prominent students who have had a terrific advantage from my art and my teaching.

Funny how indoctrinated people can rationalize and attribute a positive edge even to such a gruesome perspective as this so graphically described torture. Will you give me a glass of water then at least?

Peace,
Gerry

Deb Chatterjee wrote:

" find this "win-win situation" really ridiculous."

From a theological point of view, it is much much easier for a christian to argue with an athiest thatn with a muslim, for instance. A win-win situation is when a christian hardly argues the matter or even quotes the bible to prove an out of question point such as the non-existance of God. I mean how many christians leave their faith because someone convinced them that God do not exist?

GERRY wrote:
"As for the Quran, I found the following threatening verses not very assuring for me:
8,12 I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
57.19... (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the inmates of the hell."

The first verse you quoted is what we refer to these days as "preemptive strike or shock and awe". It is a perfect example on how early muslims, way outnumbered (sometimes 10:1) and way under equipped, were able to hold on in their battle ground and win. This verse is intended to counter any material advantage an enemy has before a battle. It is also used as a deterrant to those who might think of attacking muslims. In short, you took the verse out of conext.

The second verse you quoted didn't seem right to me. So I looked and found out that you quoted only the second portion of the verse. Here is the entire verse:

"And those who believe in Allah and His apostles- they are the Sincere (lovers of Truth), and the witnesses (who testify), in the eyes of their Lord: They shall have their Reward and their Light. But those who reject Allah and deny Our Signs,- they are the Companions of Hell-Fire."

The verse is now very balanced. Again, you took it out of context, this time I believe unintentionally. I don't know what translation you used, but the one I quoted fits the Arabic translation a lot more accurately. I use Yusuf Ali translation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/index.htm) because I can see both the Arabic and English texts.

The key words here are "reject Allah and deny Our Signs". God doesn't punish humans for no reason. Denying God's signs means that you must've been exposed to these signs in your life. God is telling you that there are consequences for denying Him and His signs. What you are saying is that you are not comfortable with that assertion because it is a threat to you and to your career as a musician!!! I say that you are a bit afraid to actually get attached to this wonderful religion. Please reconsider.

Words are like leaves, and,

when they most abound,

much fruit of sense beneath

is rarely found

ALEXANDER POPE, ESSAY ON CRITICISM

Applies to the incredible amount of worthless verbiage on this useless forum.

SCIENCE IS THE ONLY WAY. WORK HARD AND IMPROVE SOCIETY, if you got the brains, and if you do not, be GRATEFUL to the GENIUSES that allow you to live like modern human beings and not wear skins, die at childbirth or at 40 for men, and beat each ther over the head with clubs.

BUT I have no illusion that anybody here will appreciate ANBY of the above.

Most likely, a few will respond with the usual irrelevant quotes from their alleged holy books.

Do not bother.

Simplewords wrote:

"Another side door approach is to create a superficial philesophical battle with athiests and idol worshippers, since it will always be a win-win situation. "

Precisely this is the reason why Christianity (as we know it, and as distinct from Teachings of Jesus Christ or as in the Gnostic Gospels), is on the decline. There can be no argument with faith. You may believe in Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Krishna, Buddha and want to follow your traditions; I may believe in worshipping a tree and a multi-colored elephant god (Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon). If we agree to disagree and abide by the live and let live policy, there is a good chance of peaceful co-existence. But, this moral superiority of the monotheist faiths is the root cause of all the problems. These faiths are often irrational and cannot be proved. Why should then one must accept one faith over another if all religions have the same (meaning equally divine) message ?

I find this "win-win situation" really ridiculous.
(You unto your way, and me unto mine.)

Jesus is the messaiah (christ) and he was "sent" to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Every nation gets a prophet with miracles that fit their needs. The Jews needed strong physical miracles. No prophet after Moses can fit the bill like Jesus. Jesus gave them all the miracles that they needed, yet most of them refused him. Some followers of Jesus became an opposing faction to most of the Jews. God took Jesus and ascended him to heaven. At the that point, there was no bible, no divinity for Jesus, and no trinity. Only two Jewish factions, Jesus-pro faction believing that he is the Messiah and a second refusing him. Between that point in history and 100 years after Jesus, the Pro-Jesus Jewish faction transferred itself into a new religion, moving away by choice from their Jewish heritage. For that to happen, scriptures were written to fit the new direction of the religion. That included mixing true experiences in Jesus' life and an added dimension to the bible to make it look like a different religion than Judaism. Instead of portraying Jesus as a prophet and instead of using the Jewish metaphores to translate Jesus' words into their proper meanings, a decision was made to take metaphorical statements and transfrom them into literal words. The idea was to give Jesus a divine status to attract the gentiles (non-Jews). The concept was not new to the Romans and others, and was therefore accepted as is.

Years after years past and the term Son of God, even with some doubts lingering, was continuously used to "hint" at the divinity of Jesus. Who wouldn't accept to throw the burdens of his/her sins on someone else? Today, there is a revival in the christian world against accepting non-factual statements and translations as facts. If christians admit that Son of God means little or nothing as far as Jesus' divinity is concerned, the christian faith collapses. Instead of searching for the truth, evanglists have taken the sidedoor approach. Make everyone else (non-christians) look bad, and no christian will question his/her faith. Another side door approach is to create a superficial philesophical battle with athiests and idol worshippers, since it will always be a win-win situation. Nowadays, christianty lives off of its image that churches painted in the minds of its followers. Morally, evagelists are beaten up to their core. They can't debate or make the slightest sense when approached with simple basic argument. Some of their common sickness is taking things out of context and their uncontrolled attacks if faced with little argument. I am not surprised to see these poor souls on this board who rant the same old stuff, without thinking much about it or how it ended up as a word of God! Perhaps the most important conclusion related to this discussion is that Jesus, regardless what he was called in the bible and according to the Jewish metaphores, is a prophet of God, no more no less.

If christians agree with the historical facts about Jesus and let go of their own creation of Jesus, they will become an arm length away from Muslims. The Quran presents the most comprehensive and truthful account of Jesus Christ and his mother Mary. It tells, in imaculate details, Jesus' account through his life's critical moments. It also talks about events that were never mentioned in the bible (like him talking while being only a few weeks old). Believing in Mohamed as the final seal of prophets closes the gap completely. That's the best common ground I can see for the future.

Jesus is the messaiah (christ) and he was "sent" to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Every nation gets a prophet with miracles that fit their needs. The Jews needed strong physical miracles. No prophet after Moses can fit the bill like Jesus. Jesus gave them all the miracles that they needed, yet most of them refused him. Some followers of Jesus became an opposing faction to most of the Jews. God took Jesus and ascended him to heaven. At the that point, there was no bible, no divinity for Jesus, and no trinity. Only two Jewish factions, Jesus-pro faction believing that he is the Messiah and a second refusing him. Between that point in history and 100 years after Jesus, the Pro-Jesus Jewish faction transferred itself into a new religion, moving away by choice from their Jewish heritage. For that to happen, scriptures were written to fit the new direction of the religion. That included mixing true experiences in Jesus' life and an added dimension to the bible to make it look like a different religion than Judaism. Instead of portraying Jesus as a prophet and instead of using the Jewish metaphores to translate Jesus' words into their proper meanings, a decision was made to take metaphorical statements and transfrom them into literal words. The idea was to give Jesus a divine status to attract the gentiles (non-Jews). The concept was not new to the Romans and others, and was therefore accepted as is.

Years after years past and the term Son of God, even with some doubts lingering, was continuously used to "hint" at the divinity of Jesus. Who wouldn't accept to throw the burdens of his/her sins on someone else? Today, there is a revival in the christian world against accepting non-factual statements and translations as facts. If christians admit that Son of God means little or nothing as far as Jesus' divinity is concerned, the christian faith collapses. Instead of searching for the truth, evanglists have taken the sidedoor approach. Make everyone else (non-christians) look bad, and no christian will question his/her faith. Another side door approach is to create a superficial philesophical battle with athiests and idol worshippers, since it will always be a win-win situation. Nowadays, christianty lives off of its image that churches painted in the minds of its followers. Morally, evagelists are beaten up to their core. They can't debate or make the slightest sense when approached with simple basic argument. Some of their common sickness is taking things out of context and their uncontrolled attacks if faced with little argument. I am not surprised to see these poor souls on this board who rant the same old stuff, without thinking much about it or how it ended up as a word of God! Perhaps the most important conclusion related to this discussion is that Jesus, regardless what he was called in the bible and according to the Jewish metaphores, is a prophet of God, no more no less.

If christians agree with the historical facts about Jesus and let go of their own creation of Jesus, they will become an arm length away from Muslims. The Quran presents the most comprehensive and truthful account of Jesus Christ and his mother Mary. It tells, in imaculate details, Jesus' account through his life's critical moments. It also talks about events that were never mentioned in the bible (like him talking while being only a few weeks old). Believing in Mohamed as the final seal of prophets closes the gap completely. That's the best common ground I can see for the future.

Jennifer Hampton wrote:

"There is no religion exempt from the faults of men, however, if we look at the teachings that each of the World's Great Prophets have brought to us, it's clear that they are from God to enlighten us on our true purpose."

I have some quips, and I am not at all religious. I have penchant for spirituality, but not for any organized religion.

In the category, only Islam is different because if you read the Quran literally, free from the biases of politically correct and well-mannered interpretations - which present-day Muslim scholars engage and advocate, you shall find a very recognizable darkview. This is: if you are a non-Muslim, and have heard the message of Islam but by the exercise of your free-will reject it consciously, then you are branded as kafir - which means unbeliever. Quran, in almost all its surahs, makes it clear that such kafirs are to be killed - [Quran(047:004)] or brought within the realm of dhimmitude [Quran(009:029)]. (There are other passages, and I am refraining from compiling an exhaustive list.)

There is nothing so intolerant in the messages of the other prophets (except Prophet Muhammad [PBUH]) you have quoted. Certainly, can you please tell me how Bahais are treated in Iran by the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy there ? But still one might dismiss/ignore the organized Bahai persecution in that (Iran) country as an aberration. Then how about the Coptic Christians in Egypt ? How about the treatment of the Palestinian Christians in Lebanon ? Why Saudi Arabia does not allow any other religion to flourish in Saudi Arabia ? (These can all be traced back to the Islamic traditions.)

My whole point is that when we agree with the basic notion of equality of Islam and other religions and their messages, we are totally oblivious of the facts on the ground. Now, people before us have tried to separate the "good" and "bad" Muslims. People have tried to synthesize Islam and other faiths. All haved failed. This is what the whole issue is all about: Islam is totally incompatible with other religions and cultures/traditions. Look anywhere in the present world, you shall find in all probability the troubles begining with Islam. Sam Harris, a very compelling author of THE END OF FAITH: RELIGION, TERROR AND FUTURE OF REASON, has argued in his book with independently verifiable bibliography, that all religions are bad because they rely on the existence of faith, which is quite apart from reason. However except Islam (chapter 4 in Harris's book) all other religions and their traditions can peacefully co-exist in equal terms.

It is with reason that we can seek a common ground. However how can you reason with an unreasonable ideology (Islam and Communism) ? That is where we must define our starting positions. Our search for a common goal or a common ground between various religious or secular traditions should begin by analyzing the threat that secularism/atheism faces from Islam. If our western-style, liberal, secular democratic system faces the threat of physical annihilation (from Islam), then shouldn't the priority be how can we maintain the existence of this liberal democracy ? Isn't that a legitimate question to ask ?

There is no religion exempt from the faults of men, however, if we look at the teachings that each of the World's Great Prophets have brought to us, it's clear that they are from God to enlighten us on our true purpose. The teachings of Buddha, Moses, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammed, and the Bab, and Baha'u'llah are there to guide humanity in its development, not that one Prophet is better than another, but they each had a message for civilization at each time in history. A first grade teacher may be teaching first grade material to a student, but that does not mean that teacher knows less than the 5th grade teacher...there job is to educate at the appropriate level for the child's development. This is also true for humanity...we have come a long way in our development and the conciousness of mankind is recognizing that we are all one. An idea that was brought to the world in 1844 with the Prophet Baha'u'llah. This may sound like, "just what the world needs---another religion and Prophet", however, it really is the same religion that people have been fighting about for centuries...Isn't it possible that all of these religions are from the same God and because of culture and other differences of people there has just been misunderstandings? For example, "Allah" is just another word for "God", but somehow "Allah" is understood by most as a different God that Muslims worship. So, is it possible that all of these religions came from the same God?

Victoria, thank you for your reply! Since I certainly do not share the view of this dangerous simpleton professor Stevens (how does one become professor at Brooklyn College?) on the other thread, I know a lot of believers of any faith who are very nice people. Still, they are nice quite independently from the fact that they believe this and that and the other thing.

As for the Quran, I found the following threatening verses not very assuring for me:
8,12 I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
57.19... (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the inmates of the hell.

All this is to be expected for me, poor atheist, who badly needs his fingertips, because I am a musician!

Still: Peace, and try to make the right selections of the Quran for your students (the bible certainly is no better as to threats with hell and horror for the disbelievers!).

I repeat: I am an atheist (forget the semantics as to atheists vs. agnostics) for my mental health, my love for people around me and my human dignity!

Gerry

Gerry- i have been trying to paste the response of the 38 muslim sholars to the popes speech onto this site but im not very computer literate-

it is on ISLAMICA and i think you would find it interesting

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had Asma bint Marwan (a woman) hacked to death by his follower. This lady had done the cardinal mistake of openly insulting (satirical) Prophet's teachings in the marketplace. I am copying verbatim from Wikipedia (a quick source for verification). The source of this information seems to be from Ibn Ishaq's earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) whose title is:

Ishaq's biography (originally in Arabic) is titled SIRAH RASUL ALLAH (Life of the Apostle of God). (English translations are readily available in USA.)

From Wikipedia this is what is found:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his people."

N.B.: Wikipedia states that the above story has been questioned by some scholars. However, the very reasons for questioning, have not been elaborated.

If true, the above story suggests the innate intolerance with which Islam spread from its earliest times. Islam is opposed to any form of criticism - this is its characteristic - much like Communism. It is thus futile to find a common ground between Islam and western-style, liberal secular societies.

GERRY, i thought you were insinuating that people of faith were easliy categorized and all shared some mindset- my mistake.

now as for whatever intelligence challenged person told you that Mohammed(pbuh) would kill you- if its a muslim saying this-(and i really really doubt that, but its possible - there are misinformed people everywhere) unless you went into his house, and assaulted his family- Mohammed(pbuh) would not kill you. if it wasnt a muslim- well- usually when i have any question- i ask regular people a coup;e of times- compare their answers and sources- then take that information to at least 2 very knowledgeable people. and sometimes i never stop asking the same question.
for instance- when i encounter any scholar of islam- to test the depth of their knowledge i ask them about the ayat(verse) that has been so widely misinterperted that some that it says that if your wife disobeys you you should beat her.

this is such a wildly innaccurate and brutal misinterpertation that there will probably be some nut with a bad english translation arguing about it since ive brought it up.

what it actually says is- if your wife is disobeying ALLAH-(not the husband) like indulging in some strictly forbidden activity like drinking alcohol on a regular basis- then first you should chastise her with words- tell her its wrong- then you should refuse to share her bed for 3 days-then if she persists in her disregard of the will of ALLAH- remove yourself from your home for a time- until she stops the activity.

thats really quite different than beating isnt it?
but men with very bad intentions and control issues have abused this ayat many times to mean that if your wife disobeys YOU (the husband) you must beat her.
an abhorrent and repulsive brutal interpertation dont you agree?

i also do not like when people state things in absolutes as "truth" because it shows no respect for the person you are speaking to.i call it the GOD LOVES ME MORE THAN HE LOVES YOU SYNDROME and it is arrogant and it can apply to atheists too as the IM SMARTER THAN YOU-

PAM is right- it is human nature to fight- and while other religous ways ignore this basic fact as if it will go away, this is unrealistic.

as a body of work the Qur'an addresses this issue and has guidelines for the best behavior in these situations beause they are inevitable aspects of human interaction.

as a tool for enlightenment i find the Qur'an to be superlative. this is MY truth- as you are welcome to your own.
i teach an interfaith class and one of the first things i tell people is that you will never bring any value to your own views by tearing down the views of another. even if you leave someone completely denuded of validity- it does not in any way give credence to your own opinion. the only way to impart credibility is by relating something of value that reveals itself for what it is...

i sure have talked alot again and i didnt mean to.
it sounds like alot of people express ideas without having any idea why they believe what they do- or maybe they have personal anger or hatred towards something and you are clearly intelligent enough to distinguish between these types.

there are many many philosophies and religions that did not satisfy me- but islam does satisfy my logical self and my intuitive self- it is precisely the harmony between them it really is holistic and the only way to come to any conclusion of its validity is to read the Qur'an yourself and come to your own conclusion.
there is even an ayat that actually states this
DO NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW THE WAY OF YOUR PARENTS BUT INSTEAD READ THIS BOOK AD USE YOUR OWN REAONING AND INTELLIGENCE TO DECIDE.

i know of no other religion that encourages people to use their intelligence and reason to determine the validity of it.
personally- i find that i have to read something 3 ties before i can venture an opinion on it-

of course dont split your brain into 2 mutually exclusive parts- what a bipolar religion that would engender- and of course dont believe anything anyone tells you- especially me!
thanks for your patience in bearing with this loong response and also your taking the time to clear up my misunderstanding
respectfully and with peace victoria -

I love all of this infighting. Restores my faith in human nature.

Victoria,

I did not imply that you were not thinking enough, as you seem to have misinterpreted my post the other day. My point was and still is, that I refuse to split my spiritual being into two contradicting, mutually exclusive parts, one of thinking, one of believing something somebody tells me without the slightest effort to give me any proof other than that he would kill me (Mohammed) or that I would suffer eternal tortures (Jesus, Mark 16,16) if I would not believe him. The medieval "credo quia absurdum" (I believe since it is absurd) may have been a welcome means to wield power over illiterate, fearful and bewildered novices, as a condition for joining a convent 800 years ago, but it certainly is not for anybody to whom the concept and the period of "enlightenment" has the slightest meaning. To me, this sort of split brain has something to do both with (my) mental health and (my) human dignity. (No "moral" implication towards religious people is intended here; that is a different discussion.)

As to common ground: You cannot reason (argue, dispute, discuss, compromise) with someone whose "arguments" are based on the openly admitted negation of this very reason!

If we could substitute the terribly destructive concept of "truth" by the very real and certainly provable psychological concept of "viewpoint", we could find a lot of common ground. These viewpoints could then assume an honest quality of different symbolical approaches to the unknown. But "truth" excludes "discussion" by definition: There is either submission ("conversion") or - walking away in order to escape being harrassed by the possessors of "truth", as is so often the case even in our "modern" western civilization!

Gerry

hee hee if you see the buddha on the road- you go ahead and kill him richard

No, that's not the moral of the story. Go back and meditate longer.

No, that's not the moral of the story. Go back and meditate longer.

iuxcb slbmrwvjz kpgbnmehr pjtwznlo kybrdnvu twfbmxqer temgr

iuxcb slbmrwvjz kpgbnmehr pjtwznlo kybrdnvu twfbmxqer temgr

The moral of the story (Richard Wade) is that incompatibility is a part and parcel of life. So, if the going gets tough, the tough gets going.

Right Richard ? :-).

There once were two people who were engaged in a rock fight with only one rock availble. The fight went on its brusing, bloody way until finally the wiser of the two realized that each time they threw the rock, they were giving ammunition to the other.

Victoria:

Sorry, but you have not answered any of the questions I had posed.

This forum, is not for characterization of humans. You seem to place more faith on Emotional Quotient than Intelligent Quotient in a discussion/debate. (Just read your posts - you seem to be wearing your emotions on your sleeves.)

Manners, in your view, szeem to take the driver's seat than the contents. Why ? Also, feeling insulted is a personal taste. On this forum, to my knowledge, I have not insulted you.

If you cannot answer the challenging questions, honestly admit that. If you don't want to respond to them, that's your choice. That would not stop anyone from criticizing Islamic dogmas.

My advice is that don't hide behind nebulous and irrelevant statements. It's a cry-baby syndrome.

o the line about looking for a fight is debs self admission

the one thing i love is that you can pet 2 totally different cats at the exact same time and they both wholeheartedly believe that they are the complete center of your universe.

deb please leave me alone and quit insulting me
i do not respect the manner in which you address me and feel no compulsion to respond to bad manners
i get tired of being attacked as does anyone

i have plenty to say elsewhere on this site
your posts are so rife with unwarranted animosity towards me (whom youvwe no idea who i am) that all i can do is say you are preventing me from engaging others in what has been a nice experience.

i dont see any superiority in the way you present your opinion. if you must do it with insults and personal attacks you really dont ive much credence to your beliefs.

youve never answered any question ive asked of you and so i no longer feel that i should repay your disrespect with responsive attention.

if you were my child and i saw you treating the other kids so meanly you would be sucking on a bar of soap right now.

here are remarks youve made to me deb---
Anyway, I find Victoria lobbying for atheists (or unbelievers) as somewhat hypocritical.

Well, I would submit that I am - in your eyes - looking for a "fight".

Victoria, your obtuse name-calling of Huntington or Zakaria shows how fanatical you are, I think these academicians deserve much better than what the mullahs in your local mosque might have told you (about them). Islam takes on a blaming-others mentality - like you.

Victoria, you surely are displaying a childish attitude.

and that is just PAGE 18!!!

i get tired just pasting your personal insults!!!

it doesnt even include the other 17 PAGES!!!!

now come on- maybe you yourself are unconcscious of the pointless devoid of content picking youve been doing- but there it is on just this page-

as i indicated im only going to respond to good manners in the future
im only responding here to let others know that im posting a plenty elsewhere.

my husband would certainly want to know youre secret if you could manage to stop me from communicating hee hee
peace all

Victoria wrote:

"...i have opinions because i read their writings and see them i interviews..."

and again

"...theyve both done alot of damage to islam..."

These refer to the islamphobes such as Samuel Huntington and 'yes guys' like Fareed Zakaria.

Victoria, you surely are displaying a childish attitude. You seem to get tired in defending your faith (Islam). If you tire so easily and quickly, maybe you need to rethink about defending Islam - which is tiring you and causing you grief from kafirs like me.

Regarding Huntington and Zakaria, most well-respected academicians and one of them (Zakaria) being a practicing Muslim, if you have surely read their works, per your claim, can you explain why do they deserve the condemnation that you are heaping on them ?

We may start with Huntington, first.

The first commandment of God is:

Hear, O Israel the Lord our God is one God and thou shalt have no other Gods besides me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. For the Lord thy God is a jealous God.

The Jesus of this bible says if at all possible be at peace with all men.

World issues are different than compromising the Word of God. The Lord says render unto Caesar that is Caesar's and to God that is Gods'.

i really feel im doing you a disservice by replying.

ill let you find another focal point.
peace deb

deb i dont know any mullahs- i have opinions because i read their writings and see them i interviews- anyone can look at sites theyre on- i want obtuse- i never am- im always straightfroward.

theyve both done alot of damage to islam- and i have a right to defend myslef and beliefs f attacked. so please stop attacking me.

you never respond directly to what i say-
i take time and effort to respond to your accusations with respect-and ive never made one personal attack or observation in a negative way-

youve never expressed one thought on your own belief s- thats fine- but you are on a tireless crusade against islam and seem to target me and keep trying to bait me to anger- just give up- i have all the patience in the world and all the time- but i resent my time being stolen from me and im feeling like you will never want to have reasonable discourse- you just have issues that im not responsible for so ill just leave you to your own philosophy- well agree to disagree peace

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and Lazy Holidays to all.

Victoria, your obtuse name-calling of Huntington or Zakaria shows how fanatical you are, dsespite your claims to the contrary that you are a liberal person. I think these academicians deserve much better than what the mullahs in your local mosque might have told you (about them). Islam takes on a blaming-others mentality - like you. The genocide of Darfur is as much a responsibility of USA as that of Saudi Arabia. This last country can allow terrorists (inspired by their Wahabi fanaticism) to survive and spread this hateful barbaric ideology all around the world by funding madrassas, but won't lift a finger on the Darfur issue. Incidentally the Darfur genocide is interesting: Muslims fighting Muslims. One group doesn't want the Sharia laws, the other group (Jinjaweed militia) wants Sharia. Where's the Islamic fraternity now ? Headbangers mentality within the Muslim ummah ?

Surely, there is enough evidence that Islam is totally incompatible with the rest of the world.

Robin, I never implied/stated forcible conversion of Muslims to Christianity. USA is a free country where 1st Amendment is respected. (Aggressive proselytization doesn't mean use of force. I don't know where you got that.) I however appreciate your fears about US involvement in Iraq. My take would have been that USA get more involved in Afghanistan, which is steadily precipating into an Islamic badland.

Richard Wade, well stay warm and I appreciate your views with Soja John Thaikattil. Most believers don't get that to run a practical day to day mundane matters, you don't need faith but rationality (reason). That's what Sam Harris argues is eroding from public life.

Welcome, Soja John Thaikattil.
I look forward to visiting your amazing country for the first time early next year. Many of your arguments are skillful and show great courtesy, so I’ll only contend, most respectfully, to clarify a couple of issues you have raised, and to contend with a couple of errors, in my opinion, you have made.

On your point #1, that this topic is important to atheists: I would like to clarify that at least for myself, the two reasons that I, as an atheist am engaging in these complex and often vexing discussions are:
A. Every single day many, many atheists are treated as the most vile, loathsome vermin on earth, in our own families, at work, in school, in our communities, in local, state and national government, in court, in the media, and by complete strangers. This will stop. Not “this should stop,” or even “this must stop,” no, this will stop. We are putting a stop to it. It will take years, but we will stop it. No one will take away anyone’s freedom to believe, and no one will take away anyone’s freedom to not believe. What we will take away is the freedom so very many believers think they have, to do unto us exactly the opposite as they would have us do unto them.
And, reason B. The world is boiling over in religious conflict, threatening to unleash widespread destruction. We, as unbelievers don’t want to die in a clash between conflicting groups of believers.

So those are the background reasons why I and several others are talking here.

On your point #2, to your statement, “No hardened atheist is ever converted through arguments,” I would respond that no hardened theist is ever de-converted (for lack of a better term, sorry) through arguments either. Let’s both avoid the term, “hardened.” It sounds a little disrespectful. I hope that we never “cross swords” as you put it in any way other than by argument, however, so maybe argument is a good release. I thank you for your admonishment that faith in God should not be force fed. Sadly, it is done to thousands of millions of children every day.

On your point #3, I cannot tell you how good it feels to hear a man of faith acknowledge that atheists can be moral, compassionate, loving, and righteous people. That is so rare, so tears-to-my-eyes rare an experience for me. You say that by living that way, we are manifesting God in our own way. We would only counter that we are manifesting humanity in our own way.

On your point #4, It is as distasteful to me to hear an atheist make rude, disrespectful remarks about a religion as it is to hear that kind of abuse directed toward me. I oppose a person’s reprehensible behaviors, not the beliefs that may or may not have caused them. As you say we are all fallible. A big dose of humility all around would help immeasurably.

You go on to mention science and scientists. Unfortunately science and atheism are often confused in the minds of the lay faithful. Not all scientists are atheists, and not all atheists are scientists. I know many of both, and none of them “worship science as God,” neither literally nor figuratively. Science is a specific discipline of thinking that is very useful in understanding the world around us. It is so successful precisely because today’s science constantly supersedes yesterday’s science. You pointed out the superceding as if that is a weakness. That is it’s greatest strength. If science was not constantly correcting itself, we would still think that the earth is flat.

Your story about the professor and the student is a lot of fun, and I would only suggest a couple of corrections to some misconceptions that are evident:

First the title of the professor’s lecture, “The Problem Science has with God, the Almighty” is absurd, and illustrates a misconception. Science has no “problem” with God, science just has no use for God. Science deals with what can be demonstrated as being likely or unlikely by weight of empirical evidence. God, by the definition attributed by believers, is neither provable nor disprovable by science. Scientists sometimes have problems with religious people when they want to limit research or teach unprovable assertions masquerading as science in public schools.

The professor finishes his argument by saying, “According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist.”
No, no, no. Again, science cannot, and does not try to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science contradicts some religious explanations for the origin of the world and life, but the threat to the existence of God is only in the minds of some poorly informed religious people.

Finally, one more little detail. Near the end of the student’s rebuttal, he asks, “do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
When will this misconception ever go away? Evolution does not nor did it ever say that people evolved from monkeys, and it does not say that people are descended from the apes we see in the world today. It says that people and modern apes share a common ancestor. Going back much further, people, modern apes, butterflies and geraniums all have a common ancestor. (There is profound beauty in the idea that all living things are cousins, by the way.) This story about the professor and the student may have been written a long time ago, because there is now an enormous amount of convincing evidence of the validity of the general contention of evolution, and it gets bigger every year. The student’s argument that the professor has never observed evolution in process is absurd. We don’t have to have hung around for four and a half billion years to get the gist of the process. You don’t have to witness the entire journey of a train across Australia to understand its direction, average speed, and the mechanisms that propel it.

Why some people of faith think that if they abandon a bronze age myth about the creation of the earth they will have to also abandon belief in the existence of God is something I have never understood. A lot of believers have been able to do this, and they seem to be doing fine.

If you were to delete these misconceptions from the story, it would be stronger. Keep the part about the Professor’s brain, I love it. I doubt that it will ever convince a science-oriented person to convert to being a faith-oriented person, but it does add a nice humor to the mix, which we all need in these dialogues

And Merry Christmas, by the way.

Merry Christmas to all from beautiful Sydney, Down Under!

It seems to me that this Christmas season discussion question opened by John Meacham and Sally Quinn to get readers’ opinions on whether they believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, has turned into a ‘science vs. religion’ debate for some. So I decided to add an additional two cents worth on Christmas day.

1. It is wonderful that some atheists are here participating in the discussion, if only to voice their protest. It proves that the topic is sufficiently important to them.

2. No hardened atheist is ever converted through arguments, so it is wise for a person who believes in God or religion not to cross swords unnecessarily with an atheist. An atheist who is sufficiently open and seeking with a genuine heart will find God in one way or another. The Bible says “You will find me when you search for me with all your heart.” Faith in God cannot be forced fed. The sort of unfruitful discussions the Jewish Pharisees of His day had with Jesus proves that not even Jesus could do anything against a man’s free will to reject His teachings. Jesus did not force His teachings on anyone, and He advised His disciples to shake the dust from under their feet and move on if the good news of salvation was not welcome.

3. An atheist, who really seeks truth, lives a life of morality, compassion and love is manifesting God in his/her own way. If an atheist challenges religious hypocrisy, those of us who profess any religion must examine our own lives and seek to live what we preach, not to appease the atheist, but to be true to ourselves and what we believe in. Let us seek to preach with our lives rather than with our words to an atheist, or to anyone else for that matter, for everybody hears what we do much louder than what we say.

4. But let no atheist judge Jesus Christ or Christianity on the basis of the mistakes Christians, as fallible human beings; have done over the centuries to bring disgrace to Him and His teachings. Let the atheist be also open to the immense good that has been done over the centuries, and is still being done in the name of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Every religion has had/has its share of fallible human beings. There are only fallible Christians trying to live out their beliefs in the best way they are capable of. Through the parable of the man who went out to sow, Jesus explained how each one absorbs teachings differently, even though the teachings are the same.

How does the finite mind of man understand the Infinite mind of God? Finitely at best. However the finite heart of man can love the Infinite heart of God infinitely, without ever understanding the Infinite mind of God, just as a child of a great scientist can love the father without knowing anything about his work or his mind.

Nothing that the human mind can ever conceive can ever adequately explain God, not even the most sophisticated and intellectual mental acrobatics. That is what the mystics in all religions have brought home to us. God must be experienced in the depths of our hearts and that God manifests Himself as love.

We will find Him when we search for Him with all our hearts. Contemplation and meditation techniques in various religions give a practical tool to assist with that personal experience of God.

It is enough to know that we are created by God in His own image and likeness. It is only when we try to create a God in our own image and likeness that we find it impossible to worship Him because He ceases to be the real God. Is it any wonder that when we try to fit God into our micro test tubes and get Him to do the bidding of our miniscule brains that we run into big trouble?

It must be emphasized that many world renowned scientists have been and are mystics. It is precisely their open minded search for truth through science that led them to the conclusion that there must be a creator behind the vast and intricate universe, and the human being who is fearfully and wonderfully made. Isn’t it sad then that a person who finds it difficult to believe in God, so often worships scientists and science as God, as the ultimate answer to all questions, although science is so limited in its scope to explain the complex universe and yesterday’s science is so easily superseded by today’s science.

Let us let God be God so that we may be the best we can be as human beings, reflecting the glory of God through our lives.

Ken Wilber is a living American genius who has written wonderful books on science and religion as a whole, including his unique perspective as a Tibetan Buddhist. Many religious teachers, including Dom Bede Griffiths have been inspired by his writing.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
_______________________
Food for thought

As part of his lecture titled ‘The Problem Science has with God, the Almighty’, an atheist professor of philosophy asks one of his new students to stand up, and the following conversation ensues...

Professor: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Professor: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Professor: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal Him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

The student is silent.

Professor: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Professor: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God.

Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God made everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Professor: So who created evil?

The student does not answer.

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them?

The student has no answer.

Professor: Science says you have five senses that you can use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Tell us then if you have ever heard your God.

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Professor: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Precisely. You only have your faith. And that is the problem science has with God, the Almighty. You depend only on faith to prove his existence.

Student: Professor, now may I ask you a couple of questions?

Professor: Sure, go ahead.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Of course there is.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes there is.

Student: No sir. There isn't. Sir, you have heat, even lots of heat, more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. A temperature 458 degrees below zero is referred to as no heat. Our measurement of temperature stops at that point. We do not measure cold. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure it. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

After a short pause, the student continues.

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Sure there is. How could there be night without darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of light. There is low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light… But if there is no light, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is that your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue that there is life and then there is death. A good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought adequately. It makes use of electricity and magnetism, but it has never seen, much less fully understood either .To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.

The student continues after a brief pause.

Student: Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from
a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

Professor: No. I don’t believe anyone has.

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is on-going, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you a scientist or a preacher?

The professor remains silent.

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain? Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it?

After a pause, the student continues.

Student: No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir, FAITH. The link between man & god is FAITH. I take it on faith sir, that it is God, the Almighty, who creates the universe and everything in it, keeps it moving and every living thing alive.
----------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above professor-student conversation provided by Mr. P Vinod Bhattathiripad is supposedly a true incident from the life of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the incumbent president of India. The authenticity of the claim has not been verified.

PS: As a Christian, I believe that there is more to evil than just absence of good as implied in the above conversation.

Most notably deb- you switch between politics and religion when it suits you citing politically motivated actions as religious-
-samuel huntington is one of the most notably islamophobic muslim hating writers in the world

fareed zakaria is one of this administrations biggest puppet yes men-

point 1) i agree then- let us stretch our political "ambivalence" toward israel to include the newest democracy (with a democratically elected government)
palestine. that means well play catch up with aid-
to date 113 BILLION DOLLARS in aid to israel. that kind of ambivalence i can live with.

o i guess that also means well arm them with nuclear capability also.

i agree completely- lets support those following (even imperfectly) western stle liberal democracy-
(although i would be hard pressed to describe the likud as liberal)

and i agree that ignoring the rest of the world and becoming an isolationist nation has worked so well for us!

im all for no dependence on oil- as i dont have a car- dont want a car- and am an environmentalist that walks her talk-

what kind of suv do you drive deb?

3) everyone who applies for a visa to the us- already doesnt get one- as a matter of fact theres a bill before congress right now aimed at making only muslim petitioners fill out an exptensive questionnaire stating their loalties.

yes, klets make everyone sign a loyalty oath like at the republic national convention-

THE NSA ALREADY HAS THE "RIGHT" TO MONITORING PHONE CALLS- GOING INTO PEOPLES HOMES WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BUGGING THEM-

its called the patriot act where the general population was coerced into "giving up some freedoms" to ensure national security by the fearmongers and alarmists.

luckily- most americans are waking from their terror-induced stupor and questioning anew the efficacy of these methods.

5) i agree completely- let us retract the nuclear arms deal with india immediately. we dont want them bombing pakistan back 'into the stone age'.
Or do we? o yes- its full of muslims- so its okay-
political motivations become blurred with religious once again

as for cutting ties with egypt- israel would probably not be so amicable about that-

6) by all means- let us have a more open playing field so that islam gets some airtime- it has been silenced by the us media long enough-

name one moderate muslim pundit or spokeperson- yes- i agree wholeheartedly.

7) are you serious? have you no idea that the us has had such special forces? every branch of the services has its version.
2 words central america

8) as far as the efficacy of the un- first i guess they should ENFORCE THE RESOLUTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN PLACE FOR YEARS!
LIKE THE 65 RESOLUTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL THAT HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND BRUSHED UNDER THE CARPET FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS NOW.

agreed- there are so many human rights violations on a major scale that need to be addressed- chinas imprisonment and murder of religious and political dissidents-
indias atrocious abuse of its own children in the labor force
the genocide in darfur- o wait- thats muslims again- o thats ok weve been blithely ignoring it for 5 years now. let them kill the sudanese- i guess god will sort them out.

i guess youll be shipping me off to the dtention center thats being constructed in the midwest then.

ps how can you convert someone back to christianity when they were never a christian?

ok deb- youve eaten up enough of my energies with your silliness-
luckily no one is recognizing samuel huntington as a reasonable voice.

let the headbangers bang- thats what i say.

learn to differentiate between politics and religion- they seem to blur into some obscurantist
agenda in your mind.
i have people to love and must go
peace all and keep warm

Deb

The only reason I jumped in this thread was due to the apparent fact of your baggering Victoria like she was to blame for all the woes Islam has brought us.

I do agree with your description of the barbaric ways of that faith by most in the mid-east. It has not been my experience from muslims I know in this country. Thankfully. Just as there are no Christians that practice to the tee the words in the Old Testament that are just as barbaric.

Your solutions are well thought out. I do have to strongly disagree with #9 though.

*Start an aggressive proselytization of Muslims back to Christianity. That is, allow people to convert out of Islam, and encourage mixed-Islam marriages or civil unions.*

I see no reason to force conversion from one faith to another. Possibly, aggressively insist they must lay down the harsher aspects of their faith.(I couldn't even begin to know how to go about this but I am sure someone more educated could come up with an idea) To forceably proselytize them into converting to Christianity is only going to offend and infuriate them further. Just look what has happened since the US invaded Iraq to force upon them a democracy that the majority are apparently not ready to accept or decide who should be at the top of the food chain. This has been a great political disaster as we are all aware of. Now along with that you also suggest we strip them of their right to religious freedom?

I don't have the answers, but I have to strongly disagree with the #9 and strongly agree with #10.

I tell you what I am scared to death of. The fact that the US has gone in there to force upon them our political system. (that most certainly needs an overhaul in our own backyard first) The fact that it has not worked and is not likely to work,(No matter what Mr Bush says) to me has just been the beginning of the end. And it frightens me for my children and grandchildren. Unless someone gets in there and is able to turn this around diplomatically, I fear we have most certainly written our own death certificates. To now suggest we want to force upon them a religious way of life is just digging our own mass grave.

Deb,
Lots of meaty stuff we can all gleefully argue over. I'm going to be concentrating on surviving Chrismania for a couple of days, so I may not have much time to check in. Don't take my absence for abandonment or disinterest. The talk is getting interesting again, but the timing is unfortunate. I'll be baaack. Take care of yourself, and keep warm.
Same to all my other friends.

Continuing a little further on the issues:

9. Start an aggressive proselytization of Muslims back to Christianity. That is, allow people to convert out of Islam, and encourage mixed-Islam marriages or civil unions.

10. De-emphasize the role of religion, in general, in public life.

That should be a start and then slowly calibrate as needed or develop new strategies to best fit the situation.

But, in no way pogroms as Richard Wade compared with holocaust should be even thought of.

Victoria, to an atheist you could say, "Keep warm."

DEB thats the first personalinformation about yourself youve shared with us---

i made this post in the jesus is son question and i kind of like it- it is apropos of nothing being discussed-

A salaamu alaikum all- peace of god to everyone-
i watched barabara walters (second half by chance) special last night and at the end she asked people what they thought heaven was- mostly people said peace and things like that-their descriptions were all pretty similar.

the heaven ive always imagined is something i try to get a piece of here on earth-

i am hungry for the connection with other people- the connection that comes most purely when we are out of our egos and focusing on something outside of ourselves- there can be a temporal connection when people are joined in a common cause- such as saving a life or helping someone in some way-

but the deepest connection that ive ever felt- and its reproducible so it has some scientific validity (dont you think?)

years ago i was in a mosque with some ladies and they prayed and invited me-
we all were joined at the hips, arms and feet- we moved together in one unified fluid poetic motion and were like one body- one mind- one heart-
it was palapable-

science tries to connect us in many ways but falls short because it is dependent on an outside source-

every time i put my forehead to the floor i am connected again- im connected with tall the foreheads in the world and the connecting force of ALLAH-

do you know that every secondof the day there is someone somewhere who is praying like that?
like some incredible cosmic clock- like a tremendous earthly flower that unfolds and blossoms- i like to think of the whole earth and the peoples all doing like a prayerful "wave" (like in sports) if i knew computer graphics i would make a depiction of it but i dont have access to that technology-

i know this is rambling and maybe off point but i thought id share it because it is a powerful and beautiful thing for me-
all i can do is be so grateful- i am grateful for the breath and blood in my veins-the yummy food i eat- and the very satisfying discourse i can engage in here-
you want to hear a poem i wrote after prayer one time? okay here it is it goes like this-
its an indulgence i know-
also i give personification to god who is beyond personification

when dawn breaks
hear the muezzins prayer call
what draws me there?
the east, the earth, the Sind-
what love i have He is ALLAH, my all
and calls to me
on air-in breath- the wind...

ps ive never been to the sind but was immersed in afghani and indian literature at the time

peace peace peace peoplets

December 23, 2006 6:04 PM

its just somethoughts
please deb this is off limits to critique as it is admittedly so subjective

thanks for the nice thoughts from people

merry christmas and happy channukhah and happy kwaanza and i dont know what to say to atheists
but peace on earth good will towards men(and women) hee hee
im going to watch mad tv now

Richard:

I am responding to your "solutions" post, and not the later one. Continued after 1,2 & 3 as below:

4. Though it may seem as an arrest of unbirdled human freedom (as in USA), empower the NSA for the purpose of "eavesdropping". I am sorry, but if you see a nuke/megabomb exploding inside USA, and it turns out that radical Muslim orgs. inside USA plotted to cause the carnage, which if in 20/20 hindsight turns out as preventable with pre-emptive intelligence, that would be stupidity on the part of US citizens. And yes Richard, this is where the ACLU comes in. These bleeding-heart liberal folks would support the "human rights and human treatment" of the likes of Abu Musab Al-Zarqwai while simply deploring as "unfortunate" the slaughter (decapitation) of Nick Berg. (I am opposed to ACLU on this issue, and hence I maybe biased but who is not ?)

5. Sever diplomatic ties with the Muslim countries whereever feasible. If unfeasible, make it feasible. Why, would USA maintain diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt - all of whom have harbored Islamic extremist groups in their soil in the name of "religious freedom" ? Do not sell hi-tech weaponry, gears or share any advanced/semi-classified/classified technology with these countries. Let them remain in the stone age. (For once, Richard Armitage was right if he indeed had told Musharraf that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age".)

6. Inside USA encourage media to engage public in more controversial and critical discussions of all faiths and traditions (which would include Islam). Show how they are different and if they can co-exist. (Like this forum.)

7. Develop a separate combat section/force of the military to fight unconventional warfare. Like the US military is trained to fight warfare between geographically identifiable nation-states. But, what about terrorist groups that are stateless and hence have almost an ubiquitious existence almost everywhere on this globe ? How to fight them, and often pre-emptively ? This is an important aspect that USA lacks.

8. Bridge the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of combating Islamic extremism. Tell UN to develop programs to fight this menace - something that the UN lacks. This means generating political will and polarizing the US polity against this radical ideology.

That's what I can think of, while running for domestic errands.

Takers ?

Deb,
THANK YOU for finally taking this discussion from the description-of-the-problem level to the discussion-of-the-solution level. Your solutions 1 through 3 are real world ideas, the virtues and drawbacks of which we can debate. 1 and 2 I am already promoting in my own lifestyle and in my political activities. I look forward to more of your pragmatic arguments.

I'm sure everyone realizes my A through C solutions were facetious, for the advancement of this discussion. Deb, I'm going to assume that your hinted ambivalence toward those are for ironic effect.

I don't want to distract the conversation now, but what is this thing with the ACLU? I don't know of any "ACLU activists" getting involved in Middle Eastern affairs as a part of ACLU's mission, which is solely to protect the First Amendment. Most of their activities I applaud, a few battles I think are not worth fighting, but the Middle East?

Richard Wade:

Solutions A to C, while having practical value, is surely bound to raise a lot of "whoa". And, please don't compare the arrest of fundamentalist or radical Islam as something similar to Holocaust. Jewish people/religion havd never had anything similar to Islamic Sharia. (Do you know what Sharia is ?)

My solution is as follows, and largely based on some ideas I gathered from Samuel Huntington, Sam Harris and even Fareed Zakaria's works.

1. Don't get involved in Middle East, regardless of what ACLU activists and even notables like Prez. Carter says in his book. Show support (and not ambivalence) towards those countries which follow (even imperfectly) western style liberal democracy. (This includes Israel, which has been getting a lot of flak recently.)

2. Compulsively eliminate the dependence on Arab oil, by exploring nuclear and other similar technologies for power. Subsidize the hybrid or electric/solar powered cars for the commoner. Ask Toyota/Honda/Hundai/Kia to go this route.

3. Have strict controls and oversight on immigration. (Not necessarily on those who cross borders "illegaly", but rather on who are entering USA legally.) Everybody who applies for a visa to enter USA may not be given one. That maybe rude, but still a legal procedure. This will check the demographic explosion of Muslims, which has plagued Britain and other European countries.

More points in a later post ....

By the way people, the ACLU does not attack hateful speech. It defends free speech.

Deb,
Detractors? Am I one of those?
You still haven't answered Pam's challenge to clearly state what do you want all of us to do about it. You keep raising the alarm, and wishing others would heed your warning, but then when people ask what would you have us do, you just keep raising your alarm.
Maybe I could propose some courses of action that you can pick and choose from, or use to propose an actual plan of action based on your point of view:

(People reading this, I'm not advocating any of these, simply playing the devil's advocate, if you'll excuse the expression.)

Deb, would any of these be in your plan of action?

A. Multiple nuclear strikes on major muslim population centers around the world, use of other weapons of mass destruction, invasion of dozens of muslim countries, and rounding up of all muslim people in western countries, all for the systematic extermination of every muslim of every age everywhere on the planet, estimated to be about one billion people. (The holocaust solution)
B. Conquering of every muslim country for the purpose of forced re-education toward some other belief or thinking system, and the ultimate eradication of every trace of Islamic scripture, history and culture. (The it-never-was solution)
C. Any combination of A and B.
D. Some more constructive solution of yours?

Pam Meloy, you wrote:

1. "It is live and let live. I not afraid of Muslims taking over the world any more than I am afriad of Christians taking over the world. "

You being afraid of Muslims taking over the world or not shows that you are taking the issue more emotionally, rather than looking at the facts. Its not the 'live and let live' policy which you so ardently advocate that would be advocated in an Islamic country. So, read some history books and before attempting to say that others are wrong or are "preaching hate".

2. "You need to get a life girl and stop worrying about something you can't control. "

FYI, I am not 'she'. But, that's a common error and its OK. (I hope that this honest admission of my gender does not make me an anti-feminist.) On a separate note, it's simply rational to probe deeply into issues, knowing that we still cannot solve all problems. I believe that we are all on this WP blogsite simply to discuss the divergence and see the problems of incompatibility between faiths, and not candidly profess/resolve to solve all problems that confront us.

Get a grip, Pam.

Ah Deb I finally got your attention by acting as "MAD" as you do. I simply do not believe that "ALL" Muslims are insane. I don't care for Christians much either when they try to push their beliefs with me.

I am not as informed as you are about either Islam or as others are of Christanity. I cannot accept the fact that radicals in each area are in the majority.

As a non-believer I am not going to preach anything to anyone. It is live and let live. I not afraid of Muslims taking over the world any more than I am afriad of Christians taking over the world. It may well be, in your mind, a uninformed way of looking at things but it is how I feel.

You need to get a life girl and stop worrying about something you can't control. No, I am not worried about the ACLU because I don't even think hateful thoughts let alone say them.

Deb, just remember "nothing is the end of the world except the end of the world".

Pam Meloy:

Thanks for your understanding and support (?). The answer to your question is amazingly simple: treat Islam as it literally says it would treat other religions/faiths.

Have you ever thought what would happen if this course of action was really pursued ?

Now what every non-Muslim should do ? Start by reading available Islamic literature and sources and then decide if you think what I am writing (or as some say "screaming mad") on this blogsite is correct or not. And yes, maybe you and others should start preaching. Or, do you think such preaching would ultimately be labeled as "hate speech" by the ACLU ?

These are some thoughts by which we may initiate some actions.

Deb,

I think you have done an excellent job of filling us in on all of the madness of Islam. Now what exactly would you like us to do about it?

Just say I have read all of your posts and I agree with you. What in the hell am I supposed to do. Run around my neighborhood preaching as you do to everyone I see or talk to.

Get real and give me some answers here. You are very brave on this website but what do you do to further "your" cause in the real world.

Now that is common ground. The ball is in your court now.

Mark 7:7..our Lord and Savior's own words: "In vain do they worship me. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Hebrews 13:8 tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. God and the Word (which later became Jesus Christ) are in total harmony. Inspired scripture admonishes us not to learn the way of the heathen, i.e. mans ideas, riddled with error, of how to worship God (Jer 10:2). Many know that customs of Christmas are from pagan origin. The apostles kept what are today regarded as 'Jewish' Holy Days. Even the gentile converts were admonished to and did also keep in the early days of the church, years after Christ was crucified. (I Cor 5:8). Constantine and the Nicene council are among the architects of what is regarded as 'right' today in religion. Where did our Lord and Savior pass authority on to them? How could they, or anyone, base their contrived traditions on biblical truth? It is a well known fact of history they conformed to pagan practices and intermigled them with Christianity. Thus, this is where we are today. Revelation 12:9 tells us the whole world is deceived. Mankind has eluded truth since Eden..since he took it upon himself to decide right and wrong. Think about it.

Mark 7:7..our Lord and Savior's own words: "In vain do they worship me. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Hebrews 13:8 tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. God and the Word (which later became Jesus Christ) are in total harmony. Inspired scripture admonishes us not to learn the way of the heathen, i.e. mans ideas, riddled with error, of how to worship God (Jer 10:2). Many know that customs of Christmas are from pagan origin. The apostles kept what are today regarded as 'Jewish' Holy Days. Even the gentile converts were admonished to and did also keep in the early days of the church, years after Christ was crucified. (I Cor 5:8). Constantine and the Nicene council are among the architects of what is regarded as 'right' today in religion. Where did our Lord and Savior pass authority on to them? How could they, or anyone, base their contrived traditions on biblical truth? It is a well known fact of history they conformed to pagan practices and intermigled them with Christianity. Thus, this is where we are today. Revelation 12:9 tells us the whole world is deceived. Mankind has eluded truth since Eden..since he took it upon himself to decide right and wrong. Think about it.

All:

Being nice does not solve the problem of incompatibility of Islam with other faiths. And to that end, let me "cherry pick" on some lines from others posts:

(a) Victoria wrote: "....a kafir is one who has heard the full message of islam- understands it- then consciously rejects or uses obscurantist reasoning to misrepresent it...."

Well, I wrote that I am exactly in that category -per Victoria's interpretation/clarification. I am a self confessed kafir. My question is that according to literal interpretation of Quran (047:004), I must be killed as I have heard the message of Islam with full knowledge and have compulsively rejected it. Is that a valid (perhaps unpleasant) statement ? As recent as yesterday, CNN reported that such kafir killings are happening in Southern Thailand. So, its for real. Care to explain this dilemma anyone ?

(b) Robin wrote: "...Anger and fear are not helpful. They are real emotions that need to be addressed but not necessarily here, specially since Victoria is not in that same mode as yourself. Patience and tolerance go alot further in the understanding and acceptance department. Even in a good debate..."

Well, I would submit that I am - in your eyes - looking for a "fight". In my opinion, of myself, I am aggressively trying to demolish the myth that Islam is a peaceful religion, by citing its 1400 year old history of mayhem and "bloody borders" (thanks to Prof. Samuel P. Huntington). I am of the opinion that there is a very thin line between the so-called "radical Islam" and the "moderate Islam". This line gets, in most situations, very blurry. Just look at the present scenario: Pope Benedict got all the fires for his comments on Islam. Muhammad's cartoons caused carnage, and sometime earlier a descendant of Vincent van Gogh (Theodore van Gogh) was brutally decapitated by a Moroccan/Somali immigrant just because he made a film about Islam that was somewhat distasteful in the eyes/opinions of Muslims. Compare and contrast the scenario in USA: Martin Scorcese made a supposedly "blasphemous" film - The Last Temptation of Christ - and all the players involved are very much alive and kicking. The latest fictional novel by Dan Brown (DaVinci Code) makes the point that Christ married Mary Magdalene and had kids. This Dan Brown novel goes entirely against the foundations of Christianity. If extended further, it is heretic and extremely blasphemous. Has Dan Brown been physically attacked or assaulted by Christians ? NO ! Can you recall the scenario when Salman Rushdie wrote a fictional novel (Satanic Verses) about Prophet Muhammad ?

I can go on and on. However what amazes me is the lack of understanding of my so-called "detractors" on this blogsite. It is often said that a civilization deserves destruction or glirious survival depending on the attitude of its members. A glimpse of the contents of the posts on this blogsite suggests that such notions mayh have value. I do see an emphasis of living room decency without focussing on the real issue: why is Islam so incompatible with western values ? I am also in agreement with Sam Harris who has suggested that West and Islam have diametrically opposite values, and one would annihilate the other eventually. Probably our comely homely attitudes need a dose from the Book of John (Revelation).

What makes me amazed and probably angry is the steady refusal of the bloggers on this forum to discuss the "unpleasant" (in my jargon - barbaric) aspects of Islam. Its typical: anyone who cites facts to drive home an unpleasant point about Islam is labeled as "racist", "liar" etc. and etc. To me, that's self-destructive.

Are we on common ground yet ?

Homo Sapiens,
Take it easy. Take some long slow breaths. Sort your thoughts out carefully. You have something useful to say, but your frustration interferes.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE FAIRY TALES AND HAVE LITTLE TO DO WITH THE TRUTH!

SOme Religions are better than others, others, like ISLAM are MALIGNANT, others like Buddhism are BENIGN.

SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER, but most humans are too god damned stupid to be scientists, so they read horoscopes and people magazine and tarot cards and go to psychics and go to church.

The diff is that some religions have a nice moral improvement angle to them, so they are better than the above.

Assembly of Faith in Christ in Action
Site web: www.assemblyoffaithinchristinaction.org
E-mail: assembleelafoienchristenaction@yahoo.fr
Affiliated with the fellowship of the churches, Emmaus
Opposite CACH behind UNIBANK
Tel. (509)458-8558
Cap-Haitian, Haiti W.I.
Pastor Daniel Jean-François, responsible

Matth.10: 42
I’m Pastor Daniel Jean-François; I’m the technician in Radiology Medical of Bethesda Medical Center which is one of the departments of OMS international in Haiti .
The church of which I’m the pastor has about two hundred and fifty members. The majorities of them are unemployed person and students. Our church worships in a school. Because of the situation melancholic and economic of our country Haiti , the owner of this establishment has decided to sell it as well as the ground on which the school and the church are located. I would like to say to you that this ground measures more than 400m2. Either the school or the church is able to purchase the facilities that we now use.
We join together each day to intercede before the king of kings and the Lord of Lords, asking him to guide us in the situation.
How can you help us to continue this great ministry for the glory of God? We ask that you pray with and for us and to glorify him.
May God bless you with all kids of blessings.
Your simple servant, Pastor Daniel Jean-François.
Postal Address :
Route Nat. # 1 en face Château Mort # 117. Cap-Haitien, Haïti, W.I.
Tel.(509)458-8558
N.B. My primary languages are French, Haitian Creole and I speak a little English.
Our vision is to continue the church and add an orphanage, nutrition center and vacational school.

Assembly of Faith in Christ in Action
Site web: www.assemblyoffaithinchristinaction.org
E-mail: assembleelafoienchristenaction@yahoo.fr
Affiliated with the fellowship of the churches, Emmaus
Opposite CACH behind UNIBANK
Tel. (509)458-8558
Cap-Haitian, Haiti W.I.
Pastor Daniel Jean-François, responsible

Matth.10: 42
I’m Pastor Daniel Jean-François; I’m the technician in Radiology Medical of Bethesda Medical Center which is one of the departments of OMS international in Haiti .
The church of which I’m the pastor has about two hundred and fifty members. The majorities of them are unemployed person and students. Our church worships in a school. Because of the situation melancholic and economic of our country Haiti , the owner of this establishment has decided to sell it as well as the ground on which the school and the church are located. I would like to say to you that this ground measures more than 400m2. Either the school or the church is able to purchase the facilities that we now use.
We join together each day to intercede before the king of kings and the Lord of Lords, asking him to guide us in the situation.
How can you help us to continue this great ministry for the glory of God? We ask that you pray with and for us and to glorify him.
May God bless you with all kids of blessings.
Your simple servant, Pastor Daniel Jean-François.
Postal Address :
Route Nat. # 1 en face Château Mort # 117. Cap-Haitien, Haïti, W.I.
Tel.(509)458-8558
N.B. My primary languages are French, Haitian Creole and I speak a little English.
Our vision is to continue the church and add an orphanage, nutrition center and vacational school.

Deb, why all the hatefullness?? My goodness. I read your post and your anger shows. You certainly do not represent non-belivers well.

How about a course in anger management!

thank you

Victoria if you read my post the 3rd sentence is to Deb not you.

I second that motion.

And I also thank you Victoria for your wisdom shared.

I think your missing a shred of respect for another persons choice of how or what they choose to represent themselves in this world.

Deb for whatever reason you seem so intent on a good fight rather than a debate. Maybe its time to look inward and try to figure out why that may be. Perhaps you already know, but choose not too share. Or maybe you have shared and I missed that post.

Anger and fear are not helpful. They are real emotions that need to be addressed but not necessarily here, specially since Victoria is not in that same mode as yourself. Patience and tolerance go alot further in the understanding and acceptance department. Even in a good debate.

Victoria may not believe as we do, but she certainly has shown herself patient and tolerant.

You said: Literal interpretation of the message in Quran states that Islam commands Kafirs to be killed (047:004) So, how can a free society exist encompassing Islam?

The Christian bible has many many passages that mirror that above but we have been living in a so-called free society in the US for a very long time.

kafir- one who conceals- covers up-
the verb can be used by a farmer when he covers up his seeds with soil.

actually my defense included any human who may be wrongly persecuted by another. it was more an admonishment and request for good manners.

in islam a kafir is not an unbeliever as fox news would have you believe- or an infidel (infidelus from the latin meaning unfaithful) which is a term used by crusaders to describe muslims, not an islamic term-

a kafir is one who has heard the full message of islam- understands it- then consciously rejects or uses obscurantist reasoning to misrepresent it.

i find no incongruity in my soul for being tolerant and defending someone. how do i know they have had experience with islam? who am i to judge if they are indeed kafir or not?

actually, i feel that i MUST be a good muslim and in so doing present isalm in a positive light with actions and conviction- otherwise if i let others define it for me- there may be false impressions-

being intolerant of intolerance is completely in line with islamic practice.

i will not fit in with your preconceived ideas of what you imagine a muslim to be-
and since you always imagine the ugliest motives of muslims i am glad of that.

as far as literal interpertation of the qur'an- ive noticed people only quote that verse out of context and wrongly- it doesnt say kill kafirs as you well know.

there are 2 parts to the quran- one in historical and political perspective that applies to a specific event in the time of the Prophet(pbuh),
and one that is applicable for all time and subject to a wide range of interpertation.

the oft quoted and misused verse you misinterperted is a point in history of a certain defined event.

im sorry for your bad experiences with muslims deb- you know enough about it to tear it down and condemn, but not enough to find the beauty in it-

are not these the actions of the people you are set so against?

im not trying to be patronizing in that 'i know better than you ' way- but surely by now you must recognize that whenever you come at me angrily, it becomes an opportunity for me to present islam in a positive way-

whereas i wouldnt be overtly speaking about islam- in the defense of it- i seem to communicate its message more than if left on my own- where i babble about cleaning my oven while i sleep or something.
peace and more peace

Deb,
What you are missing here is everything that doesn't support your anger. You have been playing the same note on that violin for so long you are deaf to any other notes. You and I are both unbelievers, and in principle I agree with much of what you say, but if I had to choose who would speak for me as an atheist, I'd choose Victoria over you.

This Wheaton fella is for real ?!

Anyway, I find Victoria lobbying for atheists (or unbelievers) as somewhat hypocritical. This is because atheists or unbelievers, once they have been exposed to the Truth (as Islam defines it)and reject it become "kafirs". Literal interpretation of the message in Quran states that Islam commands Kafirs to be killed (047:004). So, how can a free society exist encompassing Islam - which may have its orthodox (devout) adherents - who in turn believe in the literal inperpretation of the Quran ? If a Muslim opines that "kafirs" (like me who have knowingly rejected Islam) can have equal rights as human beings in a civilized society, then that is blasphemous (per Islamic dictates). So, what am I missing here ?

This Wheaton fella is for real ?!

Anyway, I find Victoria lobbying for atheists (or unbelievers) as somewhat hypocritical. This is because atheists or unbelievers, once they have been exposed to the Truth (as Islam defines it)and reject it become "kafirs". Literal interpretation of the message in Quran states that Islam commands Kafirs to be killed (047:004). So, how can a free society exist encompassing Islam - which may have its orthodox (devout) adherents - who in turn believe in the literal inperpretation of the Quran ? If a Muslim opines that "kafirs" (like me who have knowingly rejected Islam) can have equal rights as human beings in a civilized society, then that is blasphemous (per Islamic dictates). So, what am I missing here ?

Woa, that guy's mad.
Victoria, a deeply grateful tip of my hat to you, for articulating so well what I, and I think many atheists feel. This tribute to you is made all the more poignant by the steadfastness you have in your own faith. Thank you from the bottom of my unbelieving heart.

Dear Bob Wheaton,
Thank You for condescending from Your lofty mountain of insight to grace us with Your smugness. We conceited “intellectuals” can only marvel at Your finding so much interest in what You consider our “ultimate waste of time.” Please, please, before You ascend on Your glowing cloud of smug back to Your transcendent realm from which You survey us from a safe distance, grant us what You find “revealing” in our futile conversation.

also what are you implying is being 'revealed'?
there seems to be some vague insult- we are trying to be tolerant and engaged here-

as a christian (i assume by your behavior, because it seems the christians are judging very harshly on this site) you are commanded to bring people to Jesus(ata), but instead you are driving them away.
attacking someone in a personal matter does not bring them to your view- it only further alienates them FROM your view, and strengthens their own inner resolve that your way is not a good path.

christians recognize each other by the love that they bear.

unfortunately- it seems i am recognizing christians by the malice that they are bearing-
(CERTAINLY NOT ALL CHRISTIANS)
there seems to be a flood of intolerance, spiritual oneupsmanship,judgementalism, and elitism.
if youre not a christian then i am wrong as you didnt state your belief.

atheists and agnostics, i apologize if in speaking up for your part i misrepresent you.
christians i apologize for the generalization-
real chrsitians dont act this way, i know.

nothing personal mr wheaton- its just symptomatic of a phenomenom ive noticed here

if you are indeed a christian- prove your superiority by the excellence of your manners and humility of your demeanor.
everyone will respond kindly to that. peace

MR WHEATON- I dont believe that the passion of atheists and agnostics is usually based on arguing theology- what i see them getting passionate aobut is how some practitioners of some belief systems are elitist and springing from their philiosophy- feel they have the right to exclude certain members of human society from their own self-description and self-determinatrion. now thats not bad enough, but then many 'disbelievers' are persecuted and imprisoned- or beaten or harrassed or prevented from meaningful employment and the many ways people are shunned and ostracized and not allowed to fulfill themselve and pursue their own happiness.

its not really the beliefs that are eliciting these reactions- BUT THE OVERT ACTIONS OF THE BELIEVERS that they protest.

i see people here telling others they are going to hell- and judging others in the harshest terms-

this is unchristianlike behavior.

i think its the hypocrisy that gets to them most.

judge not lest ye be judged.

only God knows.
peace

MR WHEATON- I dont believe that the passion of atheists and agnostics is usually based on arguing theology- what i see them getting passionate aobut is how some practitioners of some belief systems are elitist and springing from their philiosophy- feel they have the right to exclude certain members of human society from their own self-description and self-determinatrion. now thats not bad enough, but then many 'disbelievers' are persecuted and imprisoned- or beaten or harrassed or prevented from meaningful employment and the many ways people are shunned and ostracized and not allowed to fulfill themselve and pursue their own happiness.

its not really the beliefs that are eliciting these reactions- BUT THE OVERT ACTIONS OF THE BELIEVERS that they protest.

i see people here telling others they are going to hell- and judging others in the harshest terms-

this is unchristianlike behavior.

i think its the hypocrisy that gets to them most.

judge not lest ye be judged.

only God knows.
peace

To Bob Wheaton:
Unbelievers being fired, beaten, harassed, threatened and shunned in towns across the Midwest by believers who think of themselves as pious is not imaginary, it's very real.

Believers trying to force upon everyone laws dictating whom we can love, whom we can marry, who controls our bodies, what we can research, what we study in school, idiotic myths masquerading as science and an endless parade of attempts to control and conform people to their narrow, backward, views, that's not imaginary, that's very real.

You are really missing the point.

Bob Wheaton

No the fantasy of the imaginary man does not upset me. I just want to *stand up and be counted* as being a decent human being. We can be just as moral, ethical, compassionate and caring, not to mention have integrity too.

Are we not aloud to express our opinions on a forum such as this? Certainly, there are some radical atheists out there just as there is radical christians, muslims, jews, etc. People are people, no matter what stance they choose in life.

When has constructive dialogue become a waste of time? or the attempt of?

To find the Truth that will set you free, you will first need to know the true definition of love.

Love is doing what someone else wants you to, even when it is not what you want.

God loved you so that you could love Him. God's part is past tense. Notice the (ed) on the end of love in John 3:16?

God's desire to line His will up with yours is over. His desire for you to line your will up with His, is forever.

It is always interesting to me to see unbelievers get so passionate and angry about something they say is a myth and never existed. Seems like the ultimate waste of time and energy being that they are so "wise" and "intellectual". Interesting that imaginary things upset them so much... very revealing actually.

It is always interesting to me to see unbelievers get so passionate and agry about something they say is a myth and never existed. Seems like the ultimate waste of time and energy being that they are so "wise" and "intellectual". Interesting that imaginary things upset them so much... very revealing actually.

Sadly, im watching cspan right now-

there is a group called the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. if you google it itll direct you to the Perople for the American Way site---

It has been nonstop for over an hour only focusing on islamic countries.

china was briefly ever so briefly mentioned-but the report wont be ready for 2 years so of course no action can be taken.

the 1000s of followers of falun dafa(chi gong) that have been imprisoned and murdered by the chines government for the past 10 years seem not to matter. the diaspora of the tibetan people- also not important.
no snaction of any kind has ever been brought against china

but there is a woman in iraq who was told to shut down her beauty shop or be fined-
luckily america sprang to her defense

our priorities are intact

Keith Ellison stated (on CNN) that America is a diverse country and people of all faiths thus have a common ground on the basis of equality. Hence he swore by the Holy Quran, as he is a Muslim Congressman, instead of the Bible.

However because Islam is claimed to be the fastest growing religion in USA, one may assume that in another 100 years Muslims could become a sizeable minority, if not the majority ethnic population.

In that case will a Muslim-majority America respect equality of diverse cultures, religions and ethnic values ? I doubt it, given the past records of Islam. Of course, I also believe that in that scenario a cataclysmic event might happen, given that the most advanced country (with very sophisticated weapons) on this planet would be at the center stage of all global policy and decisions.

Yes, well I am quite proud of my humility....

The Zen stuff left me with a smaller prideful self, (but not entirely) but I still have my sharp tongue so I end up being well practiced at apologizing.
I'm underemployed too. That's why I spend all day on these silly blogs? That's because of it too, I just realized. I'd better get some "washing" done. Read you later.

well there are buddhists i can get behind!
have you ever heard the adage (quoted by buddhists)
dont just do something, sit there!(?)

thanks for te compliment now im ashamed of my own self promotion... well not that ahsamed.

for an atheist you sure are humble.

lets all group hug richard

ill tell you what dude, i need a job...

he he hee

peace

Victoria,
Once again I have presumed too much. I apologize for speaking for you, or characterizing what you say. Yes, you always practice a patience and gentleness that amazes me, and I have a long way to go to resemble that, which I’d like. I’m not equating you and Deb as if you’re like bookends; you’re different in your views and in your methods of expression. Some can be compared, some contrasted, and some are apples and oranges.

It just seemed you characterized Buddhism in general with all that “karma means you got what you deserve” crap. I should have checked it out with you first. Perhaps also I should have mentioned the various screwballs I met in Buddhism as well, with regrettable attitudes and twisted goals as those you have mentioned. And yes, they disagree over both relevant and irrelevant things. They just don’t slaughter each other.
I practiced in a Zen center where meditation and community action were balanced. Cleaning up the inner city neighborhood was just as much “meditation” as sitting on a cushion. The washing away of inner delusion and the washing away of blight and strife in the world around us were really two sides of the same coin. Competition, self aggrandizement might come up in individuals, but it didn’t last long; it was gently washed away by the overall direction of the group. We did a lot of washing, now that I think of it. There are other branches where meditation isn’t practiced at all. They do other things.

It has been clear to me from your first posts that you have a positive influence on the world around you, not just from specific, identifiable things you do, but by your overall interpersonal stance. I wasn’t implying that you haven’t.

I think I put my twenty-two cents in because after over 800 entries, here was a topic I actually knew something about. If I got too gushy about wanting a group hug, jumped to conclusions, or misinterpreted your or Deb’s views, again I apologize. The best way I learn is by making dumb mistakes.

no richard- i was relating my own personal experiences- i said it was an unusual interpertation that buddha was an atheist- wheres the frustration and pain in that?

im responding with gentleness all te time- thers no aspersions cast- i dont say you are 'wrong i am right' there are alot of different types of buddhism- my experience is with the mahayana philosophy because it is the one that i vibed to.
tibetan was too harsh- falun dafa too much of a complete strange corruption- nichiren -chanting for cadillacs- both buddhism and hinduism- terribly sexist.
im only relating how i walked my talk in thiese instances- mercy richard- dont equate my reasonable discourse with bickering.

im only relating personal experiences not what i
read somewhere.

where have you seen me dump any pain on anyone?
its sad that youre saying because deb overreacts- what has that to do with my own experiences?

her reaction is not my responsibility.
how did a response on buddha turn into muslim-trashing?

i only try to be right for me richard- and how can you possibly begin to know whether ive had any 'real' influence in the world?

ps ive heard buddhist arguing over the strangest most abstract concepts-

part of the reason i was not satisfied was the emphasis on meditation- it seems like people are chasing after the sensual experience to validate their beliefs- and if youve spent time with buddhists you must have had the experience of people actually competing in meditation which is by far the strangest thing of all...

i am not content to simply state what i believe (and hold myself up to attack for it)
but i feel that to contribute in any way here i should relate WHY and HOW i came to believe it.

for reasons that may seem self glorifying i wont relate why, but i was invited to the tribe as an honorary pomo native american for the specific reason that i walk my talk. i have nothing to prove here- but i like reading the posts- hearing the interaction- and learning too.
but if im attacked i dont whimper and retreat because im not a masochist- but i hope my responses are devoid of personal observations about peoples shortcomings-

honestly i feel ive found a real solution and would rather talk about that- pointing fingers and stating the obvious is nothing new and edifies no one.
alrighty then
native american and

Deb and Victoria,
Careful, both of you, in your own ways are attributing to the whole what some do.

My maxim is “You are what you do,” to boil down a tiny part of what Sartre or Beauvoir were trying to say. (Many people in the West think that means you are your job, and really screw up the idea.) It means how you actually live, behave, interact describes you, your solid reality. Your values are not what you say, or what is written in your favorite book. Your values are defined by what you actually do. “It aint the talk, it’s the walk.”

So too with religion. The doing side, the physical body of any teaching is the people putting it into practice. They may or may not practice the beautiful parts of the teaching, and they may or may not practice the ugly parts, in wildly differing combinations and intensities.

Apply this to Buddhism. You can’t accurately make sweeping statements about it. I practiced the way for many years, and came to know many, many of its travelers from all over the world. Some Buddhists are as pacifist as the Amish, and some will seriously kick your butt if you threaten them. Some Buddhists are very compassionate and helpful, while others are aloof and uncaring. Still others will skillfully help others without enabling, and leave be without abandoning. Some believe in reincarnation, some in a kind of general sharing of the “soul,”(for lack of a better word) and some think that part is a crock. Some pursue “enlightenment” as a man chases a woman, some live by principles of reducing the importance of self in their actions, and some are just trying to get along in life. I saw this variety both in individuals and in sub groups.

But no one can say who is the “true” Buddhist and who is not. I never heard or read any of them talk that way. Buddhism has sutras, (lessons) stories, legends, that some use as guidelines, and others don’t, but there is no central text, no Bible or Koran to squabble and bicker over.

Deb and Victoria, both of you used your discussion of Buddhism to get on your soap boxes about your pet peeves and pet causes. If you can see that in yourselves and respond with a gentle, chuckling chagrin, you’re doing exactly what long-dead Siddhartha was trying to teach. Deb, you’re angry about aggressive and violent Muslims, and Victoria, you’re frustrated by the lack of love and compassion in the world. Guess what? You’re on common ground.

You’re both so smart and so strong, but you remind me of a married couple who just won’t stop bickering, dumping your private pain onto each other. If you’d stop all this crap about scripture and trying to be right, and work together on your common ground, you could have real influence in the world.

Sorry, Richard Wade and others. I posted the samed message twice because when I was posting, the server stated tat I should try later. I shortened my post and reposted it to find that the original one was also there. Confused as I am, I apologize for unintentionally wasting the message bandwidth.

Richard Wade:

Thanks for reading my post about Buddha. Many remain ignorant about the atheist-humanist-pacifist views preached by Lord Buddha. Its intrinsically pragmatic approach, which has had its appeal in China and Japan, is not without its major shortcomings - strict adherence to pacifism. Fa Hien, a Chinese traveler in India around the time of king Harshavardhana, had also remarked about this vision of Buddhism. It is of course very remarkable how Buddha preached his view that atheism-humanism can also be considered as an equal alternative to monotheist and polytheist beliefs, for someone to attain salvation. The philosophy is simple yet absolutely non-fanatical like Islam.

This pacifist message had however been detrimental and most damaging. The material Hindu and Buddhist symbols (temples, viharas, etc) were destroyed by the torrents of the Mohammedan invasions that swept Indian subcontinent. The ugly behemoth of such fanaticism, expressed by the devout followers of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him and His Family), triumphed over the pacifism ledaving one to wonder how effective the Buddhist philosophy is in our modern world.

Richard Wade:

Thanks for reading my post about Buddha. He preached atheism as equal alternative to monotheism and polytheism. As you have remarked, his humanistic approach had very far reaching effects when Buddhism reached China and Japan. In these lands the pragmatism inherent in Buddhism had called for wide acceptance. In Harshavardhana's time Fa Hien (a Chinese traveler in India) had made very similar remarks about the atheist-humanist nature of Buddhism. However there are many who would continue to engage in ignorant speculation about Buddhism, and remain surprised that Buddhism is essentially an atheist philosophy, despite that proof exists to the contrary.

Buddhism has had its benign and no so helpful influences in India - its place of origin. The intrinsically accomodative/adaptive nature has made Buddhism survive till today. The strict pacifist nature of Buddhism had however its disastrous effects, as remarked by Will Durant in his book THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: OUR ORIENTAL HERITAGE (vol. 1). India's Buddhist past, despite its glorious humanism and spiritual success, ultimately crumbled before the barbaric Muslim invasions. Destruction of the Buddhist and Hindu symbols of life and associated spiritual strands were eliminated by the propagation of the fanatical zeal of the devout followers of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). Of course the ugly behemoth of Mohammedanism (Islam) would not have bared its bloody fangs, had there been no caste-ridden society of the Hindus, and the strict pacifist/escapist nature espoused by Buddhism.

i still wouldnt agree that buddha was non-theistic and definitely not atheist. the divine was non-personal, but most definitely still divine- it was accessing this force that was the source of bringing humans together- in that the ego is negated and one is in a properly receptive state to receive the creative impetus- trying to sift through all of the myriad distractions that keep us noisy and busyminded so that we cannot hear- maybe it is some distant star singing our purpose to us- it is precisely the impersonal nature of the buddhist concept of for lack of a better word- god- that i could see how that might seem humanist- but there is reincarnation in buddhist philosophy and the belief that we return to our original seminal condition.
dont forget- prince gautami was a hindu first.

this is one of the dissatisfactions that i had with hinduismand buddhism, having practiced with both and seeing how their belief systems have xcrystallized and manifested into social interaction-

what i discovered was that with the philosophy of reincarnation as the foundation of these faiths- that whenever one encounters a human deserving of compassion- such as a poor or blind or crippled person- there is the rationale behind it that say for instance a crippled person- brought it upon themselves by crippling a person in a former life-
this idea of 'blaming the victim' for their suffering gives people an easy way to not do anything about it- it even becomes spiritually mature to let them work it out for themselves because you are enabling their spiritual progression by ignoring their suffering.
this is the opposite of what was taught by the buddha- for instance- but it is how it has come to be practiced by people-
which is interesting because it seems that people seem to manifest the opposite of the teachings and religios that they follow- lack of compassion in hindus and buddhists- judgementalism in christianity- intolerance in islam-for instance.
of course i dont mean all people are guilty of these things im saying how people respond en masse

arent we humans interesting i just love my species

right now im watching bbc and the christians are decorating the trees in bethlehem Jesus(ata) must be so proud. hee

Yeah, interesting posts.
Finding lunacy in the world is like finding water while sitting in small boat.

Deb is right about the Buddha's original teachings. Maybe more non-theistic rather than atheistic. He was very humanistic, teaching what people could do to live with less suffering and confusion. As time went on and it spread to different areas, it picked up the flavor of each culture, and became very diverse. Some see him as a man, some as a spiritual principle, some worship Amida, the buddha of the western paradise, and so a deity has been modeled after the man. It got very complicated. In China and Japan, the Ch'an or Zen branches were an attempt to return to the extremely simple human oriented practice. People of these traditions tend to be wonderfully pragmatic and accepting.

RON DAHLKE it would seem logical that your spiritual evolution would incline you to investigate the message of the last prophet sent with the latest word-

RICHARD you sure do come up wth the interesting posts!

SERVANT- subhanallah beautiful stream of consciousness

The last time we saw warrior monks, they were called the Knights Templar.

Their jihad was dubbed "The Crusades". What's next, the 21st century version of the Rosicrucians?

People, this came in on the newswire this afternoon:

“By COSTAS KANTOURIS - Associated Press Writer
THESSALONIKI, Greece(AP) Rival groups of monks wielding crowbars and sledgehammers clashed Wednesday over control of a 1,000-year-old monastery in a community regarded as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity, police said.
Seven monks were injured and transported by boat to receive treatment. They were released after several hours, police said. No one was arrested but three monks were banned from re-entering the Orthodox sanctuary of Mount Athos, located on a self-governing peninsula in northern Greece.
Esphigmenou monastery is the scene of a long-running dispute between Orthodox Church authorities and rebel monks who occupy the facility. Both Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, leader of the Orthodox Christian church, and Greece's highest administrative court have ordered their eviction, but the monks have refused to budge.
The rebel monks vehemently oppose efforts to improve relations between the Orthodox Church and the Vatican.
The fighting Wednesday broke out between the rebel monks and a group of legally recognized monks who were outside. The outsiders attempted to force their way into the monastery's offices in Karyes, the administrative center of the monastic community, to begin construction of a new building.
Occupying monks attacked those outside with crowbars and fire extinguishers.
Esphigmenou's rebel abbot, Methodius, said his monks had been provoked.
"We were attacked and had to respond," he said. "They should be ashamed to call themselves men of the cloth."
In October, a court in the nearby city of Thessaloniki handed down two-year suspended sentences against nine monks and former monastery members for illegally occupying Esphigmenou's offices. Supplies to the rebel monastery are brought in by supporters using dinghies from the nearby island of Thassos.
Esphigmenou is one of 20 monasteries on Athos, where women are banned.”

This is an example of what I mean when I say religion in general is lunacy. The image of monks battling each other with crowbars and sledge hammers is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it wasn’t tragic. It reminds me of a similar situation between rival groups of clerics at one of Christianity’s holy sites in Israel, I forget which one, where they’ve been fighting for years over who gets the great honor to occupy and administer the sacred place, and presumably get the tourist trade. Does this give any insight into whether you have to be crazy to become religious, or do you go crazy after you’ve been religious?

Then again, since there are no women on the island it could be another tragic case of testosterone poisoning.

it is an unusual interpertation that Buddha taught that there is no god- and i would postulate that hinduism has racism inherently stipulated- consider the caste system...harldy social justice in action

as always in the spirit of peaceful dialogue

so deb, what is your particular upbringing?
what religious traditiondid your parents raise you in? you tell us what you dont believe, how were you instructed as a child?

the word from unity for the day is:

ob·scu·rant·ism /əbˈskyʊrənˌtɪzəm, ˌɒbskyʊˈræntɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-skyoor-uhn-tiz-uhm, ob-skyoo-ran-tiz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge.
2. deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.
[Origin: 1825–35; < F obscurantisme; see obscurant, -ism]

Servant of God and Disciple of Jesus, the Messiah wrote: "They all preached and taught against atheism and polytheism--the two main roots of all social injustices and personal psychological problems, and specifically taught monotheism"

I disagree. Siddhartha Gautama (Lord Buddha) specifically taught "atheism". A Buddhist need not believe in a deity/God/monotheism, unlike other strands of Hindu belief system.

Also, I find it hard to believe that "atheism and polytheism" breed more social injustice as compared to "monotheism".

Just read on the "Islamophobic" blogsite JIHADWATCH (of Robert Spencer) that Spencer's latest book - THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD: FOUNDER OF WORLD'S MOST INTOLERANT RELIGION - has been banned in Pakistan.

While I answered Victoria that I have high respect for Prophet Muhammad (messenger of Islam) but reject the message (Islam) and hence its propagation, I think this "book banning" shows the incompatibility of Islam with modern times and Islam has morphed into an obscurantist belief system.

It appears, much unbeknownst to devout Muslims, that such banning efforts depict the fragility of Islam. Islam needs to suppress all forms of negative discussions to survive. Only congratulatory or very cajoling comments would be admissible. The murder of Theo van Gogh is another testimony to this phenomenon.

Jesus is not even the man's real name, or original name for that matter. Jesus (or as Hispanics would pronounce "Heysoos") is an English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is a Greek rendering of his original name in Aramaic--which is according to both secular and religious scholars--Yeshua'. Jesus spoke the Aramaic tongue, a Semitic language, related to both Arabic and Hebrew, but closer to the former. The Arabs, in their Semitic dialect, knew him as 'Isaa. In the ancient times, all Semitic peoples traced their lineage through the father, and not the mother, since sociologically and genetically this is more accurate. Therefore, since Jesus was born into this world without a physical or biological father, he was not considered of that particular people or tribe, which in his case were the Hebrew people, practicing the distorted Mosaic Law of the time, and calling themselves "the descendants or children of Israel (and people of the previous Kingdom of Israel, established by King David)," or Israelites. Israel was the title of Jacob who fathered the 12 tribes. One of his many sons had the name of Judah. So the Israelites of Jesus' time and region also called themselves "descendants of Judah, (and people from the previous Kingdom of Judaea)" or Yahudis/Yehudis/Judaeans, now known as Jews. Jesus was not a Jew (since he had no biological father from that particular people), but he was a correct practitioner and authoritative scholar (Rabbi) of the undistorted Mosaic Law, established for the Israelites by the Hebrew Prophet Moses. The Jews called their scholars Rabbis, because "Rabb" means "Lord/Divine," and was applied to kings, landlords, learned men, and God Himself--since "Lord" has the connotation of a sustainer (one who provides for you basic necessities like food, drink, clothing, shelter, life, immunity, etc.). So in this last sense, just mentioned, he was a Jew, and he was also a Hebrew--only to the exent that his pure mother was a Hebrew and Israelite. Secularists and atheists are correct in maintaining that the Anglo-Saxon blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is a definite myth or fiction. Intelligent and faithful religious people are also correct in asserting the historical Middle-Eastern man, dark-haired, ruddy, and from the land traditionally known as Palestine. For brevity's sake, Jesus is the son of God, figuratively or metaphorically speaking, since he was a great lover of wisdom or philosopher ("philo" in Greek meaning "love," and "sophia" meaning "wisdom"), just like Socrates and Plato were in ancient Greece. One of God's attributive-names in the Arabic language is Al-Hakeem or "The Most-Wise." He who loves wisdom, loves God, and the attribute of wisdom is the golden mean between being a genius and a fool, both being extremes and abnormalities. All the ancient Biblical Prophets of God were great lovers of wisdom or philosophers, and in different places and times they were called by different titles, befittingly in those different languages. In India, we have "Buddhas" or "Enlightened Ones," and one of their major prophets sent to the Northern Indian people was Siddhartha Gautama, known to us as the "Buddha." They all preached and taught against atheism and polytheism--the two main roots of all social injustices and personal psychological problems, and specifically taught monotheism. Allaah is God is Deus is Brahma is Tao/Dao is Gott and etc. Furthermore, they all "submitted and surrendered" to the will of the Father to achieve "peace," as a state of mind and as a political state. In other words they submitted their limited intellects and physical abilities to the All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and Almighty, the great spiritual and active force--Tao--of the cosmos, to become "whole and complete," which gives "peace," spiritually and politically. In the Arabic tongue, the concept of "submitting or surrendering to the will of God, in order to attain peace, psychologically and socially" is denoted by the term "Islaam," and a Muslim is "one (male or female) who submits to the will of God to achieve peace." All the messengers of the world, throughout history preached and taught this same very sublime concept (Lao Tsi the Wise Sage, Socrates the Great Philosopher, Confucius the Wise Sage, Plato the Philospher, Moses the Interlocuter, Joshua the Just Warrior, Isaiah the Visionary Prophet, Daniel the Wise Dream-Interpreter, Abraham the Great Patriarch, Jesus the Christ, John the Baptist, Siddhartha Gautama the Great Buddha, and Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets, and the many many more that are not mentioned or known to us from the Scandinavian lands, of Germanic origin, from the Black tribes of Africa, from the Native or Indigenous Americans, and etc.). Peace and blessings be upon all of the messengers and prophets of God, and especially peace be upon our beloved Prophet Jesus the logos or word of God, and His spirit, and the Messiah (or in Greek "Christos") of the Israelites, and even more so peace and blessings be upon the final messenger and prophet of God, who was an Arab, ethnically, but who was the only one sent to all of humanity, for all succeeding generations until the end of this worldly life for humanity. For God's sake why don't you people understand--is it that difficult? You only have one life, and you all shall die one day, either in young age or old age. Wake up to reality, wake up to the truth. "Don't judge the religion by man, but judge man by the religion" (Imaam al-Ghazzaali, classical Muslim theologian, may God have mercy on his soul). Religion is nothing other than the outward aspect of a spiritual tradition. Reason and Science go hand-in-hand with God's true religion--Islaam--as is historically and academically documented, when Muslims were true Muslims by the actual definition of the word as explained above, and acted according to the universal ethical laws, expressed in its most perfect sense in the spiritual tradition and religion of Islam.

Some of my favorite discussons and research assignments have involved finding the threads that bind the myriad forms of religious expression. Not just Christian and Islamic sects, but Abrahamic and Dharmic religion as an entity unto itself.

Right now, there is a theory that all religions originated from a single source -- much like Mitochondrial Eve is thought to be the birth mother of humanity. From what I've been able to gather from my studies, I believe that the problem lies not in our ability -- or even in our willingness -- to engage in meaningful discourse surrounding different forms of religious expression, but in our fear of discovering that we are not really so different as we have allowed ourselves to believe.

Imagine if a Christian found something that they could relate to in the Upanishads, or if an Orthodox Jewish person started adopting Tao Te Ching tenets. What would we do if the President of the United States were photographed with the Torah in one hand and the Qur'an in the other?

But wait a second! All of these sacred texts speak of love, peace, fair dealing, and living an honest life. They all teach the importance of developing trust, respect, and a caring attitude -- both toward ourselves and toward others. Sometimes the deity is called YHVH and sometimes the messenger is called Arguna. Why does it matter? If we're all following tenets of love, respect, and open-heartedness, why do we fear being alike in our spiritual journeys outside the confines of ink and paper?

I think we're afraid because if we did come to the conclusion that there really aren't any major differences among us, we'd live in a world without war, famine, and turmoil. We are afraid of the quiet peace that makes the war machines rust and turns declarations of war into dust. We say that we want peace, but when it comes to doing what it takes to usher in that peace -- for instance, embracing our differences instead of using our differences as a dividing rod -- we cower in the fear of ostracization by our families and communities-of-faith. As if being a Christian means rejecting every other sacred text, or risk being accused of blasphemy. Y'know, there are worse things than being called a blasphemer. Like being called a hypocrite. Or worse, being called a coward.

I am so grateful and so happy to be a 21st century Christian whose Christian denomination encourages interfaith dialogue and study. I look around and I see the Christians of my parents' and grandparents' eras, and all I want to do is wake them up to the reality that God is too big for their tiny boxes with tiny labels. I want to tell them that no matter what name they have for God -- even if they have no name at all and/or choose to not believe in the presence of Spirit -- that that's okay. God/Allah/Vishnu embraces everyone because that's what a benevolent and kind Spirit does.

At the moment of birth, we all received the power of choice as a birthright. Sometimes people do things that harm others with that birthright, and that is tragic. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't care or that God doesn't exist. It means that God is true to God's own word in allowing each person to decide where, when, and how much Divinity or Spiritual Intervention we want in our lives. Sometimes innocence dies; sometimes innocents die. But the spirit, which is our Spirit, can not be destroyed -- and, to me, that is beautiful enough a reason for me to believe in God and to try to follow the path of the Teachers that Spirit sends to teach me benevolent and unconditional love, respect, and peace.

Chatterjee, again with the snide wisecracks. "little learning." I have been listening quietly to your endless bickering with this Victoria person for the last couple of hundred messages and it looks like she answers your anger with patience every time. What is it? Some kind of rape fantasy? You really think you are going to defeat somebody here? We get your message: "Islam sucks, Islam sucks, Islam sucks." Okaaaay. We got it. You say something intelligent then you blow it with that nasty tone. If you want to be convincing don't be insulting.

Victoria:

Funny you have responded. Karl Marx was extremely critical of Islam. So, is Sam Harris. Does your little learning include these ?

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

Long name. No? It is a list of my own religious experiences as my life has moved along. In my early 60's now, and looking at where I see religious people, and those who claim to be "religious," I've begun arriving at some, to me at least, startling conclusions:

1. That the Jewish Jesus (Yeshua Hammaschiah) was the same "One who has the likeness of the Lord," as seen by Old Testament prophets, was the pre-incarnate Jesus, before he took on human flesh, and became a Jew ("Jew" only means "one who praises God.

2. This leads me to believe that, in order to be "saved," I have to become a Jew, though not one in the flesh. I was born French, German, and Native American. I think, in order to do this, I must first discover the real, not today's idealized, philosophized version, of what it is that the unchanging God wants me to believe and practice.

3. This, it seems to me, would require that I discover the religion and it's practices that God first gave to His chosen people who were to pass it on down to the whole earth, but got caught up in "being CHOSEN," speaking of the Jewish religion. It seems to me that my past religious experiences have been sort of moving in the right direction, one to the next, but not yet back to the original religion as practiced by Jesus, then the Apostles, Paul, and John and Phillip, LONG after Pentecost.

That brings me to the conclusion that Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of unleavened bread, the Feast of Dedication as kept by Christ, and the Apostles after Pentecost, the Feast of trumpets, and the others, are yet to be kept, though WITHOUT the animal sacrifices, as Christ was the Sacrifice for the remission of sin.

Today's "Christian" practices that try to make sacred days like Christman, Easter Sunday, and Lent, and others, all originated from the worship of the sun god, and Tammuz. All of them originated in ancient Babylon, and were carried forward through Greek and Roman empires, and emanated from the wars fought between western and eastern Patriarchates, down the road to today.

Some have said to me: "What difference does it make, what days you observe to honor God and His salvation to uswards." Jesus, who was and is God, said it much the same way He did in the Old Testament" "In vain do they worship ME, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

If we Christians expect to, as our prophecies tell us, gain the original people (the Arabic people we call ethnic Jews) into the Church before Christ returns, WE WILL NEED TO STOP TEACHING PAGANISM-AS-CHRISTIANITY, so that they can, in truth, see the need for their, and our "Jewish" Messiah.

YWVH Bless You. He was and is Jeshua.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

deb-

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

karl marx wasnt saying (organized-your parenthetical interjection might be construed as slightly obscurant in intention) religion is to be abolished- but the abolition of it as a tool of illusory happiness. he was making an observation about the abysmal social conditions that needed to be addressed- not an indictment of religion in general as is commonly thought when this oft-quoted sentence is taken out of the context of the entire expression (arguably) intended.

it is an indictment of the social conditions- not a comment about all (organized) religion.

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

also as grandma kitty used to say-
you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Hey, More Signs:
Thank you for your drive-by mockery. I'm an atheist and I have several friends who are scientists and who are also very nice people, (with the exception of one jerk) and since we're all guys we have great conversations about science, women and power tools. I also visit various scientific discussion sites to put my humble two cents in.

The reason that I'm over here is because even though I don't believe that the assertions of religions are real, the fact that religions themselves are real, and all over the earth affecting our lives and cultures, and lately are boiling over into what could be a very real cataclysm, is an extremely important reason to engage in respectful dialogue with religious people.

If it's so interesting over at your scientific gathering, what are you doing here?

I agree with what Karl Marx famously wrote/said/advocated:

"(Organized) Religion is the Opium of the Masses."

Religion (as distinct from spirituality) is really a defunct and obscurantist social order.

if scientists are the nicest people youll ever meet- youre not building much of a case by belittling and judging the people here...

were trying to be considerate of each others beliefs(or lack thereof) if youre only reason for taking the trouble to post is to put people down that dont agree with you you might as well call yourself a fundamentalist scientist

HA HA!

There's not even any real conversation here. Come over and join the good folks at a scientific gathering. You'll hear rousing good and REAL arguments over things that actually exist as opposed to things that you make-up in your head to feel better about yourself. Not to mention that most scientists are the nicest people you'll meet, if they're not religious and therefore trying to judge you on that basis.

Refuse Irrationality, Embrace Reason and Fact,

Farewell Religion!

you have a very busy mind- maybe you should try transcendental meditation! i always loved in the muppet movie a running gag where someone said they were lost and kermit theee frog said,'have you tried hare krishna?' what did i want to post? sing those annoying songs you will have the dual benefit of
1) getting rid of them
2) annoying those around you

PAM MELOY- what a nice thing to say

dont feel bad- i always say that this scarf brings undeserved abuse but also undeserved respect because often muslim brothers and sisters too will assume that i possess a piety or goodness that may not be true just cause you have an outward appearance of it- so it works both ways- and i am quick to warn them of this to with my ever moving mouth--i think i had a point but it seems to have dissapated into the ether peace

free adult web cam

http://myblog.es/adult-web-cams

free adult web cam

http://myblog.es/adult-web-cams

free adult web cam

http://myblog.es/adult-web-cams

Victoria,
On that, Nietzsche (I had to look up the spelling) was an optimist. I'd say that which does not kill us makes us weak enough so something else can kill us.
I'm ashamed and angry to hear about how people have treated you. You're not depressing us, we need to hear it. I know it's not unique, either. In Europe it's getting worse. Will there be muslim Ann Franks hiding in secret rooms to avoid the camps? I get scary thoughts sometimes, sorry.
Yes, the absence of belief. It's just not there. I have thoughts, preferences, principles, memories, feelings, dreams, hopes, fears, annoying tunes in my head, but assuming the truth of something without sufficient evidence just does not occur in my mind.

Victoria, I have read many of your posts. I have not commented because I am in no way knowledgeable of your religion and don't wish to debate it with you anyway. I want to apologize (not much help) for so many ignorant people. Unfortunately you are correct when you say people fear what they don't know.

You are very brave and must be totally dedicated to your beliefs to endure all that you have. I have no personal experience as you have had except with my friends who just happen to be black or gay but I can tell you that I have black friends that are treated the same way you are still today. I also have had many gay friends who still live in fear of their employment and just walking the street at night alone. This country has a long way to go. I lived for many years in PA and can remember a time when a black co-worker would not go out to dinner with me because I wanted to take her to a section of town that was called by many "The White Shore". She actually had a panic attack at the thought. It has become somewhat better for minorities but we all have a very long way to go.

Take care

interestingly enough one of my dear friends is high priestess of a coven in pittsburgh, and im afraid there is just as much nfighting and power struggles as there is in any group of humans- also i wanted to interject that my experience after 911 ws quite different- as a hijab(headscarf)wearing blue eyed american- i found no lack of fear and hatred directed at me- bricks in my window---( i was the only person on my (main street with a peace sign painted on my windowshades-all the other sheeple had american flags proudly hung) arrested twice- my head covering ripped off my head by the police- threatened - screamed at- spit at every single day-(an old lady came out on her porch every morning to spit at me on my way to work) and my drivers license illegally taken away from me and thousands of dollars in fines to get it back after 3 years- even in the mosque some people thought i was a spy- what does not kill me makes me stronger(yes richard, i know im quoting neitzche) i hope the spelling police arent around--- i moved to new york and my dad asked me if i went to ground zero- the meaning implied is that i should go and apologize somehow-theres more but im depressing everyone- but all i can do is be patient and kill them with kindness- i think all are welcome here- buddhists- taoists-hindus-great spirit-
but an interesting thing is- almost every single day someone asks me where im from- when i say pittsburgh pa they always say- before that?
hee hee and it happens twice thrice weekly that someone calls me sister or asks if im a nun- 2 times last month 2 different mexican men crossed themselves when they saw me and grinned- people see what they want to, dont they?

ill tell you what- its not a boring life-

richard- absence of belief? you MUST believe in SOMETHING! kittens? soft fuzzy feelings? helping old ladies across the street?hehe

gerry- i maintain through my long and circuitous spiritual path that i have thought long and hard.
it could happen...
peace

Pat- Starhawk has a page on this site. She is Wiccan. If you go to "All on Faith Panelists" and scroll down you will find her page.

I have been posting on here since the first day and have found that ALL feel comfortable expressing their own beliefs. However, most feel comfortable with the pages dedicated to their own personal beliefs.

Welcome and happy blogging!

When I read the synopsis of what this conversation would be about I questioned how unbiased and how fair it would be.

For instance will you be including ALL religions or just the Judeo/Christian groups. Will Pagans, as well as Buddhists and other religions be a part of this lively discourse.

I am betting that its NO especially with Pagans/Wiccans and Witches. They are a growing group and are finally recognized by the government as they should have been long ago.

So how about it, Everyone? Or Just the few?

I will take the Sam Harris action figure. I know exactly where to put him. I don't think the knives would be a very safe thing for me to own!!!!!

HI PAM! Don't worry, the fruitcake won't stick to your ribs, just tickle your funny bone. This thread has recently developed into an interesting series of exchanges with very little of the vitriol that was in the first several hundred comments. Yours was number 800! You win free membership, a set of Ginsu knives, and a Sam Harris action figure!
Keep commin' back!

Since I am on a diet there is just to much "fruitcake" here for me.

The answer to the original question, "Can there be common ground?" is simply, NO!

Gerry,
I have met a few others here who speak of that freedom. I guess I never thought about it that way, because I didn't have to escape anything.

Victoria,
What an amazing story about your refusing to go to heaven until Hitler was let in! I absolutly love it. How old were you when you were born?

Richard,

I admit: The temperature is cooler for atheists. But the invaluable feeling of freedom outweighs this a thousand times.

Victoria: Hell, Dschehenna - never mind: The accent lies on "eternal". What a "benign" revenge fantasy of a god, or rather of human projections on this god...

Gerry

Victoria,

fine for you as to your comforting belief system.

Strictly logically speaking, the fact that your parents were atheists (agnostics, nonbelievers, whatever) is no proof against the brainwashing of vulnerable children: In our class in school many decades ago there was a charismatic catholic religion teacher, resulting in half the class wanting to become preachers.

Nor is the fact that your parents were atheists any argument in favor of a split system for thinking vs. believing, which I still regard as dishonest against oneself, even if ever so involuntarily.

Gerry

trish stratus porn

http://myblog.es/trish-stratus

trish stratus porn

http://myblog.es/trish-stratus

Oh, and Victoria, intrude all you want. You always intrude so respectfully.

Victoria,
There are several interesting things (as always) you said in your last post that I’d like to respond to, but for now I’ll take on Margaret Atwood’s statement that “Atheism is a religion because it believes in something unprovable. (there is no god)” And I am definitely NOT an expert. So if there are any scholars out there who can correct me and clarify this, please do. (By the way, there’s something amusingly oxymoronic about the term “confirmed agnostic.”)

I’m surprised at such a generalization coming from someone like Ms. Atwood. That kind of argument is usually used by a theist who really dislikes atheists. What exactly is the point has never been clear to me.

Firstly, it’s even harder to make accurate general statements about atheists and atheism than it is to say accurate generalities about the great religions. Atheists tend to be very independent people. They have all sorts of reasons and points of view. (There’s a very helpful article in Wikipedia you’ll find if you google “weak and strong atheism.”)

Basically, there are two main kinds of atheists: weak and strong. Some do not believe there is a god, and they’re called “weak atheists.” (I hate that term. “Call me a weak atheist, will you!? I’ll kick your epistemological ass!!”) Anyway, this is the absence of belief in god or gods. Here the definition of belief I’m using is, “assuming the truth of something without sufficient evidence.” I find myself in this “weak” category. (Oh, well.) I just do not do the mental activity of believing. I may be confident of the likelihood of something if there’s sufficient evidence, like the earth is round, or I can pay my phone bill, but believing, or believing the opposite, just doesn’t come up. Many people who believe in things have a hard time conceiving that someone could simply be free of belief. They think everyone has to have beliefs, and so they assume that atheists must all hold the belief that there is no god.

That’s where “strong atheists” come in. Here, just as in the “weak” group, there’s a lot of variety. Some believe there is no god, and a very few even say it’s their “religion.” (maybe they just want the tax-exempt status, but I don’t want to insult anybody.) I think some are confused by not being clear what they mean by “belief.” That word is sometimes used as shorthand for a set of opinions. They may actually be weak atheists and not realize it.

I think more confusion comes from the term itself, “atheist,” which is from the latin a- for “without” and theos, for “god. I suspect it was coined some time in the Middle Ages when people couldn’t fathom just not believing, and it may have had a disapproving tone, the way “godless” is used in America today. I wish we had a term like “afideist,” which means “without belief.” Alas, it’s not in my very huge dictionary, so I have just made it up. This is probably why many people without belief are identifying with more affirmative terms, such as “humanist, freethinker, rationalist,” and many others which focus more on what’s important to them, rather than on what’s not important to them.

So, is atheism a religion? Not because some theist says it is. Their arguments are silly and uninformed. Also not because some atheists actually believe there is no god. People believe in all sorts of things, like say, Bigfoot. That doesn’t make Sasquatchism a religion. (Watch, just because I put it out there, somebody’s going to start the First Church of Sasquatch.) If a very few atheists want to say they have a religion, okay, whatever. I’m not going to argue with them, although I don’t think they get together for the purpose of not worshiping something, or even more confusingly, to worship nothing. When non-believers get together, if at all, it’s to find ways to survive in an extremely hostile environment.

salaams (peace) all-
having no talent at all as an apologist for islam- ive decided that im not going to respond to anymore negative depictions of my consciously chosen faith- i realized all my ramblings were reactions and started to bore myself so i cant imagine how many yawns ive inspired.

i was sitting here watching bill moyers faith and reason and he had margaret atwood on- she wrote 'the handmaids tale' and is a confirmed agnostic.

this is an interesting statement that she made regarding atheism and i found it compelling-
im not insulting anyones beliefs but just relating an idea

'atheism is a religion because it believes in something unprovable (there is no god)

also she mentioned a philosophy ive never heard of called antimonian, which is the belief that there are people who are 'elect' from divine decree at birth and are automatically saved and so there are no parameters to their behavior on earth- she she said (I THINK) that she BELIEVES tony blair is an adherent- i dont know if this is her observation or where that information came from-

gerry- the king james bible inserted the word 'hell' in place of the word gihinnom many places in the bible- gihinnom is the place outside of the walls of jerusalem where people threw their garbage and it was always burning- in that conext when you read the bible you come away with a very different perception-(sadly alot of bible translations have picked up this mistranslation)

i heartily disagree with the statements made that people are inculcated as vulnerable children with religious ideas- my mom was an agnostic and really wasnt interested at all in it- and my father was an atheist and it was a great annoyance to my mom when i wanted to go to church when i was 6 or 7-
she sent me off and i dragged my lil bro with me and he spent his collection plate money on candy much to my dismay. everything to do with God in my life has to be personally felt- i have a great suspicionof the motives of people who try to have any say n my relationship with ALLAH which is my own highly subjective experience...

ps just an aside- i was kicked out of bible study when i was 11 because i said that i wasnt going to go to heaven until hitler was allowed in---
i guess i thought it mattered to God if i was left out- and i was going to petition until every single soul got in-i thought that if god is all merciful and forgiving that means everyone gets inand i felt sorry for anyone left out- i think i still believe in the absolute forgiveness of god

pps richard there is no such thing as too much patience - i have my own lifestroy of patience paying off but it took over 30 years-im 45btw
peace
hope i wasnt intruding

Sajjad,
We need 100 million more like you distributed evenly around the world. Can you please repeat what you just said, everywhere you go?

Very briefly, what is the ultimate purpose of organized religion in the first place? Forget about the means to the end, just lets focus on the end.
If the answer is to serve God, then how can serving God, be separated from serving his creation, fellow human beings?
As such, any religion that refuses to accept and acknowledge others beliefs is man made and truly not serving the greater purpose of harmony and mutual existence.
In Koran, the value of “Haqqooq-ul-Ibad (the rights and duties towards fellow human beings) is stressed and a value placed on it is higher then “Haqqooq-ul-Allah”. (the rights and duties towards God, such as worship)
It’s a shame that people fail to acknowledge the true strength of their religion in that doctrine, and even people in other faiths fail to stress on the significant presence of guidance for treating their fellow brethren with respect and honor.

If one wakes up to this simple reality and studies the core belief of their own religions there is much more for us to have a common ground, then what is not.

Gerry,
Yours is a remarkable tale of survival. You escaped not just with your life, but with your humanity as well. Not everyone can be so tough. Journeying is difficult; being at home is easy. Doubting and questioning is uncomfortable; having things all settled feels good. Acknowledging that we're orphans is scary; believing we have a strong parent is reassuring.
I'm not making excuses for people. I'm saying we have to remember what we're asking them to give up, if we say come outside and wander with us through the cold wind of reality. We must balance patience with diligence. Too much patience, and nothing changes for the better. Too much diligence, and we become destructive, because we forget to respect others.

Richard,

I am an atheist, too, thanks for outing yourself as an honest thinker. I have an "unbelievably" profound feeling of awe, wonder, curiosity, admiration, love, joy, surprise - you name it, I have it - towards the miracles of nature, starting at the inexplicability of my own existence, of the inexplicability of life, of evolution, even of matter, of the cosmos. Lots of common ground here!
For me, there is so much more miracle simply in my fingernail than in the story of somebody walking on water.

I think religions represent the rather helpless effort of people whose imagination (and knowledge at the given times of their origins) is insufficient to even perceive this inexhaustible miracle, looking for a rather primitive MATERIAL proxy (all cultures have created gods!) for their uneasiness. Wotan, the god of lightning and thunder, is out of date today, since this small fraction of nature can be explained by electricity and sound waves. Nobody believes in him, worships him any more. But he was as real and as demanding as any other god, Jewish, Moslem or Christian, who threatens everybody with hellfire who does not believe in him!

Call me arrogant, but I think there is more simplistic materialism in religions than in an ever searching, profoundly honest atheism. Religions somehow can be "handled" (and look how perfectly the different "denominations" organize themselves!), they represent a system with a certain inner stability and consistence which does not require the slightest connection to reality and, what's more, the changing and developing viewpoints towards reality. Just compare Newton's to Einstein's reality!

One of the core phrases in the bible is Pilatus' ironic rhethoric question: "What is truth?" Truth is, what at a given moment a person is able to perceive and affirm, nothing else, and certainly nothing valid "a priori".

Therefore, people who stress the "eternal" character of their respective truths simply have abandoned the insight that life and history is PROCESS, LEARNING, EVOLUTION, DEVELOPMENT, not truth.

When I was 7 years old, I was a fervent Nazi, aping simply what everybody brainwashed into me, including the fact, that Pope Pius XII had arranged a "Reichskonkordat" with Hitler, and most of the protestant church called itself "Deutsche Christen". At 12, I was a fervent Christian, again mirroring the "belief" I was brainwashed with. At 16, then, I did not tolerate the dishonest double standard of thinking and "believing" any more.

And, Richard, I do not think there are two very distinct sorts of neurons in my brain, some for thinking, some for believing - they are all interwoven, even if they can be located with different functions.

Gerry

Gerry,
Yes, well it would seem that the ability to think and the ability to believe are two quite independent abilities. Someday soon we may map exactly where they occur in the brain. I know people who are capable of intricate, critical thought, yet have irrational beliefs that clearly, blatantly conflict with the knowledge they posess. Their brains don't short out like when Captain Kirk poses a conundrum to a robot. A few people, not being dim-witted can perform this mental shrugging of the shoulders, and can have diametrically opposed things living in their heads. Others can't. My heart goes out to them. They're both smart and earnest, which means they will eventually come to a crisis. They're conflicted, confused, and realize they have to make a choice of what they must banish from their minds. Will they believe what their families and clergy have taught them, or will they follow what they can see for themselves? What their eyes tell them doesn't match what they've been told. Will they accept statements that are self-contradictory, or follow their own simple logic? They have been indoctrinated by people they love and respect that skepticism is a vice, and to be suspicious of reason. It is a hard, often painful choice.

i have never heard a muslim respond that a question is haram. haram means something that is strictly forbidden by ALLAH, and not only are questions not haram- the Qur'an encourages one to question and use reason and judgement. if any one ever gave you such an answer- they are incredibly stupid-
(this isnt a personal negative observation of anyone in particular- just some unknown confused person out there who gave you this silly answer)

religious scholars dont say Mohammed(swa) was described in an undiluted testament- there are current descriptions in the bible that fir the Prophet(swa) right tnow- what they say is that the name Ahmad(which is a name he is also known by) was removed from the songs of solomon
peace

when you see that person who told you that a "question" is haram- inform then it is not possible and disagrees with the Qur'an and press them for a real answer or better yet leave them alone as they dont have the intelligence to give you a reliable answer

Why do you all forget that Jesus said that he who does not follow his teachings shall go to hell (eternal torture)? Is it just ignorance or distortion of facts in favor of an argument? There is no difference between the religions in this respect: "Truth" demands prostration of EVERYBODY else! If religious convictions were not introduced to intellectually defenseless children, it would turn out that no religion has anything to do with the most valuable present "God" or nature has bestowed upon us: The human ability to think!

Gerry

Why do you all forget that Jesus said that he who does not follow his teachings shall go to hell? Is it just ignorance or distortion of facts in favor of an argument? There is no difference between the religions in this respect: "Truth" demands prostration of EVERYBODY else! If religious convictions were not introduced to intellectually defenseless children, it would turn out that no religion has anything to do with the most valuable present "God" or nature has bestowed upon us: The human ability to think!

Gerry

diet pills with ephedra

http://myblog.es/ephedra

diet pills with ephedra

http://myblog.es/ephedra

Dear God: Boyoboyoboy have you ever changed! Or maybe I have... beyond self-recognition. I can remember penning these words in book 10 of my CONFESSIONS: Quid ergo amo cum deum meum amo? (What is it that I love when I love my God?)..I never got the answer to that but I was immensely happy with the unknown depths that the question implied. I always felt that my love for you was erotic....not genital...but immensely pleasurable for it lifted me out of my own stupid self and set me down on the threshold of the Other. Oh I remember the feeling and it makes suspect that YOU ARE AN IMPOSTER!

Love
Gussy

Dear God:
Thank you for your revelation of your Frankenstein's monster religion, stitched together from parts of these two rationally bankrupt old corpses. You would somehow reanimate this ghastly thing, and let it stagger around saying, "Arrrrgh, friend good! Arrrrgh, fire bad!" Then as in Mary Shelley's novel, it would turn on its maker..... I guess that would be you.

Perhaps another "way forward to peace in the world" might be to let these two organized lunacies continue to bang their heads together, and in the disgusting process continue to discredit themselves in people's eyes. More and more people will get sick of the whole thing, and eventually just walk away.

The common ground is to expose the conspiracies in religion. One of these conspiracies is the birth of Jesus Christ. Did Jesus actually born in December 25th or a manufactured date by the Christians? Don't tell me about the Bible we are reading today. This Holy book have been graviously diluted by religious leaders to suit their confort. The Bible and the Quaran were meant to be the answers to unexplained questions, but these books have been the problem to unexplained questions. Everyone interprete these books to suite his or her confort. When the Christians doesn't have an answer to a question they reference the holy spirit and when the muslim does know an answer to a question they say it harram to talk about it.

I know many people may surprise by the Name God, but should not be because both in the Bible and the Quran it is mentioned that 'God created man in his own image' So the son of God is a God. So I am a God.
Now to the topic. Both Islam and Christianity have become a problem for the world for the fact that both sides have followers who go to the extreme part of their religions. I studied comparative religion in college. Reading both the Bible and the Quran, there is not much differences. The Quran talks about Jesus and Mary more and accepted Christianity in the text more than the muslim do, while the Bible does not mention by name Mohammad, even though some religious scholars argued that the old undiluted testament described a person that fit Mohammad. The entire episode is religious descrimination that brought us to this situation. Why don't we all just accept one's relgion. It doesn't matter whether one is a christian or muslim. After my first year. of studies I came to the conclusion that a moderate new religion is necessary to go between the two most religions and I came up with a religion named "Chri-mus". It is a mixture of christianity and islam. If you have questions about this religion you need to contact me. It's the way forward to peace in the world.

Richard,

Talk about common ground, eh! I don't see any other recent posts....maybe we've bored everyone into silence. I for one will now put a cap on it.

It's been real

Paul,
Thanks for that pearl. Bookbinding? Yes! Keep the lost art alive.

Richard,

Thank you for the comment. My path does sustain me just as yours sustains you. May we all remain open to the unforeseeable. I have been meditating on these words of Blaise Pascal; "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas."(the heart has its reasons that reason does not know.)

Your friendly, 71 yr old, ex-priest, ex-counselor, wannabee bookbinder.

Paul,
Thank you for your refreshingly open-hearted stance. It takes a lot of courage and patience to have your own intimate vision, yet keep a 360 degree view. May your path sustain you.

Your friendly neighborhood atheist

I am a Christian. I take institutional forms of this faith with a huge grain of salt. I am responsible for my faith which I work out in the depths of my inner caves and those caves are dark and can be no one else's. How can my faith possibly be of any interest to anyone else? I may choose to worship with others on any given day but I am acutely aware that the person sitting next to me must have a different understanding of the words we mouth together unless we make no effort to understand. The common ground that we may experience together does not come from a text or a teaching authority but is gratuitous and should come as a surprise. That common ground should not impel us to try to make converts or to engage in insanely futile arguments with others.

My response to my own faith is patient expectation of the Other and respect for the multitude of other reponses.

The early settlers' concept of freedom and the resulting insistence and guarantee of freedom in America comes directly from their Protestant, free-will choice reading of the Bible and resulting persecution from the tyrannical Catholic Church. From the earliest development of hospitals, schools, The Red Cross and Social Security, whether begun in the U.S. or elsewhere, most all such concepts and developments come from Christians living out the purpose, meaning and direction they found for their lives after personally accepting by faith the Way, the Truth and the Life, Jesus Christ. Being created by God in his own image required the free-will choice to truly love Him and one another as we love ourselves or do the normal, unredeemed human thing, which is, just live for self at everyone else's expense. Our freedom also results in all kinds of Christians at different levels of understanding and maturity that confuses any discussion such as this, especially for non-Christians. Most people are not even aware of the non-denominational, evangelical house church movement around the world today with small groups having and being "church" without "seminary-trained" clergy/leadership, including in the U.S.

i think we are
1)boring everyone silly
2)getting slightly off point

im gong to refrain from monopolizing this post for a bit so forgive my non response peace

salman rushdie didnt doubt- he wrote fairy tales which contained almost no conjecture as to the validity of the message or not- his satanic verses are hardly an exercise in theology- people got mad because he portrayed Mohammmed(swa as a pimp, not because he had any opinion about his message- theo was making a film about the social conditions of women and was sensationist as it was intended to sell-- anywhere you will find people attacking institutions and others trying to silence them- that is not an argument for the validity or non-validity of any issue.
blowing up an abortion clinic isnt an exegesis on trinitarian theology- its an act of violence and proves nothing more than man's inhumanity to man.

Karen Armstrong , while she is a great historian, tries to often to humanize the Prophet(swa) and bring him down to a human perspective - it diminishes the message- she tries to explain everything in a logical and western oriented style which has brought a great deal of understanding to people who have had no prior knowledge of islam, which is fine but does not make her the darling of muslims- in some ways her writings downplay the spiritual aspects and while she makes it more palatable to western audiences- it isnt a very inspired telling.

ibn ishaq? get off those anti-muslim websites!

ill find something better- i cant remember the names right now.
you have a very probing mind- ill try to find some better food for it. ok peace now

Victoria:

No one can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the surahs Muhammad received were actually from God. It is Muhammad's claim that they were so; no one doubted him then (1400 years ago) in Arabia. Tragically, the few today who have doubted the same have faced violence. Salman Rushdie, Naguib Mahfooz, Tasleema Nasreen (Muslims) and recently Theo van Gogh (Christian) are tell-tale examples.

However, Muhammad was by all mortal accounts very much illiterate. So, formulating a grand plan like installing monotheist Islamic society, he *had to* bring in the existence of a supernatural (God) whose existence the simple-minded Arab nomadic tribes could not deny. These nomadic tribes were praying to their own tribal deities. They simply needed to switch from their gods tol the monotheist God that Muhammad told them would help them, if they embraced Islam and accepted him as their leader.

In absence of any independently verifiable proof on the Divine origins of Quran, I would state that this (tactic) shows his genius and sharp intellect and foresight, which we must respect. You know what ? Muhammad may have had a I.Q > 180.

You may disagree and find this view offensive. But, you are a Muslim who is obligated not to question the validity of the faith (Islam). Fortunately, in today's times I can conjecture as a non-Muslim (kafir).

But, this is my view on the origins of Islam upon reading a few more biographies of Muhammad, from where Martin Lings (and the darling of Muslims - Karen Armstrong) has borrowed extensively. (Read any translated and unadulterated/unsanitized version of his biography - the earliest by Ibn Ishaq written circa 800 A.D.)

Also, I would refuse to judge a person who lived 1400 years ago by standards of today's western society. That would be unfair in my view.

the simple illiterate genius.
actually his military prowess was mediocre at best.
the system of polytheism made mecca very wealthy.
many many men tried to broker power- he was offered the power of ruling all of the tribes and being their uncontested leader if he would give up his preaching.
He refused. if his motives were power consolidation it was offered to him and he refused.
he did not invent guerilla warfare.

so youre saying the quran was "probably inspired" and that Gods plan was to give women, power and wealth to a bunch of simple illiterate arabs in the middle of the desert?

your words---
polytheism. Thus, he invited each head of the tribe and told them that if they worshipped his God (Allah) and abandoned the ancient polytheist practices then his God would give them whatever they wanted: power, women and wealth. (The various revelations in the Quran at the various stages are testimony to this fact.) I would submit that these surahs were probably divinely inspired, but that ???

this isnot a deep analysis--- this is pure conjecture and what you imagine-

there is far fetched- and there is further fetched- this theory doesnt even begin to follow facts or logic. youre just making this up.

peace i dont have the energy to even begin to try to sift through this there are so many valid works out there- start with martin ling- thats a good and simple version-

your piece here is so erratic, at one point you say Mohammed(swa)was a brilliant tactician with no divine inspiration- then hes an illiterate simpleton with a god who promises women and wealth- then hes a genius again with a non-existent angel whispering in his ear- its too further fetched.

just read anything about his life
peace i have to go

Victoria:

I have to clarify my position regarding my respect for Prophet Muhammad.

1. He ushered a new system of monotheist faith (Islam) and used violence to spread that message when his peaceful methods failed. Many creative efforts can begin in chaos and violence. One may muse that creation of this universe 14 billion years ago started with the Big Bang - chaos. It did not begin by peace and love for daffodils. So, is childbirth. (Being a woman you might already agree with this).

2. He was a very practical man with a singular focus on spreading his message. (I have a hard time agreeing that the message was divine.) It was his tenacity, leadership and genius that propelled this message. Being practical in nature and most rule-oriented, he formulated a practice system, that is like a fortress. Once you enter the fortress, you are protected and you must protect the fort in turn. He invented the rules and envisioned the system - way of life - Islam whose roots are "al-silm" (means "the surrender/submission"). The consequence in today's time is that - to the joy of you and your fellow Muslims - it is the fastest growing religion in the world. It is the same way as Muhammad left it. Almost unchanged, unreformed over 1400 years. (Whether that is good/bad in the 21st century, is a separate but important debate.)

3. The genius of Muhammad comes apparent when one deeply analyzes how and why he formulated the system. His motivation seems to be to eliminate the ugly behemoth of polytheist practices in Arabia. That being realized, he set out to find how could he amass power and respect. Here the genius comes. The ancient pre-Islamic arabs were divided in clans. Each clan was at each other's throats over women, wealth and food. To gain these goodies, each clan killed and attacked others and there was a constant warfare. Muhammad realized that if he could somehow bring all the clans under one umbrella so that they did not fight each other but consolidated power in him, he could become politically strong and ultimately achieve what he wanted to: install monotheism and eliminate polytheism. Thus, he invited each head of the tribe and told them that if they worshipped his God (Allah) and abandoned the ancient polytheist practices then his God would give them whatever they wanted: power, women and wealth. (The various revelations in the Quran at the various stages are testimony to this fact.) I would submit that these surahs were probably divinely inspired, but that really Gabriel came and whispered in his ear, is a figment of imagination. But, then I am a compulsive rejector of Islam - kafir. Anyway, the tribes - who were also illiterate found out that this person, Muhammad, would stand up to them provided they worshipped his God (Allah), and accepted him as their leader. To put his leadership ona very strong footing, which these simple minded Arab nomandic tribes would not doubt, he stated that his position is that of the Messenger of Allah who will bring the message of unity. The nomadic Arabs found out that they were getting what they were promised. Also, that truly they were increasingly powerful and can fight it out to gain what they wanted. And, that there will be no punishment from the Almighty. However, this bondage / brotherhood reaped the harvest for Muhammad: he slowly was becoming a force to reckon with in Arabia and was soon establishing power all over. The swiftness with which his named spread and that of Islam was out of the sheer physical force that the Muslims were gaining. Success made them more enthusiastic and aggressive. This gave the momentum to Islam.

4. Muhammad was personally very honest. He never cheated and lied or was unfair at a personal level for personal gains. (He broke treaties with Jews when convenieng at the flimsiest excuses that they were conspiring). His judgement was solid and good to help Islam become the sole force to be reckoned with in Arabia. He was very brutal with his ambition: to establish Islam. But that's OK with great leaders. Many have taken issues with his personal life. However, while the facts are what they are, Muhammad did not do anything that was unheard of in Arabia - 1400 years ago. This revenge killing - blood money - did exist much before Muhammad. If someone killed you, then some other member from your family could suddenly assassinate the culprit. It was brutal revenge - eye for an eye policy. That was the practice. He had kept this custom in Islam. Similarly, taking female captives and other women as concubines was a practice in Arabia and he just kept the practice. It was nothing unheard of in those days. We are not talking about Geneva conventions of warfare.

5. His military genius and commitment to fighting was remarkable, given the fact that he did not get any formal training in military academy. The way he sided with his comrades is exemplary. He invented (to my knowledge) the guerilla warfare (or as we know today terrorism). From a practical case, he used terrorism because he saw that a conventional war with limited resources cannot be fought against a well-heeled army. As his strength grew, he moved more towards conventional warfare. Recall campaign of Tabuk ? With respect to women captives he used the practice of ancient tribal methods. They would loot other's women, so he kept the practice but asked his followers to marry. Earlier men used to marry innumerably; he restricted it to 4 only.

Anyway, I can go on and on. I respect Prophet Muhammad because of what he was 1400 years ago. However I DO NOT agree with Islam as I know it today. The point that Muslim ulema misses is that 1400 years ago, a simple illiterate Arab made momentous changes. But, his followers in today's times are incapable to evolve that faith into a better form. Instead, by preserving the obscurantist nature of Islam, its relevance in modern times is down and if nothing significant happens, Islam shall die as all ideas/beliefs do.

deb- after all this we can agree- i hold the Prophet Muhammed(swa) in high esteem also- as well as a slew of others- we dont have to agree about everything-
hey isnt this an elusive moment of common ground?

peace and namaste

ps rush limbaugh continues to be a big fat idiot
( i just like saying that, apropos of nothing)

Victoria:

I have read the Quran/hadiths/sunnah and listened to all speakers including one Dr. Zakir Naik and Dr. Ahmed Deedat. And I have also heard others such as Osama bin Laden et. al.

Upon getting information from all sources in all possible forms, I have made the choice that I shall consciously reject Islam. Not that I have not heard about it and hence I am an ignorant person. To me Islam is a barbaric religion. However, quite surprisingly, I hold Prophet Muhammad in high esteem. But, I have rejected the message he spread (in many cases by the sword). That is, I hate the message (Islam) but I respect its messenger (Prophet Muhammad).

Can you get a grip with that ?

i was watching cspan2 this afternoon and was watching a very relaxed and peaceful african american congressman talking about the success of his grass roots campaign by having a coalition of people of all religions and races represented in his volunteer staff. Now i liked this fellow and when someone in the audience in Q&A asked him what his religion is- i was surprised when he said "muslim".

then someone asked "what about his taking the oath of office on the quran?"

his annswer was that he was on a public access show and was asked by a somalian moderator( somalia is almost 100% muslim) if elected would he take his oath on a quran.

he said yes,if he took an oath, it would be on the quran.

rush limbaugh got ahold of this story and flew off with it- he invited keith ellison on his show, but mr. ellison declined saying he is not an expert on religious matters.(who can blame him?)
here buddy, i hate you and everything you stand for, why not come on my show so i can mercilessly tear you apart in front of an audience that hates you too, then i can edit everything you say! sure rush! ill be right over!

mr. ellison said he would not hand a stick to someone to beat him with.

to date he has made no public remarks- no statements- conducted no interviews on this non-issue.

Ellison’s use of a Koran would be “damaging to the fabric of American civilization.” To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.

Prager’s patriotic prattling is misinformed on the facts, too. No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking an oath while holding a personal family Bible.

NO BIBLES OR HOLY BOOKS ARE USED AT ALL!!!!
mr dennis prager speaks
culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done – choose his own most revered book?

(see above where congressmen CHOOSE)

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Quran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal – the Islamicization of America

Dennis Prager, one of America's popular nationally syndicated radio talk-show hosts, is the author of several books and a frequent guest on TV shows such as "Larry King Live," "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes"

what nerve mr ellison has in suggesting all that matters is what an INDIVIDUAL believes. thats not america! o wait a minute, MR ELLISON SAID NOTHING AT ALL! THIS IS ALL MR PRAGERS OPINIONS.

RANDY HALL CNSNEWS.COM DEC 1,2006

Congressman elect Keith Ellison will NOT take the oath of office on the Koran. Niehter will any other member of Congress for no one has ever taken the oath of Congress with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah, or anything else.
In a group, they all raise their hands and repeat the oath that's prescribed in the Constitution.

SIDENOTE INDONESIA IS THE MOST POPULOUS MUSLIM COUNTERY IN THE WORLD

Equally important, Indonesia has witnessed many non-Muslim Indonesian have been holding various important and significant ministries including those of sensitive position such as home ministry, defense ministry, etc.

Based on both theory and practical reality, Indonesian used to see various Indonesian officials sworn-in in many holy books up their heads: Quran, Bible, etc.

the interesting thing is that Rep. Ellison was speaking mostly about the politics of fear that are fueling the political arena in America today.

Rep. Ellison is the both the first african american and muslim to be elected in his state.

so to cap

congressman ellison was speaking on a little known public access show-
rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot (my first personal attack)

congressman dont take oaths on books anyway
dennis prager speaks for everyone so we should all stop thinking and just shut up

the most populous muslim country in the world seems to have more tolerance in their government

sorry to disturb some folks with the FACTS

and rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot!

kafir- to conceal or cover up, to reject. a kafir is someone who has had exposure to , who KNOWS ISLAM- and has rejected it. kafir is not analagous with disbelief.

it is interesting that from the information you got the idea that violence in islam is an (errant) aberation- because what the bulk of her post is- is quotes from the quran- is the non-violence your own conclusion form the quran youve read here?

if you want to know about apostasy in islam- go to TOLEDOMUSLIMS.COM. There you will find the subject elaborated on by an apostate WHO CLEARLY WASNT KILLED.

3) The tax was not a penalty- but for people who freely practiced their own religion- but used the same services that were available to everyone but FUNDED BY THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY through the islam system of social welfare. also they were not required to serve in the military-

what youre suggesting is that the muslims should have absorbed into their own infrastructure the cost of supporting others who put nothing into its maintenance. and exempt from military service- not fighting the battles that insured their own protected status. how unfair!

i know many many indians who would disagree with your personal assertion that there was "relief" when the british came.
obviously this is a very personal emotionally charged issue with you.
the muslims ruled india for over a 1000 years and the majority of people were hindus---why werent the majority converted "by the sword"?
because they were within the protectorate of the muslims who provided the peaceful atmosphere where they worshipped as they pleased.

and what about the several thousand muslims who were slaughtered by the hindus, babies ripped from womens bellies- rape, torture- just 3 years ago in GUJURAT?

if you want to know what jews think about zionism- i suggest instead of listening to fox news- go do a google on RABBIS AGAINST ZIONISM, and you will find that the current israelis residing there have disobeyed their own scripture- it is not a religious action for them to be there- it is a political land grab which created the larges displaced refugee population this world has ever seen.
there are countless websites you can access and choose your own.

Well, mentally unstable, insecure,brainwashed, and gullible with limited options.
1 and a half BILLION people perhaps as grateful as they are for you speaking for all of them- its likely your asessment besides being wildly insulting is driven by personal opinion as opposed to any link to reality. you are lionizing racism on the one hand, and they say a preposterously sweeping bigoted statement like that.

i have endured pages of personal insults and wild attacks on your part and responded with good manners, but you are getting quite vitreolic and it is disturbing becasue there may be someone out there whose latent fear you may resonate with so im doing this as a protection and defense of we who are being attacked. if you didnt charge on us with your crusade, a response wouldnt be necessary.

I SUGGEST THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW THE VALIDITY OF THE "SCHOLARS " QUOTED- DO A GOOGLE ON
MAULANA MAUDOODI- THE HATE-MONGERER.

Again you only express what you hate. we get it, you hate muslims. you are zionist. other than that you remain "eerily silent" and refuse to commit yourself to any philosophy besides destruction of islam. are you FOR anything in this world?

so to cap-- TOLEDOMUSLIMS.COM apostasy in islam
from one who has been there

RABBIS AGAINST ZIONISM- any site from
those who KNOW of what they speak

MAULANA MAUDOODI-for the real
on the quality of "scholar" you
are utilizing to support your
ideas.

again deb, what is it that YOU BELIEVE?
thats what this site is for

To Sidrah:

Actually what you have written is informative, but does not match with the existing knowledge on Islam available (to kafirs). That means your "tafseer" on Islam is quite counterintuitive to what we non-Muslims know about Islam. Your views suggest that "violence" by Muslims (in the name of Islam) is just an errant aberration. Well, my readings of Quran, the life of Prophet Muhammad (sunnah), and the other commentaries by Islamic scholars - such as Maulana Maudoodi and Syed Qutb, or Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translations, suggest exactly the opposite. While I certainly lack the credentials/qualifications to "make sweeping generalizations" about Islam, that you have alleged in your post, I think my citing of what the Islamic scholars (I have provided names) should have been adequate and justifiable. But, the nebulous manner of your argument is quite confusing. These are the salient observations and with attendant generality:

1. Whenever any critique of Islam [Quran] is provided, it has been traditional/conventional to trash the critic's critique as irrelevant by the Muslims since the critic must not have sufficient authority over Arabic and Islamic sources. The contradiction is that the critic, to know fully the Islamic sources/interpretations needs to convert to Islam, know the sources and then make a criticism. This is absurd. If, to provide acceptable criticism of Islam in order to gain command over its sources, one has to (apparently?) convert, then that process would in all plausible senses of pragmatism, end any form of compromise ("to get along") solution to coexistence of Islamic and non-Islamic cultures. And, more importantly a Muslim (converted or not) cannot criticize Islam. That means s/he cannot criticize the validation of Allah's message or the divinity of the Prophethood of Muhammad. The punishments for such apostacy is death or other barbaric forms as stated in Quran (005:033). So, I think taht your allegation that none can provide valid and acceptable criticism of Islam without command over its sources is a merely a conniving ploy. This is just to stave off criticism. And that's the sole purpose of such allegations.

2. Yes, Prophet Muhammad preached Islam peacefully for the first 12 (610 A.D to 622 A.D.)years. However, his option to take up arms was a result of his shrewdness and political foresight, which Muslims accord on Allah telling him what to do. There is a interesting correlation between the history of evolution of Islam, and the gaining of political power of Prophet Muhammad. The correlation is that the latter revelations are particularly violent and happened when Prophet gained success in his military campaigns against those who opposed him. (I have to dig up the source, by Ali Dashti, who has provided this interesting observation.) Thus, based on this limited information, which probably cannot be considered as false, I find it amusing to see you imply that Islam spread through peace. It did not. Prophet's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq had stated that the first Muslims on campaigns struck terror in the hearts of the unbelievers. This tradiation of the Prophet followed even after his death.

3. Regarding use of violence and discrimination of unbelievers, the ayat from Quran (009:029) is quite explicit. (You can translate it better as you are more qualified.) Also, what you have stated about the "poll-tax" jiziya for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state, is utterly misleading. The very fact that an Islamic state (meaning ruled by Sharia) would enforce "jiziya" means that the "kafirs" must be treated as second class citizens, simply because they disagree with the message of the Quran (Islam). This, viewed in modern times - 21st century is racist bigotry. I do understand that 1400 years ago (in your parlance "premodern world"), such bigotry may have been considered as pristine. But, in my view, certainly not today (the world in which I live - I don't know about you). If Islam still can consider "jiziya" as better than all other systems, such shows the latent barbaric of the society that Islam advocates where Muslims are in majority. And, this was so oppressive that by the time Prophet Muhammad died, the non-Muslims of Arabia became almost non-existent. Thanks to "jiziya" and the "tolerant" nature of Islam.

4. You have just selectively cherry picked those incidents from history where one can find Islam as "benign". There are incidents elsewhere in world history, where the barbaric action of Muslims were unspeakable. India is a typical example. (I can cite volumes written by historians starting with Will Durant, Arnold Toynbee, even Al Biruni etc., but would desist from doing so because such citations would in all probably be dismissed by Muslims, or be taken as "intentional maligning of Islam" by kafirs.)
India was attacked by Muslim barbarians since 712 A.D. - by Mohammed bin Qasim from Mosul in Iraq. His expeditions are so graphic with violence, that it just contradicts what you assert. Also, India remained majority Hindu because of the Rajputs and Sikhs. They fought gallantly, because the former (Rajputs) were from the Kshatriya clan whose duty was to defend against aggression. It took several centuries for Muslim expeditions to completely overrun Sindh (largely modern day Pakistan). I am not going into gory details. This feature of the Rajputs and Sikhs have been noted by the various chroniclers in the courts of the various Muslim rulers. And again, you wrote that in India there were no "forcible conversions". That is false and incorrect. Qutb-ud-din Aibak (?)sent his general Ikhtar-ud-din Muhamamd-ibn-Bakhtiar Khilji in September 1132 A.D. to what is known today as Patna (in Bihar India). Bakhtiar Khilji went and razed to the ground the famous university of Nalanda (built centuries ago by the Buddhist scholar-monks), and decapitated in one day abou 600 monks and resident scholars there. He later wrote in his diary that he did thiis in accord with the Quranic percepts (per his own interpretation). Actually these were the norm. The Muslim rule in India did never advance the art, culture or learning as it existed before them. The rule brought in Jiziya and in many documented instances "conversion by the sword". Of course it is true that a large number of the lower caste people (shudras) did convert because of the torturous caste system that was discriminatory and equally barbaric. (However many of these shudras converted to Chrfistianity when British ruled India.) The situation of general life was extremely volatile. Depending on who was the head at Delhi, the rule was benign or most barbaric. When the British formally overtook India (the battle with Siraj-oudh-ullah and Robert Clive in Palassey), to many Hindu sub-kings and local rulers/chieftains it was a major relief. The tax and torture were reduced, and particularly the "jiziya" was eliminated from Hindus. There was a sense of transparency and fair law. Happily the "tolerant rule of Islam" in India came to its end.

5. You have quoted extensively from the Quran to show the tolerant nature of Islam. I would ask you to take a look the ayats (004:095), (047:004), (009:029), (005:033) in their contexts as revealed. (I may have more on this later, depending on your comments.)

6. You did state that Judaism and Christianity does not say anything about Islam, but Islam does. This is a ridiculous comment. The former two Abrahamic religions were revealed before Islam. So, how can Christianity and Judaism state anything about Islam. How can your great grandfather say anything about the way you look ? Also, in view of the Israeli-Palentinian conflict, I would ask you why do Jewish people have to surrender Israel to Palestinians ? Hamas has claimed to wipe of Israel off the map. The Iranian head honcho has stated (much to the peasure of KKK activist David Duke that 6 million Jews did not die.) In my view, if Jews have to leave Israel, then why would it be unfair on the part of Jews to claim back Saudi Arabia (particularly Makkah and Madinah) ? After all it is simply documented in history that Jews lived there peacefully with pagans (who were Vedic Hindus) till Prophet Muhammad drove them out.

7. You state that Islam has a message that is simple and beautiful. My view, from what I know, is that such is in the eye of the beholder. It is good for Muslims. Submitting before a diety (Allah) that calls (even in 21st century) for slaughter, and who spews hatred against those who are unbelievers/kafirs hardly has any moral authority to ask for submission to his grand plans. It is highly questionable why should someone (in the 21st century) leave his/her ancestral religion and consider Islam as morally superior. I understand that there are 1.5 billion Muslims and numbers are swelling due to conversion. But, my view is that such is a product of brainwashing. These are very mentally unstable persons who are insecure. They have limited opinions and are not analytical in nature. In other words most of the converted are gullible, and when questioned probingly can never provide a convincing answer as why Islam is fundamentally superior than other belief systems. When questioned why we see terrorism in the name of Islam, these Muslims blame America. It is always the fault of others (non-Islam). Such, in my view, is blindness or fanaticism. Unless such fanatical attitude is abandoned, Islam and non-Islam cannot remain compatibility. There will be an eerie silence or "bloody borders".

briana banks mpeg's

http://myblog.es/briana-banks

briana banks mpeg's

http://myblog.es/briana-banks

briana banks mpeg's

http://myblog.es/briana-banks

thanx miss v. and peace to you too

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

LPS no i was definitely talking to you LPS, i was responding to a post probably from the not so distant past somewhere..peace
pacifism was the point (but you know that)

I tried a rather lengthy post the day after Thanksgiving, using my home computer rather than my work computer. It seems to have gone to bit heaven, so to speak. This is a test - I don't want to spend another half hour typing to no effect.

levaquin tendon injury treatment

http://tiny.pl/9kgn

Dear Victoria,
Excuse me I was gone for few days...I think you mixed up the names LPS which is me and LJC who is the sender of the ayats. Yes..its me the taoist and I respect Islam as I do respect christianity. but I do not and can not respect people who misuse some well-spoken words said by some charismatic and open-minded men 2000 or 1400 years ago.
What is the big question? Is it a religion we humans should strive for or should it be rather a way of being(spirituality)? and how should we be? There is no doubt that I would defend an old woman being hit, but we humans dont seem to understand that the values our society is praising and shouting out of the TV-Sets mostly are so inhumane that if it goes on like this and we support those who stand for and defend these values, in a not so far future no one would even defend that old woman. it is like a moslem who is pissed off of the america policy but smokes Marlboro, drinks Coke and goes to Mc Donalds.We have to work together against corporates who are forcing all the values in one category, namely:profit maximizing.
If we give up our souls to the money, then money will become our god. And the changes I hope to fullfill are the following:
-educational(against social exclusion against pressure from above to bring more efforts)
-political(Thinking as one planet, will save the mankind)reform the planet!no globalization in a western oriented marketing-style, more transparency and foundation of a new value system called "economicethics", disarmament of all so called world powers at the same time and having severe controll mechanisms like protecting and anchoring this by an international law
these would be few steps of thousands which we really should start to work for. The most challenging task to the human beings as a collective is the function of the "self-organization". But who or what is self?
Believe me it is the whole Earth and not only America, Israel or Iran...
As Gaia's Child says:
...You might call it utopia
Call it ideal
But it’s the only way to heal
This phobia
Against ourselves and others
Brothers fightin’ brothers
Children totally misled by mothers
And do you know what else bothers?
“The exaggerated self fixation of others”
“I’m the best” is simply not true
cuz there are many other colourful flowers like you
so the best you can do
is to remain silent and act
step by step.
fact by fact.

But there is no silence about violence.
No democracy in a world full of hypocrisy.
No ‘You’ without ‘Me’.
No ‘Me’ without ‘You’.
No `takin’ without `givin’.
Livin'…
For and with each other.
I rather…
Dig my ooown grave
Than to live alooone by myself.
Separation turns you to stone.
Who’s the Knower? And what’s the Known?
One planet. One flesh. One bone.
This is the love zone
So please enter
The magnetic, mystic center
Where there is one gender
And Nature is our big spender
So make sure your shiny soul returns back to the sender.
And surrender!
And surrender to humane love
To peace and its white innocent dove.
Cuz enough is enough!
Actin’ cool and tough is enough.
Bein’ rude and rough is enough
Havin’ more and more stuff is enough

Because: I don’t think you wanna be a human bluff.

In Love
Living Poet Society

mr wade you always have good manners

as my mom used to say "et the head bangers bang"
ill try to take her advice more

stephen ive been at the point of death several times (3) or what i thought was death-1 medical- and i have totell you honestly that i wasnt expecting any miracles at all and wss at the point of acceptance and i prayed like a madwoman- i didnt think about anyone i was totally selfish- and i didnt see angels
or lights- only my own soul laid bare and they are the most conscious moments i have ever had and i try to recreate that sense of uegency because i had no doubt- and i was scared silly but there was never a moment even infinitesimal - you may say that is a lifetime of conditioning but ive conditioned myself and there is a communication there is a 4th dimension (like ouspensky said and there have been preternatural moments and they have rung so clear and strong that maybe they are stronger than reality sometimes. it was never god will save me but is and was gods will- well thats all.

just thought you might like to hear another perspective is all
peace

and if youre in the er all the time youre facing that point of consciousness all the time and im not presuming to tell you anything

may ALLAH bless you if that doesnt upset you me saying that

Stephen,
In the ER, as you have described you see people who are dying or in danger of dying. If they are conscious, I expect that they are terrified, as any healthy organism would be. In the waiting room are their loved ones, just as terrified, teetering between hope and fear, and most of them are openly or quietly or secretly praying. I share with you a simmering frustration and bewilderment from seeing what we both consider a gigantic fraud holding sway over most of humanity for millennia.

BUT we must soothe our anger by re-committing ourselves to practice compassion, empathy and most of all, patience. You have daily reminders of how extremely difficult it is for people to let go of even shreds of reassurance or comfort when they feel utterly helpless. In the ER, I'm sure that you leave them their comforts. That's the loving and humane thing to do. Outside the ER, over our whole lifetimes we must respectfully and gently coax people toward more rational ways of seeing life and the world, and it will take generations to make headway. The work you do is an example of high level moral behavior that is not dictated by any dogma or the desire to ingratiate a deity. Humans can be wonderfully good and ethical creatures without religion; there are many all over the world. It will be a very long time before most humans are living that way.

As Victoria would say,
peace.

Very good response Mr. Wade. In this day and age I can not understand how people base their whole lives on something that is so trivial, not to mention unprovable, impossible, and just plain delusional. As an ER physician, I have seen many people die and as such have never seen prayer or any other divine intervention do anything to prevent it. It amazes me how religion creates a double standard for any and all evidence that stands to discredit its tenants. In the beginning God is going to save them then later it was Gods will. You can never reach a common ground with people who have these ever shifting base
responses that validate their belief against all odds. Heck, If I remember correctly from my childhood, doesn't the bible say something to the effect that if you question it in any way you are guilty of sin. What a catch all proposition for the leaders of said religion to keep the masses in line. In my limited experiance, I can help but come to the ancedotal conclusion that a large percentage of religious people are uneducated in the sense of learning beyond high school and tend to be of the lower socio-economic class. I know this is stereotyping but it has some foundation in truth. Most religions harp on the reward of the poor and downtrodden in heaven and to hell with the rich. What a concept to keep the poor in the poor house and marching lockstep to the church to deposit a large chunk of their wages. I mean I just don't get why people need an imaginary friend that has forgotten humanity for all its existence yet is going to be there once they die. What a Joke considering no one can come back and tell them how they were fooled into living like a robot for someone or something that didn't exist. I would be pissed to know I didn't accomplish squat and gave away all I had and lived like a pauper to end up with nothing and the "preacher, rabbi, mullah, etc." laughed all the way to the bank as we killed and destroyed each other. Oh well, such are the delusions of man. No, there is no common ground with someone who lives their life based on another life after this one that they have no proof even exists.

Thank you for your time.

a salaamu alaikum sidrah thanks for your reasonable and informative post

peace

Ok so this is for all those people who continue to pick a few verses from the Quran to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of violence:

"The Qur'an does not teach that "infidels" should be killed, taxed, or converted as a matter of principle.These are common stereotypes about Islam. People who don't understand the religion like to toss around the accusation that the Qur'an teaches violence and anti-semitism. Unfortunately, a lot of people who buy into these misconceptions have distinctly Islamophobic agendas that preclude them from having any positive views of Islam.

Islam is a fourteen-hundred years old way of life. One simply can't take the scripture of Islam, which is the Qur'an (also spelled Koran), and make sweeping generalizations about the religion, particularly when one lacks the qualifications to interpret the Qur'an.

The Qur'an makes reference to different groups of non-Muslims. First, the Qur'an recognizes the natural diversity of humanity, "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Qu'ran, 49:13)

There is also the recognition that human beings are religiously and ethnically diverse, "For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!" (Qur'an, 16:93)

What then does the Qur'an say about "infidels?" First, what does the term infidel mean? It is not a Qur'anic term. It is a term that Christians have historically applied to non-Christians, particularly Muslims. Christian doctrine simply did not recognize the legitimacy of Islam. Hence, Muslims were "infidels," and usually placed in the same category as "pagans" and "savages."

The Qur'an speaks of "kuffar," or those who disbelieve, or cover up the truth, or deny the truth of God and His messengers. However, it is incorrect to translate "kafir" as infidel. The Qur'an also does not label all non-Muslims as kuffar, or unbelievers.

The Qur'an talks about a group of non-Muslims called "Ahl al-Kitab," or People of Scripture. These are people who have received divine revelation, particularly Christians and Jews. Therefore, the Qur'an automatically recognizes previous Abrahamic faiths and accords special status to the adherents of Christianity and Judaism. What is ironic is that Christian and Jewish doctrine makes no provision for the recognition of Islam; however, Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as divinely-revealed religions. But it is Islam that is always accused of intolerance!

The Qur'an is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition. Thus, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the completion of God's message to humanity. Muslims also believe that the Qur'an has been preserved in its original form since its revelation over 1400 years ago. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has not been altered by human hands. For Muslims, this is a miracle and proof of God's concern for humanity.

Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."

Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

The first battles the Muslims waged were in self-defense. They were disciplined and adhered to strict codes of conduct. Noncombatants, including women and children were not targeted. Furthermore, the Muslims avoided destroying property, livestock, and trees.

Even as Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia into the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires (Syria and Persia), non-Muslims were accorded certain rights. If they accepted the authority of the new Islamic government, then treaties were concluded and the non-Muslims paid a special tax, called a jizya. The options were not convert, die, or pay the tax. Instead, non-Muslims were allowed to practice their own religions and maintain their own institutions. In lieu of converting to Islam, they paid the jizya, or poll tax. This tax exempted them from military service and gave them special status under the Islamic system. Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system. In fact, some Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversion, because they preferred collecting the poll tax. This tribute system was very compatible with the political economy of the premodern world.

Islam could not have had the huge appeal it did if Muslims' first response was to kill "infidels." Within one hundred years of the Prophet's death, Islam had spread from Spain in the West to China in the East. Islam's initial spread was through political-military means. However, Muslim rulers usually insured that local populations could practice their own religions and have their own institutions, provided they accepted Muslim rule and paid their taxes. Muslims ruled places like the Indian subcontinent for centuries and did not forcibly convert the population. In fact, India remained majority Hindu under Muslim rule.

The Ottomans created a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic millet system where Muslims, Christian, and Jews lived together in peace. In fact, the Ottomans' elite military corp, the Janissaries, were predominantly Christian.

Islam's tolerance, and indeed welcoming, of other religions flourished in places like Spain, where Muslims cultivated an atmosphere of learning, scholarship, and art. Christians flocked to study in the universities of Muslim Spain.

Consider this:

In the Catholic Reconquista of Muslim Spain, Muslim and Spanish Jews were generally ordered to convert to Christianity, be expelled, or die.

When the Spanish Jews fled the Catholics, where did they go? They sought refuge with the Ottoman Muslims in Istanbul. This was in the 15th century. To this day, there is a Jewish quarter in Istanbul where the people still speak Spanish, descendants of the Spanish Jews who found a home with the Muslims!

Let's go back to the Qur'an:

The Qur'an says, "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah (God) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Qur'an, 2:62)

And, the Qur'an also states, "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Qur'an, 2:256)

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Today, as yesterday, and in centuries past, Islam speaks to people's hearts with the beautiful message that There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger.

This is a message that has inspired countless believers from all walks of life, a religion followed by over 1.5 billion human beings the world over, including my own family, who were raised as Christians, but discovered the beauty of Islam over three decades ago."
www.sunnipath.com

deb- we just have differing views of Islam- you to yours and me to mine.
thanks for the backup richard-

pacific rantings? thats an interesting oxymoron...

Deb,
I agree with you that Christ's message and Christianity are not the same. LJC gently corrected me on that. I just see extremely, extremely few people actually living that way.

I wish I could whisper this in your ear, but I can't. It's a public forum:
I think your posts directed toward Victoria are deteriorating. Steadily, more and more you attack the poster instead of the post. I'm not defending her; she needs no defense from me. She's strong and articulate, as are you. What I'm saying is the tone of your posts is becoming more shrill. By using more and more "ad hominem" kind of statements you are discrediting yourself as someone worth listening to. You're becoming tedious to read. I don't want to "get into it" with you. It's just a respectful suggestion.

Victoria:

Again I am just taking a note of your latest post.

1. "...if you have tie to sift thru every utterance of mine with such minute attention my words must have more impact than i imagined."

In my view, if you are serious rather than being a typical 'chatty kathy', then you must be more articulate than you think you need. Actually your present articulation is really having a very negative impact on your self-professed pacifist agenda. You don't seem credible at all as a Muslimah. Islam, the way we know it from books and other sources, is almost radically different. You seem to brush aside all that we know by your self-styled nice-next-door pacifist girl/lady persona. That picture is absolutely counterintuitive of the Islam we know.

If you have already known about the works of Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi, why did you in your earlier post state that I was preaching "hate literature" ? Repulsive as it does appear, these so-called moderate/pacifist Muslims have come up with a nice ploy: whenever confronted, they hide behind the morass of words. Thus, aggressive argument is euphemistically stated as "insulting me (Muslim)" or "racist" or whatever epithet appears to make the case stronger on the behalf of defending Islam.

Why do you think we cannot understand these antics or see through your pacifist rantings ?

Richard Wade:

Thank you for your clarification. I mostly agree with you. However I would not agree that Christianity and Christ's Message are the same. While Christianity has a history/legacy of bigotry and hatred, Christ's Message does not. The two are not the same, in my view. The situation is not comparable with Islam.

Deb Chatterjee,
You seem to think that I am defending Islam.

"Heaven" forbid.

Please re-read my post to you on December 10, 6:43 AM.

To clarify:
The problem is Islam, the problem is Christianity, the problem is Judaism, the problem is anyone and everyone who believes that an invisible master is telling them what to do. In individuals that is called psychosis. In groups it's called religion. Whether scriptures have peaceful or warlike passages is irrelevant. The march of these three religions across the world resembles three knives drawn across flesh. The killing will go on and on, whether their sacred books say to or not, until one group kills the others, and then it will turn on itself, infighting over smaller and smaller differences in sub-sects, and in the end there will be no glorious triumph of this absent, helpless god who can't do his own killing, who has to hire thugs to do his dirty work. There will be only the silence and stench of death. The crows and the flies will clean up the believers and the unbelievers, the violent, the peaceful, the cruel and the kind. There will be nothing left of us but a thin dark layer in the sandstone as the eons pile up. All because mankind as a whole went mad, wanting to have a father in the sky.

anyone can do asimple search for syed maulanamaudoodi relax deb i still dont know what you believe and if you have tie to sift thru every utterance of mine with such minute attention my words must have more impact than i imagined.

is the idea of a well spoken pacifist muslim so threatening to your preconceived ideas of what you imagine a muslim to be?

if you speak about islam- i just imagine you should have some knowledge beyond cursory-

i still dont know why my words bother you so much but i will still try to embody good manners and engage others who respect them.

as far as feeling you are justified in being aggressive- more power to you.

i hope you find what youre looking for.
peace

Victoria:

"Islamic rage" is to be fought rage. There is no mistake about this. I suggest you read Sam Harris, for a start. (That is his book END OF REASON... available on Amazon. In particular read chapter 4.)

Again let me "cherry pick" from your post(s):

1. "...i still maintain that its nonproductive and aggressive to attack belief systems..."

No it is not. Attacking ideas is what we should be doing. Not attacking someone personally. That is, I would attack Maoist ideas but not someone who had lived under the oppressive regime of Mao and maybe upholding Maoist views. It is not at all an unproductive system, contrary to what you might be thinking. By aggressive argumentation the world has seen the changes, and this aspect is to be reckoned as a virtue than vice.

2. "youre always so mad.
why do you respond so angrily to my posts?
i never insult anyone- i dont insist someone become muslim or that theyre stupid or misguided because they dont- i dont malign anyones religions- or make personal insults."

Again, I have not 'formally insulted' anyone. Show me if you can. This appears to be a ploy; if one cannot argue then the most potent defense is that the opposite party is "insulting" .... It appears as a loser's elixir. (I am not going to elaborate anymore. Take it or leave it.)

3. "...where you were attacking islam with hate literature..."

Hate literature ? Excuse me ! Sayyid Qutb or Syed Maulana Maudoodi wrote "hate literature" ? I have to give up ! I just quoted what these Islamic scholars have had to say about Islam. You think my quoting from their work is hate literature ? Why ? Because I am a non-Muslim and have no right to quote from Islamic scholars ? And while that maybe (??) so - if I stretch my view - how about Quran itself ? Aren't the verses full of hatred towards other religions, asking them to convert or else be killed ? Is that not hate, under the cultural beliefs of modern times ?

4. "...actually you lose credibility in my eyes if youre just trying to tear something apart that you seem to have a cursory understanding of...."

Well, surely we (non-Muslims) are not under any obligation to have a detailed understanding of Islam. Why should we ? The onus is on Muslims. Looking at what is happening in the world, I can hardly agree that my "cursory" understanding of Islam is inadequate. If you (and other moderates like you) have a deep understanding of Islam, then what role are you playing to tell your fellow Muslims who are engaged in radical Islam, and call for mayhem ? And, if my cursory understanding of Islam makes me less credible, so be it. The converse is true: you don't have any credibility because you have not been able to explain what is wrong with those "fringe minority Muslims" who are radicals, and have apparently taken Islam as hostage.

5. "...if you believe in something, have faith in something , then let us know what it is..
we can all engage thats why were here...if i want to go somewhere that everyone agrees with me there are other websites- but i like to have my ideas tested in the arena of public thought- tested but not persecuted ..."

Well, Victoria you may need to shore up more courage and guts. If you are tempted to try out your thoughts in a public debate, then don't get carried away. If you do, I'll start picking on you till you abandon these emotional outbursts. At least I am not personally attacking you. But I have the right to be scathing with your beliefs and arguments.

And, FYI, this is precisely the reason I have no respect for Islam (or Communism). Both ideologies have a hatred for criticism. You being a Muslim have simply gone out on a limb on this blogsite falsely accusing me of insulting you, when all I have done is to attack your hollow and often inaccurate statements. You have always tried to couch your reason with emotions. In short, your dislike and/or insecurity has been a defacto substitute for reasoned debate. Islam is the same way, but more brutal. Islam doesn't like arguments; if one opposes Islam the consequence is spelt out in Quran (005:033). Can you please let the forum know what this ayat states, verbatim ?

6. "... certainly had its share of "literal" interperters of the Qur'an and i muslt say their conclusions were usually right wing and non-forgiving and definitely not representative of the islam i know."

Too naive of you. I see a childish anger seeping out of your posts. You do agree, however, that there are Quran-literalists. Well, that may not be in sync with what you know, but then what you know is pretty small like a cesspool. The world of Islam is far more bigger, and you need to get familiar with that. That bigger world includes the "hate literature" by Sayyid Qutb and Syed Maulana Maudoodi.

I suggest that instead of going around and asking bloggers to be polite, nice, homely and tolerant of your naive views, please go to a public (or a university) library and read the monographs by Syed Qutb (MILESTONES) and Syed Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi (JIHAD IN ISLAM).

Our aggressive views have been formed by reading these and other similar monographs written by Muslim scholars. (You may not reckon them as scholars, but the Indo-Pakistani Muslim community knows about them. Ask them of their opinions on these two scholars.)

Good luck !

deb again--- when i was a new muslim i made the mistake of interperting the qur'an literally. i was always being gently (gently) corrected for this mistake. in my small experience the only people who interpert the Qur'an from a purely literal perspective are the fringe extremists and terrorists and also christians trying to debunk it.

it is the simple minds without the capacity for deeper thought that interpert it literally. ( i am not implying you are in this category, it occurred to me you might take it as such)

iwas very blessed to have constant interaction from one of the best minds in america- dr. amir ali who started and ran the islamic educacaTION AND INFORMATION CENTER NEXT DOOR TO THE muslim community center in chicago- sadly he passed away early this year- his wife is one of the first white women in america to come freely to islam about 50 years ago and is so respected that when you log onto pbs.org and ask some questions often you are answered by her. i spent over 5 years with this hgighly intelligent and kind woman (we were both the only blue eyed americans in a congregation of 2 or so thousand)

i moved 7 months ago to come to new york to marry and miss them both.

the muslim community center is one of the first and largest muslim centers in chicago which is a "mecca" for muslims- it has the largest hyderabadi community i america im not sure of the stats on its indo-pakistani community. mcc(muslim community center) was predominantly indo-pakistani and mahgreb(north african- moroccan-algerian-tunisian)
and certainly had its share of "literal" interperters of the Qur'an and i muslt say their conclusions were usually right wing and non-forgiving and definitely not representative of the islam i know.

i suspect you have reasons of your own for claiming that "every muslim scholar" interperts the Qur'an literally- but the fact is that most scholars do the opposite- it is mostly the small minded who do that.

as for anyone on this site "buying" my views- i couldnt be less interested.
maybe you want people to "buy" your views and are projecting your motives on me?

please engage me with civility in the future and i promise to do the same

i have a husband and cats to feed so excuse me...

deb well, i still maintain that its nonproductive and aggressive to attack belief systems- how you get that i am saying we live in a barbaric society out of that is beyond my comprehension.

youre always so mad.
why do you respond so angrily to my posts?
i never insult anyone- i dont insist someone become muslim or that theyre stupid or misguided because they dont- i dont malign anyones religions- or make personal insults.

at least i have "guts" enough to say who and what i am. so what!

i can see youve never had an intelligent conversation with an actual muslim- if you get 10 muslims in a room, 5 will not ascribe to a literal interpertation of the Qur'an.

you also conveniently have ignored my answer in my other post where you were attacking islam with hate literature to back you up- when i pointed that out, now you come out with more anger.

calling me nicey-nice is hardly a scathing indictment.

thanks for trying to be my thought police- but it wont work- actually you lose credibility in my eyes if youre just trying to tear something apart that you seem to have a cursory understanding of.

im talking about the ideology of islam- maybe youve had bad experiences with muslims and im sorry for that- but it wasnt me.

really, you havent any idea of my thought processes and your reasoning as to where it leads, where it leads? n whose mind?

if you believe in something, have faith in something , then let us know what it is..
we can all engage thats why were here...if i want to go somewhere that everyone agrees with me there are other websites- but i like to have my ideas tested in the arena of public thought- tested but not persecuted.

please direct your crusade at someone else.

just share what it is YOU believe- instead of tearing on others faiths.

what DO you believe in??

Richard Wade:

There are many theistic religions. None call for slaughter of those who will not believe what the theist religion/dogma states. Quran states such views explicitly.

My views, on reading the posts in this forum, are that most bloggers have not read the English translations (by Abdullah Yusuf Ali) of the Quran. Just read it before getting into an argument.

And, by the way, Islam unashamedly claims that it is incompatible with other societies. It states that God had revealed his message through the last messenger Muhammad. That's what all humans must follow. So, how can this be construed to mean that Islam accepts co-existence with other religions/cultures ?

Victoria:

Let me again "cherry pick". You wrote:

"the ayats you posted were in response to aggressions being perpertrated on the community at a specific point in time- and you know that.
they werent exhortations for violence against people of the book for all time, but a specific group at that time in history."

That's phoney baloney, Victoria. Muslim scholars have all agreed that whatever is written in the Quran is literally to be followed. Mankind does not have to alter the lines, as Quran is a time immemorial message from God. (Their logic is that if mankind changes the message from time to time, God [Allha] loses his credibility. So, since God is infinitely credible his message and their interpretation must be invariant with time.)

Can you please justify to readers on this blogsite why should we buy your interpretation over that by the most venerated Islamic scholars ?

Looks like you have a nice-nicey view of Islam and that view is totally counter-intuitive with what is going on with the Muslims in the present day world.

Victoria:

I believe that you are just incapable of engaging in reasoned debate. I don't know, and see no need to, you personally but surely your emotions take the better of you in a debate on this forum.

Let me "cherry pick" a line from your post:

"...but its just non productive and aggressive to post vehemtly and attack peoples beliefs, its just a lack of respect..."

That's precisely the problem. Debates over ideologies and viewpoints are a part of the secular western culture. A culture that has given you the ability to read and write using the Internet and post on this blog.

Following your view, if we cannot argue aggressively and oppose each other's views, then we must be living in a barbaric/tribal society. Also, if to be "getting along" means submission to someone's whims and fancies (like someone being emotionally hurt), I see that as equally counterproductive and destructive to the western ethos that we have embraced.

Finally, you appear to be unfairly alleging others of being aggressive and vehement without you reading what the Quran literally states on various issues - such as others who are different from Muslims (have not accepted or rejected Islam). The Quran contains verses that literally call for genocide and slaughter. Yes, many "westernized" Muslims have tried to put a "sanitized" spin on the interpretation of such verses, but that actually creates more suspiciuon and confusion than it dispels.

So, anyone would question someone like you - a defender of her faith - that why don't you have the guts (as LJC and Louis points out in their posts) to openly criticize the Quran of being aggressive and insulting towards other religions that are different from Islam ? Is that too much to ask after 1400 years since Islam was revealed ? (And, this analysis would be more fundamental than the Israel-Palestine question.)

Victoria:

I believe that you are just incapable of engaging in reasoned debate. I don't know, and see no need to, you personally but surely your emotions take the better of you in a debate on this forum.

Let me "cherry pick" a line from your post:

"...but its just non productive and aggressive to post vehemtly and attack peoples beliefs, its just a lack of respect..."

That's precisely the problem. Debates over ideologies and viewpoints are a part of the secular western culture. A culture that has given you the ability to read and write using the Internet and post on this blog.

Following your view, if we cannot argue aggressively and oppose each other's views, then we must be living in a barbaric/tribal society. Also, if to be "getting along" means submission to someone's whims and fancies (like someone being emotionally hurt), I see that as equally counterproductive and destructive to the western ethos that we have embraced.

Finally, you appear to be unfairly alleging others of being aggressive and vehement without you reading what the Quran literally states on various issues - such as others who are different from Muslims (have not accepted or rejected Islam). The Quran contains verses that literally call for genocide and slaughter. Yes, many "westernized" Muslims have tried to put a "sanitized" spin on the interpretation of such verses, but that actually creates more suspiciuon and confusion than it dispels.

So, anyone would question someone like you - a defender of her faith - that why don't you have the guts (as LJC and Louis points out in their posts) to openly criticize the Quran of being aggressive and insulting towards other religions that are different from Islam ? Is that too much to ask after 1400 years since Islam was revealed ? (And, this analysis would be more fundamental than the Israel-Palestine question.)

LPS- we seem to be coming from opposed positions- whereas you were a muslim that has embraced the tao- and i was a christian/insert religion or philosophy here- that chose to become muslim.

are you aware of just how vulnerable true pacifists are? once i sat with a mosquito on my arm sucking my blood and a friend came up and said,(knowing my extreme pacifism) you know vicki, you have as much right to that blood as the mosquito-and my response was that i had more and wasnt hurt by sharing.

(theres no malaria where i live)

ive stood in front of blows being directed to others and had my nose broken twice- my arm- wrist- countless things these were all different instances- and it wasnt that i wasnt practicing christianity correctly- i was following it to the literal letter-

humnas are not pacifists by nature-
christianity has no answers for this.

even though gandhi was a pacifist- he didnt mind advocating the creation of pakistan.
it wasnt really a practical or far sighted solution.

the ayats you posted were in response to aggressions being perpertrated on the community at a specific point in time- and you know that.
they werent exhortations for violence against people of the book for all time, but a specific group at that time in history.

i still dont kill bugs-as a matter of fact they fascinate me) and havent yet raised my hand against another creature- so islam hasnt revealed some latent violence in me-

we both know how weak people are and will use whatever is at their disposal to justify the worst of actions.

christianity preaches peace and that is beautiful- but it simply doesnt address the issue.
see the problem with turning the other cheek is that you dont take full responsibility- if you know someone is out there being violent- dont you have some obligation to ensure that thy are out striking other cheeks also?
or should we just as pacifists say- whew! im glad they stopped striking my cheek!

now ive had alot of violence done to me as a muslim too- and i havent changed my philosophy either, but the ayats youre quoting were talking about self defense too.

as a taoist what is the position on self defense?
are we supposed to sit and hope that humans will act on their conscience?
that hasnt worked so well.

islam adresses violence and has even proposed rules for engagement- extremely fair rules-
only respond when attacked and if the attack stops then go in peace- take no joy in killing if it must be done to protect the weaker elements of society- would you stand by and watch smeone hit your grandmother?
would you receive the blows for her?(as i did) or would you take it a step further and stop them from hitting someone elses grandma in the future?

now i have a limited knowledge and dont pretend to know everything about islam or anything but these are questions that ive asked myself and im interested in how others deal with these issues.

everyone keeps saying violence violence and focusing on the worst and ugliest behaviors of some crazy people who i find no sympathies with.

there are a great many lacks of justifications for violence in islam- i think you alreadyknow that-
peopel look with jaded and crooked eyes and pick and choose what they will to justify bad actions

the bible was used to justify apartheid and slavery and imperialist colonialism- all acquired at the [point of a sword-

im not going to start posting any scripture there are enough scripture wars going on as it is
peace

i have the luxury of not being socialized in islam- so alot of the things that seem to be accepted in muslim countries- i dont find justification for in the Qur'an.

LJC,
I stand corrected on your differentiation between the "message of Jesus" and Christianity. There's what we say and what we do. What people do is what they're really all about. I've been treated like dirt by people who say they follow the message of Jesus. I guess they're just Christians instead.

It sounds like muslims have a choice of two sets of principles to follow, and their leaders can pick and choose what passages will justify their actions. If they have such a choice in scripture, then the leaders and followers are fully responsible for the actions they take.

You finished with, "Today, in the West, we are witnessing the Islamic stage of weakness, but what will happen if more and more muslims arrive?"

What exactly would you do about that?

Richard Wade,

I didn’t use the word “Christianity”. I said that the “message of Jesus” (which can be found in the New Testament) is superior to the “message of Muhammed”. Jesus didn’t say that christians should kill their opponents. Jesus didn’t say to kill whoever rejects his message. ... It’s not because that someone who calls himself a christian kills another human being, that the message of Jesus is wrong. In the teachings of Jesus you will find no justification for killing another human being. So you can’t hide behind his message.

When you look at the message of Mohammed you find quite a different story. When Mohammed was in Mecca, he was weak, struggling to be accepted, often mocked at and ridiculed. He tried to appeal to the people of Mecca by being compassionate and loving. His teachings condemned violence, injustice, neglect of the poor. However, after he moved to Medina and his followers grew in strength and number, he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword.

This change in Mohammed becomes apparent when you compare the Meccan and the Medinan surahs. Some examples:

In surah 73:10 Allah tells Mohammed to be patient with his opponents "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously." While in surah 2:191 Allah orders him to kill his opponents "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out..."

In surah 2:256 Allah tells Mohammed not to impose Islam by force "There is no compulsion in religion." While in verse 193 Allah tells him to kill whoever rejects Islam "Fight (kill) them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s."

In surah 29:46 Allah tells Mohammed to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews) "Argue with people of the Book, other then evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to him." While in surah 9:29 Allah tells him to fight the people of the Book, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the last day...and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior."

To justify this sudden change in the Quran's mood from peaceful to militant, conciliatory to confrontational, Mohammed claimed that it was Allah who told him so. It was Allah who abrogated the peaceful verses and replaced them by harsh ones.
However the truth of the matter is that Mohammed became strong enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad.
Today, in the West, we are witnessing the Islamic stage of weakness, but what will happen if more and more muslims arrive?

As you can see there is no lack of justification for violence in the message of Muhammed.

LJC,
It's not very hard for anybody to distort a religion to use for violence. If you say that Christianity is "superior" to Islam because it has to be distorted to justify murder, that's like saying, "My gun is morally superior because it has to be altered against the intended design to be used to kill lots of people." It's easily done, so what's the difference? All the corpses piled up over the centuries didn't care how much nuance of theological rationalization was required by either religion; they just didn't want to be killed.

Deb Chatterjee
It's not just the nature of Islam, it's the nature of theistic religion. In America, the most extreme fundamentalist Christianity began in the poorest areas of the poorest states. That's where it starts, but then it spreads to more affluent areas. If this is a question of which came first, the gasoline or the match, let's forget about the chronolgical order. Religion and poverty are a bad mix, and the result is contageous. In the Middle East violence is moving out like a grass fire. In the West ignorance is spreading like an aggressive cancer.

Let’s not be naive. Muslims always want dialogue when they are a minority, but in muslim countries where they are the majority there is no dialogue. That should change if they really want dialogue.

You don’t have to distort the teachings of Muhammad to use them for violence. If you want to use the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God, for violence, you have to distort them. For me, that makes the message of Jesus superior to the message of Muhammad. If Islam renounces all violence and removes all the surahs from the Quran which encourage the use of violence against non-muslims, which state that people from other religions are second rate humans, then constructive dialogue is possible.

If Islam can live with the fact that they are just “a” religion and not “the” religion, in other words that there are many ways and paths to God, then there is a common ground for conversation.

i wasnt talking about the political qutb- i never read his milestones- but i never got that from in the shade of the quran and the jury is out on whether the us is on a course of self destruction or not- but its just non productive and aggressive to post vehemtly and attack peoples beliefs, its just a lack of respect, im not an atheist or buddhist but i wouldnt dream of insulting them or spend any time in pointing out their faults-

people can be intolerant from any perspective- and it always just as distasteful-

all humans have issues and angers and quarrels-
when i see opinions attached too hate literature using that very literature to justify their own hate-
something in me makes me speak up.

do you think if religion were removed from the picture the palestinians would be any less angry?
just a thought, nothing incendiary meant...peace

Living Poet Society:

I could not follow what you are trying to convey.

Richard Wade:

I disagree with your view that Muslims in certain countries are fundamentalist because of poverty. No. Its the nature of Islam. The 9/11 suicide bombers were all educated, and from well-to-do middle class - far removed poverty. Poverty acts as a catalyst in promoting terrorism. However the source of inflammation (religion) has to be present.

Victoria:

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest. That's what Sayyid Qutb's book MILESTONES says. Qutb also suggests that the liberal and permissive US society would destroy itself and then destroy other religions/cultures such as Islam. Thus, Qutb suggests that Muslims must take this US culture of decadance.

Osama bin Laden's reading habits included a good dose from Qutb. I came to know this from internet sources, but at this time the exact details escapes my memory.

I guess everybody's over at the Jenna Jameson site.

I think your site wasn't ready when I tried to post my comment.
Sorry about the unnecessary repititions. Washington post I hope you accept my apology. thanks
LPS

well the pope site has quietened down too, although alethia and i had a remarkably lucid exchange- me, im cleaning my toilet bowl and baking a chicken so ill fly out for a while too
peace
i DID post a joke on the new site in starhawks corner tho- a little off color maybe but its a nice safe place, also ahmad has a very uplifting convo happening peace

Ok, well your alibi checks out. Just stay out of trouble.

What's happened to everybody else? What, are we the free entertainment? Helloooooo! Yoooohooo!

twasnt me! i was busy errr...washing my hair,umm yeah! thats the ticket!!

Ohhhhkay, I see. Well, perhaps we should all get back to the important business of squabbling and bickering over who's to blame for Benladen being the Ubercreep.

well actuAlly i clicked on her link...no! dont click on her link!

sparkly feels like the lady dustin hoffman described as his date in rain man

No, really. When I read her post, some guy was walking by my desk and I said, "Hey, do you know who Jenna Jameson is?" He said she's a famous celebrity. So I posted, "Wow. We've attracted the attention of a famous celebrity." That's all I know about her.
DO YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT HER?? HMMM?

What does "sparkly" feel like?

Actually, not really a friend, more of a passing acquaintance. I don't even remember their name.

Uhh............ A friend told me.

Uhh............ A friend told me.

RICHARD!!! HOW DID YOU KNOW SHE WAS FAMOUS??
HMMM? i feel all sparkly now

Wow. We've attracted the attention of a famous celebrity.

Hi all!
very good site!!

http://myblog.es/jennajameson

Hi all!
very good site!!

http://myblog.es/jennajameson

DEB no but i have read sayyid qutb's "in the shade of the quran " volumes 1 and 2 and 6 the rest havent been translated yet- it is the most beautiful and poetic exegesis on the Qur'an ever. Also ivebeen trying to find his "art and beauty" or it may be "art and aesthetics" in english. snce you've obviously read him perhaps you might know where i can find it?
peace
ps how do you know the reading list of osama bin laden?

RICHARD excellent post- succinct but powerful- you should read 'all the shahs men' by stephen kinzer reccomended by living poet society there.
living poet society if you ever saw the revisionist history books at our schools in america-you would explode in a paroxysm of disbelief.

To Deb Chatterjee,
You asked, "Why do you see Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia, Palestine and most other Islamic (Muslim-majority) countries have a increasing following for these fundamentalist practices?"
One clue might be that all those countries have a huge percentage of their population living in grinding poverty under a rich, oppressive government. Extremism comes out of communities where people have nothing to lose. Communism grew out of the destitution of Russian peasants under the Czar. Nazism arose after the Great Depression had devastated the German economy far worse than it had in America. Wherever people live in desperate misery, demagogues can flourish.

Why is my message getting blocked? I tried it four times?
Knock knock to Washington Post ...anyone home?

To Deb Chatterjee and all the other respected participants:

I noticed that I couldn't be responsive to Deb's answers because of lack of time..
Nevertheless, Dear Deb...here comes the clue you asked for from Victoria on Dec 6th:
I think you may read my opinion about your response to my first question in the earlier mail written Dec 4th. The second question is more difficult to answer. It is shocking to me how many people in the western countries just answer to questions without knowing their own political real historical background(the real facts and not the mass media propaganda).
Let me tell you something about Islam again: In Iran, where I was born, after statistics there live more than 95% shia, but today just a few of them(who are privileged either by working for a cruel government or because of constant fear) sympathize with the arabic invaders, who call themselves the leaders of this country. Iran has its own non-arabic language and the people of Iran always tried to keep their ancient culture alive(which is more than 2500 years old). I dont know if you Deb and other Americans really know what happens today and what has happened to Iran after the revolution. I hope you are patient, cuz some questions need more time to be answered because of the complexity of our world.
I think history is like a chain:to find the roots for todays misery, one has and needs to take a deep look at yesterday. So this chain link what we see today is the spawn of the link before... What I am going to write here is also written by American authors.
Have you ever heard of the operation Ajax? In the fifties America(a young CIA, Kermit Roosevelt and many other puppets)torpedoed and sabotaged systematically the only real democratic Iranian government lead by the most sympathized Iranian politician called Dr.Mossadegh(refer to the book "All The Shah's Men' by Stephen Kinzer).
I'm just tryin to let you know that you can't ad libitum rip some country out of the map(space and time) and being ignorant about the massive influences and turbulences lashing from the outside.
Next example is the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979: Many political scientists(iranian,american and european) believe that even the mullahs were set in power by the western countries and camouflaged as enemies in order to run the war between Iran and Irak just one year after the revolution. But in real they were and still are fetching and carrying the devilish orders of their european,israeli and last but not least american masters. And if you don't believe that, so can you tell yourselves why the american hostages in Tehran were set free after just half an hour the american elections were decided in favor of Ronald Reagan?!!!And why does a german channel called Phoenix uncovers after almost thirty years the transfer of an huge amount of money(3000000000$)to the iranian(arabic or however)mullahs by the Reagan administration at the time of revolution? And who really did profit from the Iran-Irak War?Remember Oliver North? Or Irangate?
I hope Americans are not living a political"Clear-Your-Memory-Hell" as it is allegorized by George Orwell in his book "1984".
The third question is very finical to americans and may not amuse them:I just refer to two books:
1."Operation 9/11" by Gerhard Wisnewski
2."Secrets, Conspiracies and Conspiracy-theories of 9/11" by Mathias Bröckers
And if you don't(or do not want to) believe all of that, then you better read:
3."Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins

Let's reveal the TRUTH
May Gaia be with us
In Love
LPS

To Deb Chatterjee and all the other respected participants:

I noticed that I couldn't be responsive to Deb's answers because of lack of time..
Nevertheless, Dear Deb...here comes the clue you asked for from Victoria on Dec 6th:
I think you may read my opinion about your response to my first question in the earlier mail written Dec 4th. The second question is more difficult to answer. It is shocking to me how many people in the western countries just answer to questions without knowing their own political real historical background(the real facts and not the mass media propaganda).
Let me tell you something about Islam again: In Iran, where I was born, after statistics there live more than 95% shia, but today just a few of them(who are privileged either by working for a cruel government or because of constant fear) sympathize with the arabic invaders, who call themselves the leaders of this country. Iran has its own non-arabic language and the people of Iran always tried to keep their ancient culture alive(which is more than 2500 years old). I dont know if you Deb and other Americans really know what happens today and what has happened to Iran after the revolution. I hope you are patient, cuz some questions need more time to be answered because of the complexity of our world.
I think history is like a chain:to find the roots for todays misery, one has and needs to take a deep look at yesterday. So this chain link what we see today is the spawn of the link before... What I am going to write here is also written by American authors.
Have you ever heard of the operation Ajax? In the fifties America(a young CIA, Kermit Roosevelt and many other puppets)torpedoed and sabotaged systematically the only real democratic Iranian government lead by the most sympathized Iranian politician called Dr.Mossadegh(refer to the book "All The Shah's Men' by Stephen Kinzer).
I'm just tryin to let you know that you can't ad libitum rip some country out of the map(space and time) and being ignorant about the massive influences and turbulences lashing from the outside.
Next example is the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979: Many political scientists(iranian,american and european) believe that even the mullahs were set in power by the western countries and camouflaged as enemies in order to run the war between Iran and Irak just one year after the revolution. But in real they were and still are fetching and carrying the devilish orders of their european,israeli and last but not least american masters. And if you don't believe that, so can you tell yourselves why the american hostages in Tehran were set free after just half an hour the american elections were decided in favor of Ronald Reagan?!!!And why does a german channel called Phoenix uncovers after almost thirty years the transfer of an huge amount of money(3000000000$)to the iranian(arabic or however)mullahs by the Reagan administration at the time of revolution? And who really did profit from the Iran-Irak War?Remember Oliver North? Or Irangate?
I hope Americans are not living a political"Clear-Your-Memory-Hell" as it is allegorized by George Orwell in his book "1984".
The third question is very finical to americans and may not amuse them:I just refer to two books:
1."Operation 9/11" by Gerhard Wisnewski
2."Secrets, Conspiracies and Conspiracy-theories of 9/11" by Mathias Bröckers
And if you don't(or do not want to) believe all of that, then you better read:
3."Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins

Let's reveal the TRUTH
May Gaia be with us
In Love
LPS

To Deb Chatterjee and all the other respected participants:

I noticed that I couldn't be responsive to Deb's answers because of lack of time..
Nevertheless, Dear Deb...here comes the clue you asked for from Victoria on Dec 6th:
I think you may read my opinion about your response to my first question in the earlier mail written Dec 4th. The second question is more difficult to answer. It is shocking to me how many people in the western countries just answer to questions without knowing their own political real historical background(the real facts and not the mass media propaganda).
Let me tell you something about Islam again: In Iran, where I was born, after statistics there live more than 95% shia, but today just a few of them(who are privileged either by working for a cruel government or because of constant fear) sympathize with the arabic invaders, who call themselves the leaders of this country. Iran has its own non-arabic language and the people of Iran always tried to keep their ancient culture alive(which is more than 2500 years old). I dont know if you Deb and other Americans really know what happens today and what has happened to Iran after the revolution. I hope you are patient, cuz some questions need more time to be answered because of the complexity of our world.
I think history is like a chain:to find the roots for todays misery, one has and needs to take a deep look at yesterday. So this chain link what we see today is the spawn of the link before... What I am going to write here is also written by American authors.
Have you ever heard of the operation Ajax? In the fifties America(a young CIA, Kermit Roosevelt and many other puppets)torpedoed and sabotaged systematically the only real democratic Iranian government lead by the most sympathized Iranian politician called Dr.Mossadegh(refer to the book "All The Shah's Men' by Stephen Kinzer).
I'm just tryin to let you know that you can't ad libitum rip some country out of the map(space and time) and being ignorant about the massive influences and turbulences lashing from the outside.
Next example is the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979: Many political scientists(iranian,american and european) believe that even the mullahs were set in power by the western countries and camouflaged as enemies in order to run the war between Iran and Irak just one year after the revolution. But in real they were and still are fetching and carrying the devilish orders of their european,israeli and last but not least american masters. And if you don't believe that, so can you tell yourselves why the american hostages in Tehran were set free after just half an hour the american elections were decided in favor of Ronald Reagan?!!!And why does a german channel called Phoenix uncovers after almost thirty years the transfer of an huge amount of money(3000000000$)to the iranian(arabic or however)mullahs by the Reagan administration at the time of revolution? And who really did profit from the Iran-Irak War?Remember Oliver North? Or Irangate?
I hope Americans are not living a political"Clear-Your-Memory-Hell" as it is allegorized by George Orwell in his book "1984".
The third question is very finical to americans and may not amuse them:I just refer to two books:
1."Operation 9/11" by Gerhard Wisnewski
2."Secrets, Conspiracies and Conspiracy-theories of 9/11" by Mathias Bröckers
And if you don't(or do not want to) believe all of that, then you better read:
3."Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins

Let's reveal the TRUTH
May Gaia be with us
In Love
LPS

To Deb Chatterjee and all the other respected participants:

I noticed that I couldn't be responsive to Deb's answers because of lack of time..
Nevertheless, Dear Deb...here comes the clue you asked for from Victoria on Dec 6th:
I think you may read my opinion about your response to my first question in the earlier mail written Dec 4th. The second question is more difficult to answer. It is shocking to me how many people in the western countries just answer to questions without knowing their own political real historical background(the real facts and not the mass media propaganda).
Let me tell you something about Islam again: In Iran, where I was born, after statistics there live more than 95% shia, but today just a few of them(who are privileged either by working for a cruel government or because of constant fear) sympathize with the arabic invaders, who call themselves the leaders of this country. Iran has its own non-arabic language and the people of Iran always tried to keep their ancient culture alive(which is more than 2500 years old). I dont know if you Deb and other Americans really know what happens today and what has happened to Iran after the revolution. I hope you are patient, cuz some questions need more time to be answered because of the complexity of our world.
I think history is like a chain:to find the roots for todays misery, one has and needs to take a deep look at yesterday. So this chain link what we see today is the spawn of the link before... What I am going to write here is also written by American authors.
Have you ever heard of the operation Ajax? In the fifties America(a young CIA, Kermit Roosevelt and many other puppets)torpedoed and sabotaged systematically the only real democratic Iranian government lead by the most sympathized Iranian politician called Dr.Mossadegh(refer to the book "All The Shah's Men' by Stephen Kinzer).
I'm just tryin to let you know that you can't ad libitum rip some country out of the map(space and time) and being ignorant about the massive influences and turbulences lashing from the outside.
Next example is the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979: Many political scientists(iranian,american and european) believe that even the mullahs were set in power by the western countries and camouflaged as enemies in order to run the war between Iran and Irak just one year after the revolution. But in real they were and still are fetching and carrying the devilish orders of their european,israeli and last but not least american masters. And if you don't believe that, so can you tell yourselves why the american hostages in Tehran were set free after just half an hour the american elections were decided in favor of Ronald Reagan?!!!And why does a german channel called Phoenix uncovers after almost thirty years the transfer of an huge amount of money(3000000000$)to the iranian(arabic or however)mullahs by the Reagan administration at the time of revolution? And who really did profit from the Iran-Irak War?Remember Oliver North? Or Irangate?
I hope Americans are not living a political"Clear-Your-Memory-Hell" as it is allegorized by George Orwell in his book "1984".
The third question is very finical to americans and may not amuse them:I just refer to two books:
1."Operation 9/11" by Gerhard Wisnewski
2."Secrets, Conspiracies and Conspiracy-theories of 9/11" by Mathias Bröckers
And if you don't(or do not want to) believe all of that, then you better read:
3."Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins

Let's reveal the TRUTH
May Gaia be with us
In Love
LPS

Hi all!
very good site!!

http://tiny.pl/9xq3

Hi all!
very good site!!

http://tiny.pl/9xq3

Victoria:

Do you have any source which I can independently verify regarding your denouncements on Maulana Maudoodi ? Also, have you read Sayyid Qutb's famous MILESTONES ? (This book is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.) So, you say that Salafism and Wahabism are fringe Islam traditions and are essentially rejected by mainstream/moderate Muslims like yourself ?

If that is so, why can't moderate Muslims oppose and obliterate these radical and fundamentalist practices/traditions ? Why do you see Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia, Palestine and most other Islamic (Muslim-majority) countries have a increasing following for these fundamentalist practices ?

Any clues ?

Dear Victoria,

I am sorry I put your name at the top of one of my posts. I did not do it on purpose. Can you forgive me?

In Jesus Love,

Alethia

Victoria,
Thank you for your response. I'm glad to hear that Middle Eastern Muslims are denouncing the extremists. I wish I could hear about it more often on the news.

As a person in pain to another person in pain, I wish you peace. Many people here are expressing their anger. A few more honest and courageous ones are expressing their hurt. Underneath all anger, the real feeling is hurt. Only when that is acknowledged can people talk without a sense of threat.

I am an atheist. So I'm an outsider. As an outsider, I see terrible things done by greedy or ambitious or simply hateful people misusing the name of a merciful god; things done by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and I can only say, "This is all madness." I know not all the people of a religion are like that, but sadly there are enough on all sides to cause enormous suffering. I see all this and I hurt. I hurt really badly. That's my natural, human reaction. This is why people like me, and there are more than you know, reject all of it. The details may differ, but from standing on the outside, these religions look like they're suffering from the same madness.

I'm not selling atheism. I'm not saying do what I do. I'm simply describing my point of view. I just won't touch something that drives so many people mad, something that is so easily and frequently perverted to justify greed or ambition or hate. When people are convinced that "god is on their side," they become capable of doing anything their leaders tell them to do, no matter how horrific and cruel.

Atheists are the most misunderstood and hated of all the groups. We get it from all sides. People hate atheists more than they hate gays. Ridiculous things are assumed about us. I'm sure the Muslim people you personally know are decent, compassionate, loving people. Well, the atheists I personally know are also decent, compassionate, loving people. The ones I know don't want to take away anyone's religion, we just want the madness to stop.

I don't know how any of this can be worked out before the whole world is burned to a cinder. My only tiny, tiny hope is that at least right here, we're talking. Maybe the willingness to talk will spread the way the madness has spread...

I denounce such barbarity.
IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN WHAT ISLAM THE RELIGION TEACHES ON THIS SUBJECT GO TO

TOLEDOMUSLIMS AND LOOK UP APOSTASY IN ISLAM
IT IS WRITTEN BY AN APOSTATE.
HOW CAN HE WRITE IF HES DEAD.

RICHARD I READ 2 PUBLICATIONS CALLED 'THE MIRROR' AND 'MUSLIM OBSERVER'. I DONT KNOW IF THEY HAVE WEBSITES BUT EVERY OTHER ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE MUSLIMS USING THE QUR'AN TO DENOUNCE EXTREMIST BEHAVIOR.
THEY ARE publications that have contributors from all over the world. muslims are speaking out in droves against terrorism because our religion demands it.

we are actually commanded to speak out against the oppressor and tyrant. if we dont it is a sin.
(i use the term sin as a catch all for "wrong" not everything is a sin but supporting evil is wrong

bsolutely muslim clerics continually denounce such behavior.

in isalm, just as i christianity- suicide is a grave(no pun intended) sin- an ungrateful rejection and abuse of this beautiful gift of life and there are no 72 virgins promised- the first time i heard of such an idea was western media and i said,WHAAAAT???

look at indonesia with the larget populous of muslims in the world. does anybody remember the wests reponse during the tsunami?
indonesia was last and least when it came to aid form the west. but muslims all over the world have helped them so it balances out.

greater minds than mine have pondered why the madness continues.

in gandhis autobiography- while he stated love for all- he still wanted muslims out of india.
there were more than a million roma(gypsies) murdered by the nazis- but they didnt ask india to repatriate them.
zionism has spread so much hatred and created the first refugee population in the world of massive numbers(palestinians)

george h w bush was in iran in the 40s with teddy roosevelts grandson developing the cia to steal their oil,
today india is reaping the benefits of a sweet nuclear arms deal with the us, and the us sends over a million dollars a day to israel for well over 15 years im not sure of the years there-

the cold war left the military industry of america
without an enemy to ply their trade.

people feel helpless and angry and overpowered the voice of peace and moderation never makes the news

manifest destiny (the using of the bible to prove that white men in america deserved to expand and use any brown or yellow or red people they liked because the bible said that they were "chosen")
saw the expansion of american imperialism and excused the slave trade which help make america the rich country it is today.

in islam slavery is openly denounced.
you cannot use the quran to justify it try as you may.
and the few passages so oft repeated here of violence in the quran are so wildly out of context that they dont bear repeating.

i could cite countless strange and violent sentences from the bible and mishnah and especially talmud but that would be an ugly way to spend my time.

why the madness continues....you have certainly penned the question of this age for sure richard.
my disjointed little consciousness just sprang up with these things, and most of them i learned when i was a christian and knew nothing about islam and had no reason to be sympathetic one ay or other...rather my sympathies were likely christian oriented.

i went to a meeting of the mossad supporters once and they showed me a map of israel and told me the arabs were trying to push them into the sea and i said, ahhh you poor guys! those bad arabs!and i believed them.
now i know the motto of the mossad is "victory through deception"
there are 65 resolutions against israel from the un and not one against palestine.
in 1974 the un declared the resolution that zionism = racism.

i know that alot of pre 911 "terrorism" was anger at the israel situation.

in islam one of the times where violence is allowed is if someone comes to your home you may defend it. but it says right after only if they come to your home and ALLAH hates the aggressors.

people all over will twist religious doctrine to support what they fully intend to do anyway.

i think this is getting rather long and i have to take my landlady curtain shopping. peace

ALETHIA IF YOURE GOING TO MISREPRESENT ME BY USING MY NAME- AT LEAST DONT START THE POST WITH DEAR VICTORIA UNDER MY NAME.

PLEASE FOR THE 5TH TIME I ASK YOU TO STOP HOUNDING ME.

ALETHIA- YOU MADE THIS SAME POST UNDER READERS RESPONSES ON THE POPE QUESTION.

DO NOT USE MY NAME ON YOUR POSTS PLEASE.

PLEASE STOP HOUNDING ME.

IM NOT GOING ANYWHERE AND I WONT RESPOND IN ANGER.

PLEASE GIVE UP.

I THINK IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TONE OF THIS ARTICLE IS UNCHARACTERISTIC OF EVERYTHING IVE EVER POSTED.

Hello Victoria,

The following is more from the same article about Abdul Rahman's conversion to Christianity and how it is a crime in Afghanistan. Note that this is the biggest Mosgue in Kabul. I guess it is the minority who have "highjacked Islam" in Kabul.

At Friday prayers in mosques across the Afghan capital, the case of Abdul Rahman and the consequent international outcry is the hot topic of discussion and the centrepiece of sermons.

"We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest.

"What Rahman has done is wrong and he must be punished."

Public mood

The issue has not reached the stage of street protests, as was the case recently during demonstrations against the publication in the West of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

But there is little doubt that feelings run deep and can easily be inflamed.

Worshippers at the Pulakasthy mosque in Kabul
The mood among worshippers in Kabul is hardening

"What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman.

"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."

Few were willing to listen to the growing condemnation in the West.

"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land," says Mohammed Qadir, another worshipper.

US President George Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by the case.

That cuts no ice with Mr Qadir.

"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."

Western backers of the Afghan government are pressing to create a country that is a moderate and progressive democracy, able to turn its back on its Taleban past.

But analysts say they often forget that Afghanistan is a deeply conservative country rooted in tribal traditions.

"This is a Muslim country. The state is Muslim, people are Muslim 99%," says Judge Ansarullah.

Dear Victoria,

There is not freedom of religion in the Islamic world and Muhammad did not preach freedom of religion. You obviously have made up your own religion because what you tell me is not what I have learned through study and observation. The following article from the BBC proves the point.

Mood hardens against Afghan convert
By Sanjoy Majumder
BBC News, Kabul

Abdul Rahman in court
Abdul Rahman is refusing to return to Islam

Increasing international pressure over the case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman is forcing the Afghan government to play a careful balancing act between its Western allies and religious conservatives at home.

Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan's constitution is based, Mr Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam.

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4841334.stm

I find it laughable that the judge said, "Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him." The judge here is saying that Abdul has to regret converting to Christianity to be forgiven by the court. In other words being a Christian is a crime in the Muslim world. The only reason that Abdul was let go is because pressure from the USA on the government that the USA had set up. Had it not been for the USA Abdul would be dead right now. You can read the article in totality on the web address above.

In Jesus' Love and Truth,

Alethia

Dear Gabriel and others on this panel,
Your experiences and the experiences of other Christians being attacked by savage inhumane monsters saddened me very much and are extreme dolorous. But what I like to plead for is that do not believe that these monsters represented the real mystic Islam in any form. This is an anomaly of the mind which becomes monstrous, which can happen to anyone of any origin and has less to do with the belief. We persons(Person as Martin Buber describes it) on this planet have to differentiate between belief and values. I really doubt if these idiots really believe in something. Their only Gods are hatred, fear,perversions, money, power and their own ego.
Once we are born, we all are human beings, but the cruel society(both people and institutions like the mass media) with its perverse and preposterous values alienate us and we become, as Victoria truly said, haters and hatred is not specific for muslims or atheists and so on. You might have really bad experiences , although you have to be careful with puttin a mass (like muslims)into one category. I mean this is exactly the powers above us misuse to set their warfare rolling, namely:the hatred inside us.
REVOLUTION BEGINS IN OUR OWN HEADS.
In Love
LPS

Victoria,
Please excuse me for butting in. You always try to be positive. I want to ask you something most respectfully:
One thing I and others in America who know so little about Islam and the Middle East are so frustrated about is the apparent ( I say apparent because I think our news is incomplete ) lack of loud and strident denunciation of extremism by moderate muslims, as you describe. I read an article about this, but all the Muslims who were repudiating extremists and violence were American Muslims. My first thought was that Muslims in the Middle East will discount the opinion of American Muslims as corrupted, or Americanized or something like that. It seems that both the West and the Middle East are getting biased and censored reporting. My questions are:
1. Do Muslims in the Middle East hear about the opinions of American Muslims at all, and if they do, do they agree, or discount, or disagree?
2. Do Middle Eastern Muslims, especially influential clerics denounce the extremists publicly, unambiguously and repeatedly, and if they do,
3. Why is the madness still growing?

Please excuse me if my ignorance of terms or facts has caused any offense. I ask this most earnestly.

this maudoodi you are quoting was a hater and denounced by his own son as a hypocrite.
He was a dangerous spreader of an evil propaganda form of islam that was so extreme that it led to the persecutions of religious minorities and women. His doctrine of musl;ims being in a state of perpetual jihad was reviled by his contemporaries so much so that he was imprisoned for life for his political activities.
He died being denounced and discounted.

Kufr-kafr means one who conceals or covers up- or rejects. It does no mean disbelief.

one of the reasons he was kicked out of islamic schools was his lacxk of philisophical and scriptural insight- hence his not even being able to translate a simple word like kafr.

His writings have been the perverse inspiration for the extreme and ugly behavior that moderate muslims today are trying to counteract.

please be careful what you let into your consciousness. i can see no reason to read this mans works or espouse his beliefs or quote him. he is a hater. stay away from the haters.
clearly your philosophy and mine are worlds apart as this mans philosophy disgusts and repels me.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

I was a Christian in Lebanon.

The Christians in Lebanon always had problems with the Moslems, but we never thought our neighbors would turn on us. That situation was aggravated by the influx of the Palestinians coming from Jordan after King Hussein kicked them out in Black September. That's what tipped the scale in Lebanon. Not only had Moslems become the majority but they now also felt empowered by the presence of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat wanting to attack the Christians, take over Lebanon and use it as a base from which to attack Israel.

When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975 we didn't even know what that word meant. We had taken them into our country, allowed them to study side by side with us, in our schools and universities. We gave them jobs, shared with them our way of life. We didn't realize the depth of their hatred to us as infidels. They looked at us as the enemy not as neighbors, friends, employers and colleagues.

A lot of Muslims pored in from other Muslim countries like Iran -- the founder and supporter of Hezbollah, one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world today. They came from Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Lebanese civil war was not between the Lebanese, it was a holly war declared on the Christians by the Muslims of the Middle East.

They started massacring the Christians, city after city. Horrific events the western media seldom reported. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the Christian City of Damour where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep. The Muslims would enter a bomb shelter, see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pulled the parents apart splitting the child in half. A close friend of mine was mentally disturbed because they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand and holding her hand forcing her to cut her own son’s throat. They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the bible as toilet paper. They did so many things I don't need to go into any more detail. You get the picture.

Victoria:

You are probably obfuscating. Because you make it sound that yours is the only unique/permissible interpretation. Well, that ain't so. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi states (in his monograph Jihad in Islam) that peace follows after submission (to Islam) is "darl-al-Islam". And not submission (to Islam) implies opposition (war) with Islam "dar-al-harb". Here war with Islam means existence of unbelief (kufr) with whom Islam has a war.

On Moses writing about his own death. One of the techniques that seems to be used is to write or tell something that cannot be true then maintain that it is true. It should also be noted that the Lord buried Moses but no one knows where!!

That same technique seems to have been used in writing and telling about the Book of Mormon and the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was even used by Bush claiming Iraq was a grave threat to the United States of America.

Dear Victoria,

Did you see the post below under Returning Bronze Horses to Istanbul Might Heal Wounds: John Dominic Crossan? This is what I am talking about. Ahmed lived in a real Muslim country.

Ahmed:

plain and simple fact: you are in danger of your life if you preach conversion to Christianity in any predominantly Muslim nation. beleive me I converted to Christianity from Islam in the Middle East, I had to live in secret for two years till I brought my family to America.

In Christ,

Ahmed

Posted December 4, 2006 9:20 PM

To Deacon John M. Bresnahan,

Beware anyone who spells "Truth" with a capital "T."

Yes, we're all glad that Christianity has been relatively behaving itself since its bloodbath of the Middle Ages. Shall we choose between all these competing "Truths" according to which has the lowest body count lately? Are you reduced to saying, "My "Truth" is better than your "Truth" because there's less blood on my hands?"

You say don't blame the "Truth," just the followers who don't quite live up to the "Truth." That reminds me of the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" nonsense. People plus untenable "Truth" equals eventual mayhem. 9/11 is the inevitable outcome of believing in absoutes that cannot be proved or disproved.

You are what you do. Not what you say, or wish or preach. Your behavior defines what you are. The actual reality of any religion is what its followers do with it. The principles may be lofty and beautiful, but too large a portion of the practice is base and ugly. Perhaps if the principles weren't packaged as coming from Absolute Authority, they would be actually applied more often.

Read the last chapter of Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man." The chapter entitled, "Knowledge or Certainty" is an impassioned appeal that we must rid ourselves of the itch for absolute "Truth." It will definitely break your heart and might open your eyes. Nazi Germany is the way people behave when they're convinced they posess the absolute "Truth," and have no need to stop and think.

Stop selling "Truth" and start encouraging honesty.

The word monoply kind of says it all be it truth or a commodity. Those with the monoply can dictate price. All issues must be economic after all, even truth.

Jesus said to the rich man, "sell all your earthly posessions and give to the poor."

The rich man walked away bewildered. Even Jesus doesn't get it. If the rich man gives all he has to the poor man then the two will simply change places.

The scheme is obvious. The ones making the demand of the rich to give are the poor. Poor is relative. No matter how much one has one can still plead poverty. Now take the case of all evangelical ministers of whom none are following the demand of Jesus to give all they have to the poor. Instead they demand those much poorer than themselves to do as Jesus demanded, give all they have left.

The common ground for all faiths is obvious. Muslim ministers, Ayatollahs are no different. If the Muslim faithful did not cough up the money they would do something else for a living. It's not the wealth of hell but the distribution of the loot that's holding up the eccumenical, lets all get together and love one another, parade.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is the story of one but not the first to employ a threat of hell to extort the wealth of earth from the poor. The Devil is in the details.

The word monoply kind of says it all be it truth or a commodity. Those with the monoply can dictate price. All issues must be economic after all, even truth.

Jesus said to the rich man, "sell all your earthly posessions and give to the poor."

The rich man walked away bewildered. Even Jesus doesn't get it. If the rich man gives all he has to the poor man then the two will simply change places.

The scheme is obvious. The ones making the demand of the rich to give are the poor. Poor is relative. No matter how much one has one can still plead poverty. Now take the case of all evangelical ministers of whom none are following the demand of Jesus to give all they have to the poor. Instead they demand those much poorer than themselves to do as Jesus demanded, give all they have left.

The common ground for all faiths is obvious. Muslim ministers, Ayatollahs are no different. If the Muslim faithful did not cough up the money they would do something else for a living. It's not the wealth of hell but the distribution of the loot that's holding up the eccumenical, lets all get together and love one another, parade.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is the story of one but not the first to employ a threat of hell to extort the wealth of earth from the poor. The Devil is in the details.

It has always puzzled me how a person can believe any religion --or be a confirmed atheist-- if they do not believe that what their "religion: is teaching is basically the Truth. And how can this cause violence if among the most important bottom-line Truths of that religion is to love your neighbor as your self or to love and pray for even your enemies or to turn the other cheek if you are attacked. Christians frequently don't live up to this, but that is not the fault of these True teachings which many Christians at least make an attempt to be faithful to. As far as prostelization, nothing Christians have ever done can match atheists for bloodshed and violence since the French Revolution and The Terror on up to and including the astronomic number of dead at the hands of atheistic Communists. And how much "payback" has there been from Christians since the fall of Communism in Europe?? The only major calls from Catholic-Orthodox-Evangelical leaders have been for reconciliation.

my ineptitude on the keyboards seems to know no bounds forgive the double post

my ineptitude on the keyboards seems to know no bounds forgive the double post

Martin- respectfully, Jesus(ata renamed peter "cephas" which means rock and i believe most christians are in agreement with the interpertation that the rock upon which his church was to be built was peter- not a place in jerusalem(an arabic name by the way). Constantine codified the church(catholic) in 326. It is theorized that it was his way of grou[ing the disparate christian groups into one political bloc which would hence be more easily controlled. All the churches Paul was writing
to in his letters were in Turkey.

STAN i have often wondered ow moses could have written exodus AND DESCRIBED HIS OWN DEATH!

DEB CHATTERJEE ISLAM IS divided into 2 houses. THE HOUSE OF PEACE AND THE HOUSE OF WAR
not unbelief and belief

ALETHIA i do not look at the computer when i type and sometimes slip in amd out of upper and lower case without correcting it because it seems so very superficial- the importance to me being the content of the text- i was stating some very dispassionate historical facts- easily researched by a simple google- i am not a shouting kind of person.
nex time you see it imagine i am laughing,which would be the most explosive expression you would get from me.
LIVING POET- just consider me the e e cummings of this site
hee hee hee---pun intended

Martin- respectfully, Jesus(ata renamed peter "cephas" which means rock and i believe most christians are in agreement with the interpertation that the rock upon which his church was to be built was peter- not a place in jerusalem(an arabic name by the way). Constantine codified the church(catholic) in 326. It is theorized that it was his way of grou[ing the disparate christian groups into one political bloc which would hence be more easily controlled. All the churches Paul was writing
to in his letters were in Turkey.

STAN i have often wondered ow moses could have written exodus AND DESCRIBED HIS OWN DEATH!

DEB CHATTERJEE ISLAM IS divided into 2 houses. THE HOUSE OF PEACE AND THE HOUSE OF WAR
not unbelief and belief

ALETHIA i do not look at the computer when i type and sometimes slip in amd out of upper and lower case without correcting it because it seems so very superficial- the importance to me being the content of the text- i was stating some very dispassionate historical facts- easily researched by a simple google- i am not a shouting kind of person.
nex time you see it imagine i am laughing,which would be the most explosive expression you would get from me.
LIVING POET- just consider me the e e cummings of this site
hee hee hee---pun intended

Maybe there is a 'domino' effect! If the writings attributed to Moses are not only not proveable but on the contrary obviously human generated, then does not the other "theology" that is dependent on the Moses writings obviously fail also? Are the people protrayed as real nothing more than characters in a play?

Two of the great issues that must be confronted if things are ever going to be smoothed out is: creation in six days; and 'evolution of species by natural selection'; neither of which can pass simple logic tests.

In claiming "scientific evidence" for 'evolution of species by natural selection' it should be remembered that 'scientists' get awfully adamant when projecting backwards but are usually cautious when projecting forward. Therefore, 'design evolution' with 'block' or model changes by a Supreme Being (or God) should be considered as an alternative.

An Dliodoir: I appreciate the need and search for common ground but I will not compromise on my beliefs and my faith. Seeking common ground means, to me, finding areas and principles we have in common, on which we can agree that we have in common. Agreeing on common ground does not mean compromising our principles. I do not ezpect and do not want others to compromise their beliefs, faith, principles, let them worship how, where or what they may. But please don't expect me to compromise at the alter of "common ground"

VICTORIA (December 3, 2006): I think the Christian Church was started by Christ in Jerusalem not by Constantine in Turkey. Matthew 16:18 "...upon this rock I will build my Church" Acts 2:47 "And the Lord added to the church daily...." Paul wrote too many letters and references on the Church of Christ to quote them all. I grant you that the Catholic Church was created by Constantine. But the original Christian Church was organised by Jesus Christ and it had a foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2:20). Constantine got involved 200 plus years after the apostles and prophets, including Paul, died.

As far as I am concerned, there is a transition in prophethood that took place. People should follow that transition seamlessly.

Abraham -> ... -> Moses .. > Jesus -> Mohamed

Same message: One God

Whenever in doubt of any of the above transitions, grab the book "in question", lock yourself in a room, and read it. Come up with your "unbiased" conclusions and discuss your findings in a civil way.

Theo,
You said, " Dialogue in that spirit is therefore most fruitful for the one who initiates it. Its effect for others is in God's hands."
Does that mean if I listen to all this stuff and don't buy it, that's not my choice? I'm not being flip. Your point of view is very different from others in this discussion, and I don't detect much, if any arrogance. Please elaborate on that idea.

We need not have "common ground" for meaningful dialogue. We can agree to disagree on all aspects of theology. We must, however, find ways to repect the differences so that we may all live together in society.

Dear Victoria,

Why are you now writing in all upper case letters. I feel as though you are shouting.

In Messiah Jesus,

Alethia

THE EARLY CHURCH TEACHES that there is one way, one truth, one salvation through Christ. Orthodox Christianity still professses such. However, it also professes that Christ is God and that we are all made in His image and that He is present in all creation. In this way, theOrhtodox teaching is that all people have the oppportunitiy to know Him, even without exposure to, or adoption of, the Gospel. Orthodoxy also teaches that God's ways are an unknowable mystery in totality and that we are not to presume who he will save and who he finds worthy. Therefore, every human is our brother made in God's image and part of the redemption of creation brought by Christ's incarnation. As such, each is worthy of our love and respect. God loves his creatures, so must we. And we must love our neighbor as Christ loves him, not judge him. Therfore, not to approach him in dialogue with humility, as one would approach Jesus, is sinful in and of itself. All of this does not negate the Orthodox belief, however, that Truth is NOT relative, but ONE. Therefore, one need not prosletyze in dialogue to spread the Word, because it is our act of imitating Christ that is what we are called upon to do, and salvation of others beyonjd that is God's business. We can pray that His will be done without assuming we know how it is working in others. It is for our own salvation that we would enter into dialogue, proclaim the truth, and try to live by it, not for the purpose of gaining converts. That point seems to be lost on Western Christians, partularly fundamentalists,but is still the way of the Orthodox. Dialogue on faith, for a Western Christian or a Muslim, is too often an intellectual exercise in reasoning why the other should believe the same thing. For an Eastern Orthodox Christian, it is the act, itself, to the extent that it serves to bring Glory to God and thank Him for all He is and all He has given us. Dialogue in that spirit is therfore most fruitful for the one who inititates it. Its effect for others is in God's hands.

To Deb Chatterjee:
First of all I thank you for answering my questions.
I hope you don't think I am defending Islam or some other misused religion(Power Instrument). Once again I'd like to express myself by repeating:
Let me make some things clear: There are two sorts of information in our world: one is that sort of information spread out by the corrupt mass media and the other sort is the bitter truth which is happening day after day.
So "fellow americans": I am not a moslem, but I believe and mostly I would love to believe in humanity...in your humanity.please turn off your TV-sets, do not believe their lies. Our world is ruled by anglo-american corporates and they would do anything in order to get their bellies fatter and to be further at the controls. The religions are a good instrument to them, because these religions just dont fit in this age and they preach the same paradox values these corporators together with their politicians as puppets want us to believe. So dont make a hype out of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses. Religion should be something private, because god lives inside us(if we let him, then we will hear).

Repitition is sometimes useful, if people really open up their hearts and listen with it.I would repeat the sentences above again and again.

I was born as a moslem, but now I am in Tao. Do you know what the Tao is?In my opinion it is the best common ground we human beings can have. The Tao exercises(energetic,meditative, physical, breathing) prove this, because everytime I practice I feel the three kinds of energy(earth, cosmic, sky/space) inside me flowing. It is indeed the presence of God which in turn unites my mind and body with the whole world.
So if people sitting in their air-conditioned conferece rooms wouldn't misuse the power of faith inside people who just adopt their parents religion and just shut down their sanity and reason and even don't take into consideration that there may be deceptive elements among good values mixed in their so called religions, then we will have a common ground for the balance/equilibrium you mentioned. And don't you ask yourself what has existed before Mohammed, Jesus, Moses and every so called "Prophet"?
It is time for us to believe in new "humane" values, because we are human beings and not monsters.
And after all it is not about religiousness, but spirituality. So Dear Deb:If you really know(not theoretical knowledge, but practical)between these two, then you and I will also have a common ground.
PEACE

Jeff:

What you have written is true, but truth could also be a cliche.

Muslims know that there is dar-al-harb (abode of un-Islam/unbelief) and dar-al-islam (abode of Islam/belief). Thus we (of different faiths) know that there is a difference. We also know this since 1400 years when Islam came to mankind.

What if we disagree with the main tenets of what Islam proselytizes/preaches ? Actually the Western civilization is in total disagreement with Islamic values and ethics. This is a observation (politically incorrect as it maybe) that most scholars (and learned apologists) from both sides of the isle agree. I submit that there are moderates Muslims who do not agree with the radical/orthodox Wahabi/Salafi sects. But the voice of the moderates is substantially muted. Whose responsibility it is to stand up to the orthodox/radical Islam ? The West or the moderate Muslims ?

So, now what ? We may agree that differences exist and based on this knowledge do what ? No action ? If the latter is the case, then perhaps you need to state that we are all moral relativists. If two almost diametrically opposite views come close the resulting actions maybe total chaos. Anticipating that could happen, how do we maintain our (West vs. Islam) six degrees of separation ?

CHRISTIANITY STARTED IN TURKEY. LOOK AT A MAP IN YOUR BIBLE. ALL THE FIRST CHURCHES WERE IN TURKEY.
THE APOSTLES DIDNT STAY IN ISRAEL, BUT TOOK THEIR CLOAKS AND THEIR BOWLS AND EVANGLEIZED.

THE TERM JUDEO-CHRISTIAN IS USUALLY FOLLOWED BY THE WORD "ETHIC". AND IT IS NOT A LUMPING TOGETHER OF THE RELIGIONS, BUT TE GENERAL SHARED INHERITANCE OF THE OT AND THE RESULTANT PHILOSOPHY.

Jeff, your comments ring so true. I am anxious to see how other debate what you said. If you have read many of the threads it certainly seems as it is more involved. Thanks

Richard, I'm blushing but thanks some days I need all the love I can get!!!!! Especially after reading some of these posts. LOL

This post is proof that conversation is possible, regardless of your view of the truth. We may differ on what that truth is, but that difference is what makes up the conversaton. Our differences become the common ground. The only difficulty in having the 'conversation' is in the individual's willingness to enter in. It doesn't require that anyone agree with anyone else, just that they're willing to take part, to express themselves, to listen, but not necessarily to agree. The benefit of such a conversation is simply an understanding of one another. To some, the benefit may be in convincing another of the truth you believe. For others, the benefit may be in simply learning. The benefits are endless. Not having the conversation simply results in bitterness, and hatred, and missunderstanding. How can you know anything about others if you don't have that conversation. It's the unknown that scares people into foolishness.

How can Islam and other religions get along ? For example, there is rampany anti-Semitism (by today's standards) in the Quran. If Michael Richards, Mel Gibson can take the rap for being anti-Semite, how about Quran ? This is what one might cherry-pick to prove the point:

(002:065)"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

(007:166)"When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

Regarding this "all religions getting along and finding a common ground" fad, this is what Quran states:

(005:057)"O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed)."

So, aside the violent verses Quran expressly forbades making friends with Jews and Christians.

And we still are blinded by the fact that we need to get along ?

Got it.
Love ya.

TO RICHARD:

I copied and posted the entire article. None of it was from me except the first sentence "Can we find common ground even on this point???

IT WAS NOT MY OPINION. I will try to be clearer in the future Sorry!!!!

Pam,
Ok, Who's on first, What's on second....
Let's try to clear up our mutual confusion and move on. Everybody else, please go on with the discussion and we'll catch up.

Go to the Beachwoman post of November 29 at 10:08 AM, halfway down on page 13 of this site, the post that starts with, "Can we find common ground even on this point??" Go back and read that. That's what I read. There's no indication of a reference to somebody else's article or post, or to one of your previous posts, no indication that you cut and pasted anything. You simply wrote that Ellison's planning to do this, and it's a bad thing. It just looks like your opinion. If I jumped to the wrong conclusion, it was just a small step.

Sorry Richard that I have you totally confused. I was referring to the post that I did a copy and post of about the new Muslim Rep who did not want to take the oath of office on the Bible. I posted that article to make the point that in my opinion that is a "small" issue in this wide world of "troubles".

If we cannot find common ground on this issue how can we ever find common ground on all of the other more complicated issues.

Have I explained myself now. I may have posted something that bothered you and wish you would remind me of what that was.

I can assure you that I have no problem with someone taking the oath of office on a comic book if one should choose to do that!!! Let me think about that statement a little. It might depend on what the comic book is about!!! LOL LOL

Later P.S. I am totally confused and if you would help me to clear my mind it would be much appreciated.

To the Living Poet Society:

I'll try to provide direct answer your questions:

1. Peace is an equilibrium between opposing forces. Once that equilibrium/balance is broken peace disappears. We are not emulating Jesus Christ; we are humans with petty intersts and yes we like peace to exist. So, my objective is to explore and discuss what causes equilibrium to be lost.

2. Islam is the problem here. Islam is a theocracy (that is the Sharia laws) and hence is in conflict with western style democracy. Not every Muslims are bad, contrary to what many think. But, Islam is definitely a primitive, barbaric force that would break equilibrium and result in loss of peace between different categories of societal systems.

3. NO I DON'T THINK THAT 9/11 WAS PLANNED AND EXECUTED BY CIA OR US GOVT. That's preposterous.

4. Yes, I do care and sympathize with Iraqis and Afghani people killed everyday. I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ ON THE PRETEXT THAT SADDAM HUSSAIN IS BUILDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's the biggest blunder that USA has committed after Vietnam and USA shall be paying a heavy price, unfortunately.

5. I always support our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan and other places of conflict.

Pam,
Got your message. After time to think, I'll respond.
Thanks.

To Beachwoman,
I'm so confused. I've re-read your post of Nov. 29 at 10:08 AM several times. That's the one I was responding to. You don't refer to any article. You make one statement of fact, and follow with two statements of opinion and three rhetorical questions of opinion. It sure as heck looks like your opinion. That's why I was astonished it was coming from you.

Regardless, I'm glad you brought it up. It's completely pertinent to this discussion, a very practical "common ground" issue, and it certainly got a rise out of me and several others. But if you're going to "deal with me" over on the other blog, I'm not sure I want to go back over there.

And I am calm, dammit!!!

Ava,

I don't know where you get your facts, but Christians have not been slaughtering Jews for two millennia. Anyone who argues Hitler was a Christian is an anti-Christian nut.

I do not want to defend or excuse any past mistreatment, discrimination against, slaughter of Jews by any group, especially any group wearing the mask of religion. Jews have been mistreated in some fashion by almost every other cultural/ethnic group wherever they lived. They have been butchered in mass alongside Christians by Muslims in the Middle East, Asia Minor and now Africa for the past 1.5 millennia. Jews are not alone in the world as an often mistreated ethic minority group.

No true Christian can hold any enmity in his heart toward Jews nor persecute nor harm any other person because of their faith (or any other reason, for that matter). Any person who harms or hates others and thinks they do so in the name of Christ is no Christian.

Understand, too, the genocide practiced by Jews as recorded in Hebrew scriptures was not a religious war per se. The Amalekites and Cannanites posed a physical threat to the Jews, God's chosen people to reveal His will for the world, over many decades. They were given many chances to repent, to let the tribes of Israel live in peace, but they chose the sword and got the worst of it. It was a national struggle, not just a religious one.

The term Judeo-Christian recognizes the Hebrew, pre-Christ lineage of Christianity and its moral and legal traditions. I realize many Jews in the US are purely secular these days, but the Ten Commandments come straight from Hebrew scripture. To call them Christian might not do historical justice.

As for the reason why there are so many Christians compared to Jews (and Muslims compared to Jews), the primary answer is Jews are an ethnic, not just a religious group. Christians and Muslims have grown in numbers by conversion, not just by procreation. I understand people can convert to Judaism, too, but it's rare.

A Christian friend once told me one source of doubt in his faith is there are so few Christians in and around Palestine and Jerusalem. If Christianity started there, what happened? You should ask yourself the same question about Jews. The answer is not that Christians came in and killed them all.

To Beachwoman:
Oh............never mind.

Richard Wade

Sorry if you read my posting of that article made you think I thought "anyone" should have to swear to anything on the BIBLE. I certainly did get a rise out of you and that is good.

Let me say that I just happend to be reading the news and saw the article and the thought was if we can't come to terms with something like this without so much bull---- how can we "ever" agree on some of the larger problems we have discussed on this website. In this country especially in this day and age people should NOT be made to swear on the BIBLE if they choose not to.

Sorry I did not explain myself at the time of posting but I really was just curious as to what would be posted on this subject.

I will deal with you and your latest post on the other blog soon.

Calm down Richard

What does the term Judeo-Christian mean? Is it the Christians' cowardly device for pretending they love the Jews when the very plain truth is that they've been slaughtering Jews for two millenia. If Judaism came first, why are there today two billion Christians in the world and twelve million Jews? See the drastic discrepancy in numbers?

Richard Wade

Sorry if you read my posting of that article made you think I thought "anyone" should have to swear to anything on the BIBLE. I certainly did get a rise out of you and that is good.

Let me say that I just happend to be reading the news and saw the article and the thought was if we can't come to terms with something like this without so much bull---- how can we "ever" agree on some of the larger problems we have discussed on this website. In this country especially in this day and age people should NOT be made to swear on the BIBLE if they choose not to.

Sorry I did not explain myself at the time of posting but I really was just curious as to what would be posted on this subject.

I will deal with you and your latest post on the other blog soon.

Calm down Richard

Richard Wade

Sorry if you read my posting of that article made you think I thought "anyone" should have to swear to anything on the BIBLE. I certainly did get a rise out of you and that is good.

Let me say that I just happend to be reading the news and saw the article and the thought was if we can't come to terms with something like this without so much bull---- how can we "ever" agree on some of the larger problems we have discussed on this website. In this country especially in this day and age people should NOT be made to swear on the BIBLE if they choose not to.

Sorry I did not explain myself at the time of posting but I really was just curious as to what would be posted on this subject.

I will deal with you and your latest post on the other blog soon.

Calm down Richard

No, I don't think religions can get along, not in the long run. Given enough time, atrocities like 9/11 are the inevitable outcome of any religion worshiping invisible, inaudible and intangible deities. They can only define themselves through the assertions of holy men, and holy men differ. As energy continually spreads out, so does human thought. Religions split into sub-sects, and those split yet again. Each one gradually differentiates more and more, until the differences are irreconcilable and mutually antagonistic. Eventually they're at each other's throats. Catholics and Protestants, following the same Messiah, murdered each other for centuries. Shiites and Sunnis, under the same Prophet have been locked in mutual slaughter since the beginning of their creed. If any one of the major religions was ever able to obliterate the others and become the world's only religion, even only one sub-group, the splitting would inevitably continue and religious war would resume.

The fact that Christianity has been on better behavior for the last century does not make me confident that it will always be so. Someone on a previous page was saying that Christianity "saved" Western civilization from Islam centuries ago, and that we can thank Christianity for the freedom we enjoy. Welllll, every civil liberty we enjoy had to be pried from the unwilling hand of the church one at a time, with great difficulty. The Evangelical influences in American government are constantly trying to take them away. I don't look to any religious body as a reliable defender of my personal freedom. On the contrary, they are a serious threat.

On the issue of Ellison and his Koran, I agree with Ted Swart that neither book is defensible for many reasons. They're both ludicrous. But the only way to stop the use of any particular book would be to legislate against it. That would be an extremely bad mistake that would backfire for everyone. I've been a witness in court a few times, and have gone through the Bible ritual. It felt odd and insincere because I'm self-bound by my own ethics to be truthful. There's no magic in any old book that makes me or anyone else be honest. Plenty of lying slugs place their hands on sacred texts. If Ellison turns out to be a lying slug, it will be because of his lack of character, not because his hand was on one book or another.

wow...this is getting interesting
To Deb Chatterjee:
Question 1: Do you think that you are contributing to a peace between nations with your comments? I know you may not care, but
Question 2: Do you think that the problems lie in Islam or some other belief or rather in persons misusing words in order to live out their sick perversions? And after all
Question 3: Dont you think that 9/11 was planned and conducted by the CIA and Mossad in order to give your so called "free civilization" a reason to attack Afghanistan and Irak in a barbaric way? And if you dont believe this
Question 4:Do you really know how many innocent afghan and iraki civilians are killed down to the present day? You may not care, but
Question 5: Do you care about the american soldiers who were killed?

Let me make some things clear: There are two sorts of information in our world: one is that sort of information spread out by the corrupt mass media and the other sort is the bitter truth which is happening day after day.
So fellow americans: I am not a moslem, but I believe and mostly I would love to believe in humanity...in your humanity.please turn off your TV-sets, do not believe their lies. Our world is ruled by anglo-american corporates and they would do anything in order to get their bellies fatter and to be further at the controls. The religions are a good instrument to them, because these religions just dont fit in this age and they preach the same paradox values these corporators together with their politicians as puppets want us to believe. So dont make a hype out of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses. Religion should be something private, because god lives inside us(if we let him, then we will hear).

To all (and particularly to Victoria):

I have a difficulty with someone swearing (Keith Ellison) by the Quran in pledging allegiance. The reason has been amply detailed by Sam Harris in chapter 4 of his book: END OF REASON...

Looks like most of the bloggers have not read the Quran or have foggy ideas about the Quran. As Sam Harris argues compellingly in his book, almost every page of the Quran contains commandments for genocide. (Actually Harris makes an extensive list of all the lines in the various surahs that call for clear genocide and slaughter of the unbelievers of Islam. Pope Bendict has got a bad rap because he spoke the truth - Islam condones liberal use of violence in proselytizing. IF anyone criticizes Islam, the punishment is given in Quran (005:033).)

So, in brief, Quran is extremely intolerant of any other faith (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism) and is totally against freedom of speech, expression or criticisms. How can anyone pledge allegiance in a free, liberal and totally capitalist society swearing by a religious book that preaches intolerance/hatred against all other ways and beliefs, and thus is opposed in all imaginable forms to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution ? I find that such an action absurd and hollow. In fact, Keith Ellison (the 1st Muslim Democratic Party Congressman from Minnesota) is engaging in hypocrisy if he swears by the Quran.

Yes, many apologists of Islam would argue that the Old Testament of the Bible is similar to the Quran. But, while tha being so, I know of no Jewish people committing suicide bombings or preaching hatred against Christians or stoning sexually liberated women to death in the recent times. With Christianity, yes Christians have committed heinous crimes: Adolf Hitler was a Christian. But, such the motivation of such crimes cannot be traced back to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Also, how many Tibetan Buddhists you know are engaged in suicide bombings against the Chinese government, who are occupying Tibet ? Compare this against the regular spate of violence by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad suicide bombers in Israel. Similar things are happening in India: recall the latest 7/11 bombings in Mumbai (India) by home-grown Muslim radicals who are from educated middle-class families. I am leaving aside the carnage caused by call for separate Islamic State by jihadists in Kashmir. (Of course, the Kashmiri jihadists have had support till 9/11 from the human rights groups all over the world.)

The point I am trying to get at is the very ideology of Islam - that advocates use of violence in spreading the message of Islam. Quran cannot be altered, and hence anyone reading Quran(009:029) or (047:004) would know what I mean. The growth of the Islamic concepts poses a danger for a free society like USA. Of course, there are the fundamentalist evangelical Christians who promote the idea that Americans must vote based on their faith, and not on reason.

To all politically correct bloggers: Theodore Van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim just because he criticized Islam. Compare this with the fact that filmmaker Martin Scorcese is still kicking around after making the film The Last Temptation of Christ. How do you think that Islam and other faiths (including atheism) would get along ? If in another 30 years the Muslims become a visible minority (now there are 4.7 million Muslims in USA out of 300 million) what will happen to USA as we know it ? Surely the barbaric laws of the Sharia shall be in force, and good old James Madison (US Constitution) would be out of the door ? Is that what we want ? How do you bloggers fall for the fact that all religions can get along ?

I saw something both beautiful and relevant today. As we discuss whether or not it is even possible to have common ground in faith- today i watched a video from a turkish newspaper of the Pope in istanbul at te blue mosque praying with the imam (reciter of prayers) side by side .
They found their commonality in prayer and worship.
Lateer the vatican released a statement that the Pope - no kidding the story is on bbc right this very second--wow- they een showed a few seconds of it! that the Pope told turkey that it should take its place in europe. The Pope has until today been strongly against turkey joining the european union.
So Im happy to state that, YES, even if we on this board cannot find common ground there are others in the world who are finding it with mind abd heart changing benefits. YAAY!

To Tim Johnson:

I would love to agree with your gentle thoughts on common ground, but I can't. I find neither historical nor current evidence for Islam being tolerant of any outside belief or creed. Historically, it is a religion of complete intolerance, calling for either the killing or enslavement of anyone who does not convert or at least profess conversion. Don't take my word for it. The facts of Muslim genocide against Jews, Christians, Hindus and pagans from the 5th Century to the present day are open to your investigation.

Yes, people and organizations of other faiths and religions have been guilty in the past of unspeakable violence. Yes, today people professing other faiths are guilty of intolerance, bigotry and violence. But I would argue in all cases you find condemnation of past sins and rejection and criticism of present sins by mainstream leaders of every faith.

Islam is a dark exception. Does the Muslim world cry out against terrorist acts from New York to Chechnya to Gaza? Do Muslim clerics speak out against genocide in the name of Islam in Sudan? I know in all these examples there are also geopolitical issues underlying the violence, but the religious voice of Islam fuels, rather than quenches the violence. Please research this for yourself. I'd love to be wrong, here.

As John M. notes above, my beliefs as a Christian are not compatible with those of other faiths. I must hold my beliefs to be true, just as I recognize Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists must hold their beliefs to be true. I'm fine with that. I recognize we can not share common ground on the nature of God, mankind's purpose, the path to salvation (or even the need for it), etc.

As an American, I'm tolerant of these difference. Tolerance does not mean I would water down my faith to think people of any faith are simply following different paths to the same place, nor would I expect others to. As an ex military officer, I'm willing to die (and to kill) for each American to believe as he or she chooses.

I find common ground, then, in politics. I think that's the best we can hope for. Say it how you want. "Live and let live" or "Agree to disagree." With a handful of unfortunate exceptions, I find a general history and current profession of this sort of political tolerance among all major faiths (yes, Atheism is a faith) except Islam, where the religious and political rule seems to be confess/convert and in the best case, shut up and hide, or in the worst case, die.

God, I hope Congressman Ellison is an exception.

To Beachwoman and Richard Wade:

This business of swearing on the Bible or the Qur'an as the case may be is not very defensible either way. Long long ago the Quakers earned the right (not only on their behalf but on anyone's behalf)to not swear on anything. Their argument was and is that if they were forced to swear an oath of any kind on any religious book or whatever this was tantamount to admitting that they were liars and cheats.
It was common practise in South Africa, where I came from, to have to swear on the Bible when giving testimony in court. I always refused and invoked my right to make a solemn affirmation instead - a request which was always honoured. And, when becoming a Canadian citizen, as I have done, one can do the same.
I think the sooner this practise of swearing an oath on the Bible is stopped the better. RW's interesting suggestion of putting your hand on a child's head would sure be way preferable! Substituting the Bible with the Qur'an is six of one and half a dozen of another as far a I am concerned -- bad eggs in both cases.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

Fatwa fridays rule.

I believe there most definately can be a common ground in faith.

All faith touches on the same basic principles which all circle the concept of love. Love god, Love others as you love yourself, etc. Like a mountain theres many paths and they all lead to the top. So who am I to condemn a persons beliefs when my beliefs are rooted in the same love their belief is rooted in?

The only way to effectively protest is when you love the person who's ideas your protesting against as much as you love yourself.

To root your faith in love while showing no love for others of different opinion makes you a hippicrite and is an act of intolerance which harms everyone. There is no love in intolerance, and thats the truth.

My answer to the question is NO. It is unfortunate that the thesaurus uses these, “ethical/moral”, terms interchangeably because in my opinion they are not the same. We should all strive to be ethical not moral. Religious moral individuals often perform unethical acts to advance their beliefs. It is not possible to be both ethical and perform what would be characterized as an immoral act. Voodoo Rules.

GEE THANKS!

I believe that one's practice of religion can be uplifting if it leads to personal development which benefits society as a whole. However, like so many other things, religion can also be abused (my kitchen knife analogy--it can be used to prepare food and it can be used to kill).

The test of any spiritual practice is whether it leads to an expansion of consciousness whereby our hearts reach out to all in love and compassion. If religious practice fails this test and instead hardens our attitudes and collapses our care and concern to me and mine, something is terribly wrong. In that sense, truly "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth".

Religious dogmas and fanaticism serve only to fan the fires of intolerance and hatred. Far from expanding our consciousness, fanatics only serve to bring ruin not only upon themselves but in sufficient numbers, upon the very faith that they proclaim to love and defend. The warning "Live by the sword, die by the sword" is very true. Love and understanding without dogma and fanaticism is the way towards mutual respect and world peace.

There is always common ground. It is Music, Art, Clean Air, Water, Earth. The Earth IS our common ground, our beliefs are what divides us.
ProfessorPurplePants
www.professorpurplepants.com

To Victoria,
THANK YOU for your post. Gentleness, tolerance and common sense from a person of faith (any faith) doesn't get much press lately. I'm sure there is more out there than we're hearing about. Anybody can be arrogant and bombastic, but it takes courage to come from respect and call for cooler heads to prevail.

Dear Beachwoman:
I can't believe that I'm defending the use of the Koran for anything other than a paperweight, or that I'm arguing with you, but your argument is absurd. The placing of one's hand on the bible is a gesture indicating that the oath taker means what he says. I would be more confident that Ellison will carry out his duties faithfully if he swears on what HE cherishes rather than what someone else cherishes. Maybe someday an atheist will be elected to Congress, and he or she will place a hand on a book of law, or better yet on the head of their child. If I am convinced that their hand is on the thing they most cherish, I will feel more assured they mean what they say.

Your posts on the Sam Harris blog are always so sensible, but your use of the extreme example ploy, (what if a racist wanted to use Mein Kampf etc.) is silly. That is so unlikely it's not worth considering, and if people did elect such a person, then DeMaistre was right when he said, "Every country has the government it deserves." The whole thing about undermining American civilization is over the top. Doctors still say "I swear by Apollo" when they take the Hippocratic oath. That hasn't damaged American civilization or the medical profession and people don't refuse to see a doctor because he's a pagan. Using a bible to swear is a tradition, not constitutional law. I hope it never becomes law, because then we will all have far less freedom.

I am not just spouting knee-jerk PC platitudes. That stuff is often nauseating. I'm saying we must have the courage of our convictions as Americans. Are we for freedom of thought and speech? Then we must protect the thought and speech we don't agree with. The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing or limiting any religion. That's the sacred document that I cherish. It has taken a terrible beating lately, from people who want to "protect" us from terrorism, or the undermining of American civilization. I don't subscribe to any religious crap, but I back Ellision's choice because that means that I still have a choice.

PEACE ALL- I have enjoyed reading these posts.
I must applaud alot of the atheist or agnostic viewpoints here, the reason being-it seems you have rather good manners. I see a general lack of personal attacks or mindless tirades and criticisms which seem to have taken over another board here.
Perhaps it is because you all are free from the (what I call) GOD LOVES ME ORE THAN HE LOVES YOU SYNDROME. Having expressed this, I myself am a gentle and tolerant (I hope) Muslimah.(female muslim).
It seems that no one ever responds to having their belief systems attacked. This is a very poor tactic in prosyletizing and just puts people on the defensive. I think this site has answered the question somewhat, itself. Some dialogue is possible with mutual respect. Peace to all my fellow travelers in this life.

Can we find common ground even on this point??

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization...

... Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible,f or his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to aracist who is elected to public office?

Religion is a destructive approach for humanity. I mean "organized religion". Religion thrives on faith on the unseen. Well, sure many things that are nor religious do too. However there exists quite a broad agreement on the nature of such unseen things. For example electromagnetic waves that carry wireless signals. We may not actually see the signal that propagates in the ISM band but we can surely agree that its effects are realizable. This realization is the same for humans of all races, color, creed etc. Not so with intangibles and unseen stuff like love, anger, lust, faith etc. The latter are different for each person. So religion, which exists on a person's individual faith, manifests differently for different beings. Religion is an emotional issue, and also lacks objectivity. How one perceives/follows a typical creed/method to attain whatever spiritual goal, is dependent on the particular person. So, why make a big deal about it ? It is simply ludicrous that in USA (a country that has seen the greatest of technological achievements) could be slanted towards faith-based social systems, and more so in the recent times. Religion also implies that you possess faith and maybe that if you don't take any personal responsibility for your life, you are still OK. God/Allah/Ishwar/Yahweh or whatever will take care of you since you have faith. Well this might reduce stress and lower your (bad) cholesterol levels (LDL), but other than that bragging about one's faith in the unseen is simply stupid. Look at Islam and Muslims. Beheadings and slaughter are a part of the faith that is widely practiced in the Muslim-majority countries. These demon-hearted decapitators (like Abu-Musab Al-Zarqwai) also have faith. It maybe that the faith of Zarqwai would obligate him to decapitate those who are non-Muslims. However, modern societal laws do not prosecute faith and also killers like Zarqwai are also not personally corrupt - i.e. he/they did/do not decapitate for personal greed/vendetta. In this case this gruesome action simply becomes one with political implications. Thus, such mindless slaughters (such as Nick Berg) are given political color - whose origins may have had very deep-rooted faith in (unseen) entity called Allah.

Hailing faith is just ridiculous. RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE MASSES.

Alethia:
No response at all about my point? Just your glib and self-righteous dismissal? Now you are the one who is condescending. Very disappointing. You are really proving that the answers to the question at the top of this page are, "No, it is not possible to find common ground; the difficulties are completely insurmountable; and there are absolutely no benefits from attempting such a conversation.

If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?

The problems here are "monopoly" & "truth". These combined with religion make for a dangerous and explosive mixture. Abrahamic religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims & others based on the same root teachings) are based on the worship of a desert warrior god in an environment where a stranger was a threat to the limited resourses needed to survive, like water, food, etc,. So they were treated as enemies, demonized, and wars of extermination were fought against them. Notice, not wars for land, money or control of resourses, but extermination. These are glorified as God's Will and those who fight & die in them get a special place in their afterlife. No matter where this is found, it is a pathetic, immature and dysfunctional mindset. Seperated from it's trappings of religion, it would be named as sociopathic behavior and the ones exhibiting it would be confined and treated for their dangerous condition.
At the heart of this is a survival issue belief. A person can't tolerate the idea that they might be wrong on a religious belief because at a subconscious level they equate this with dying. In earlier times, being wrong often cost one their life. Make a mistake hunting for food with a spear and you could get killed, or die of starvation. The same with questions of harvest & farming, if you're wrong, you could die. I'm sure you've seen people that go ballistic at the suggestion that they might be wrong on some small matter. Or someone that refuses to ask for help or directions. Same thing. At a subconscious level they equate being wrong with dying.
Add to this the often ingrained teachings of a religion at an early age and you have a volitile situation.
The blatent manipulation of the "Faithful" for material and political gain by the clergy, whether priest, preacher, immam or whatever, should be a actionible crime. It is not possible to count the cost in the dead and human misery brought about by clergy of all faiths by these means.
The benefits of these type of conversations would most likely be realized if those speaking were the laity rather then the clergy. These are the ones who have no real stake in keeping the status quo and would be the ones who would be asked to bleed and die.

Can there be common ground? Sure. While there are bound to be many common AND uncommon grounds for disagreement, let's try to find those we all have in common. I think the experiment could prove eye-opening to us all.

Can there be common ground? Sure. While there are bound to be many common AND uncommon grounds for disagreement, let's try to find those we all have in common. I think the experiment could prove eye-opening to us all.

Can there be common ground? Sure. While there are bound to be many common AND uncommon grounds for disagreement, let's try to find those we all have in common. I think the experiment could prove eye-opening to us all.

Chris Stevenson writes:
"The following is something I drafted that speaks to common ground on religion and politics. I'd like to see what people think."

I think it's one of the most frightening things I've ever read. Religion and politics don't need and should not seek common ground.

Virtue is neither more nor less than that which makes the wheels of society turn smoothly - it doesn't need to be handed down on stone tablets, and we don't need to be threatened with eternal damnation to make us do it. It's built into our very nature, as it is in other societal species.
See "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals", or any of Frans de Waal's other books.

Unfortunately, it works better in the family groups, tribes, and small villages from which we came, than it does in the big cities and areas of urban sprawl that we now occupy.

Semnotes:

It sounds like Thomas is content with you going to hell so that he can avoid tension. I much rather have a doctor tell me if I have cancer so that I will be ready for the cure than to have one conceal the truth from me because it would make me feel bad. In the end the results are fatal.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy"(Proverbs 27:6).

Alethia

What happened to live and let live?

What happened to live and let live?

What happened to live and let live?

The following is something I drafted that speaks to common ground on religion and politics. I'd like to see what people think.

For in the fatness of these pursy times
Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg….

Hamlet

Religion and politics has emerged in recent years as an intensely significant issue in election cycles, this last one being no different. Generally speaking this phenomenon simply highlights the fact that faith has always been and still is a powerful motivator in individual lives and thus in the political questions of the day. However, the headlines dance around a more salient point: the strong nexus between religion, virtue, and social stability.

Revered statesmen and philosophers have argued that only religion successfully instills virtue over generations, which in turn is necessary for a republican form of government. I agree. Indeed, virtue has always been effective at preventing many of the social ills that vex us. Such internal self-policing is much more productive than constantly repairing ourselves from the consequences of those maladies.

Polls and studies consistently proclaim that we are a very religious nation. In fact, a Baylor University poll released several months ago regarding American religiousness found just 10.7% of the electorate categorizes itself as "non-religious", ten million less than previously thought! And a 2003 Harris Poll revealed that some 90% of Americans believe in God. Furthermore, we are generous and tolerant people, characteristics which some would identify as the hallmarks of true religion.

On the other hand, a slice of daily American life may also reveal evidence of a broad failure to be "doers of the word and not hearers only". According to a 2005 Rasmussen Reports survey, only half of us pray while other studies reveal that only 20% of Americans attend church. A 2005 San Diego State University study revealed that in 1943 America, only 12% of young women approved of premarital sex; in 1999, a whopping 73% sanction it. The average person watches more than four hours of television per day, certainly a slap in the face to a nominal work ethic. The proliferation and prevalence of vice, including pornography, selfishness, wantonness, and violence, is startling. Though not unique, their pervasiveness and intensity seem greater than before and the costs are becoming too high: See Bailey, Colorado; Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania; and the National Law Center for Children and Families fact that 86% of rapists admit to using pornography regularly, for some examples.

Despite the discouraging trends, I still believe that exacting American religion--our churches, synagogues, and temples--is the best way to preserve virtue and indeed, America. In this spirit I offer two suggestions, one private and the other public. While they may seem quixotic at first glance, if one considers America's historical tendency to right herself, as historian Barbara Tuchman has noted, and the general agreement on the importance of religion by both sides of the aisle, they may also be politically within reach.

First, I think it would be helpful if the religious leaders of all faiths and denominations in America organized themselves into a sort of "virtue-keeping" group. Certainly there are differences between the great religions and some issues. However, the participants could define a "short list" of essential virtues that are supported by both history and religion, evaluate trends, discuss successful efforts to encourage virtue, and lend their collective weight on issues of the day.

Second, I do believe that the government has a rightful and necessary place in virtue-keeping, though a limited one. President John Adams provided insight when he wrote in the Massachusetts constitution that it is the "right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe". A federal constitutional amendment declaring something to the effect that lives of conscious and exacting piety are essential to the future of America while at the same time reaffirming that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....", would draw an important line in the sand.

This is neither an invitation to re-instate legislation or executive branch rules in the spirit of the old Blue Laws nor a desire for the establishment an American-style Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, used viciously by the Taliban. There will be no rules or laws, thus need for any enforcement; rather, it is an exhortation that comes with a trust in a collective understanding of America's storied past and hopeful future.

While these steps are not a panacea, I tend to think that without them all other fixes will fall short because they ultimately address symptoms, not the disease. It may very well be that we are unwilling or willing but unable to re-enthrone demanding religion as the keeper of our society's supporting virtues. But this should not prevent us from attempting to secure a promising American future.

Alethia,
Please tell me you are joking. I do not know anyone naive enough to fall for so transparent a cliché as, “or are you weak?” You sound like a punk in the Old West looking to make a reputation as the fastest gunslinger in the West. “A’right Semnotes, Ah'm callin’ you out! ….Or are ya yellow?”

Please wait, I am not trying to anger you, I just think you are missing the point of this website.

This website is asking a question about conversation between people who believe they have a monopoly on truth. It is not asking people to actually have such a conversation, it is asking if there can be common ground, and if it can be of any benefit. So far, your stance suggests that the answer is “no.”
As I said before, I am not talking about your faith, I am talking about your motive, or your intention. In a genuine conversation, the intention is as important as the topic. If you do not clearly state your intention, then the conversation is more likely to become an ambush, a manipulation, a seduction, a conquest. It has become aggression.

I will demonstrate by stating my intention:
My intention is not to insult you, or to be condescending or dismissive of you. If I have given you that impression, I sincerely apologize. You are articulate, intelligent and earnest, and you deserve respect. (If you were all the opposites, you would still deserve respect, but it would be harder.)

My intention is not to engage in the “Battle of the Titanic Faiths” with you to “test” your or my faith, because that is futile, arrogant, and self engrandizing. That kind of thing does not represent anyone’s faith well. I think you do not really need to test or defend your faith, even if it is about authenticity as you say. It is authentic. It is a part of you, and will grow and become more complex as you do.

My intention is to suggest to you and other people that for such a conversation to be beneficial, all participants must leave their egos at home, and must abandon any agenda they have about changing the other’s opinion. A change may or may not happen, but if it is someone’s intention, then aggression has tainted the conversation.

The best approach to any and all conversations is to have one intention only: To be interested. Do not be interesting, or convincing, or powerful, or clever. Do not spar, do not joust, do not test. Just be interested. You will not be vulnerable, you will be fine. No matter how interesting or charming your partner in the conversation is, you will not be seduced; you will not be convinced to change or do anything that is against your interest, because you are not a child. If you remain just interested, you will be invited for many more conversations and your faith and your mind will grow more complex as you do.

I have talked too much. Again, if I have misunderstood you or characterized you inaccurately, if I have still missed your point, I am sorry. Just consider my point. Constructive conversation is not combat.

Please read a post by Thomas on page twelve of this site, near the bottom, dated November 26, 2:26 AM. Thomas is a man I would feel completely comfortable around. His faith is apparently strong, and it needs nothing from anyone else. He could carry on the kind of genuine conversation I have described. He and I could be just interested. He seems to be a deeply live-and-let-live person. They are rare.

I will continue reading this site, but I should be quiet for a while.

"Science forever poses theories of what cannot be seen and is not understood on human terms. Rather than blindly adhere to these beliefs the scientist then goes on to prove, using fact and experiment, the truth of their theory." The Mother.

"Heavens to Betsy!" here is someone talking sense in the wilderness. I have felt so mightily oppressed over the past few years that my deeply held beliefs, religious and otherwise, were so scorned by the dogmatic voices of religious intolerance and fundamentalism that I thought we had entered a Dark Age of intellectual and spiritual censorship. The Mother speaks of enlightenment and proof that if there is tolerance and a genuine capacity to listen and evolve our beliefs then there is indeed light at the end of the tunnel and dialogue is again possible. Thank God for tolerance, diversity and the infinite marriage between science, the soul and creativity.

I am copying a portion of a comment I made on the previous page, because it answers part of Deb's complaint, above.

To me, tolerance means that I recognize each person’s right to believe what they choose to believe. But, tolerance does not mean that I have to agree with every person’s belief system. In fact, I cannot believe both what I believe and what someone else believes if we believe conflicting things. So, an Atheist and a Christian can (and should) tolerate each other’s opinions, but they cannot endorse or agree with those opinions since they are opposites.

I have not read all the 611 posts on this thread. However, it appears that the three Abrahamic faiths have mutual hatred (with their little brother Islam calling for genocide against unbelievers - aka non-Muslims). Of course, the eldest of the three faiths, Judaism, is far apart in commiting bloodletting based on faith-based harted. So, whatever I write here are more or less directed against Christianity and Islam. (On Christianity, my criticism is not against Christ's teachings or the gospels surrounding him. But, ratrher on the Christian organization that arose after Constantin converted to Christianity crica 200 A.D.)

The problem with Abrahamic (Islam+Christianity in particular) faiths is their assumption that they are right and all others are wrong. This, even to a Joe Blow on the street, would appear intolerant. Look at how aggressively Christians and Muslims proselytize to score brownie points with God/Allah.

Is the necessity of faith (i.e. subscription to an organized religion) in this 21st century relevant ? Absolutely not. RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF MANKIND.

semnotes :

Don’t be so condescending. Could it be that you will not duel because you have nothing worth defending? I never denied that I am defending the Christian faith. I am not afraid to have my belief questioned because I know it will stand the test. I need no validation as you assert. That does not mean I will not listen to those I disagree with. You show by your response that you are unwilling to have your belief challenged. Is it that weak?

Alethia

Hi folks:

I just wanted to show an example of one of Lao Tsu's ideograms.

"When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend on authority.

Therefore the master steps back
so that people won't be confused.
He teaches without a teaching,
so that people will have nothing to learn."
Lao Tsu

Here is the same ideogram, from a different translator:

"When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster.

Do not intrude in their homes.
Do not harass them at work.
If you do not interfere, they will not weary of you.

Therefore the sage knows himself but makes no show,
Has self-respect but is not arrogant.
He lets go of that and chooses this."
Lao Tsu

The sage doesn't act as a guru or messiah, because he doesn't want to keep people dependent on him, and thus spiritually immature. When people start to treat him like a holy man, he nips their adoration in the bud and points them to their inner messiah.
The simplicity of this beautiful. And, in my opinion, brilliant. We live in a paradise and refuse to see it, except for those flashing moments that grab our attention, like a west coast sunset, just too beautiful for words. Or say a sonnet by Shakespere, or one of his plays such as Hamlet or Lear.
But when we start to un-learn all the dogma and intimidation, by threats of hell from a vengefull God, or mountains of scripture as to how we shall not only behave, but think as well. Thats why I say its easy to know heaven, I see it all around me eveyday. That is not to say that I don't have bad days like everybody else, but they have become few and far between. It is so easy, you'll be stunned at first when you realize it for yourselves. Or not.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

I think there are basically two types of spiritual attitudes/beliefs. On the one side are religions or people who adhere to absolute truths and a God that has chosen to reveal Himself in a certain way. On the other hand are people who believe that anything one believes is okay, and that all belief systems and religions are of equal validity.

If God exists, and if He has revealed Himself, then it would stand to reason that He has some attributes and qualities ascribed to Him. If one religion describes God contrary to another religion, one must be right and the other wrong, unless one of the following is true:
1. God does not exist at all. (Atheism)
2. God has never revealed Himself to us. (Agnosticism)

If one of these two is true, everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe because there is no God, or He cannot be known. So, the whole purpose of religion, then, is to have comfort in this short, dreary life. And, a possible side benefit of faith is a set of values and morals that assure that we treat each other well in our short lifetimes.

The problem with this view is that it is partial to Agnosticism, Atheism, and probably Buddhism and Hinduism. Judaism, Islam and Christianity are excluded since they all claim to describe a definite God.

So, those people who think everyone is right and all religions are good (or even the same) are showing partiality to those religions which tolerate many views of God.

In many of these postings, I see people who are upset with Christians for having a set of beliefs and sticking to them, as if that were somehow immoral or arrogant. But, I don’t see how saying God is whatever we think of Him and insisting that Christians do the same is any less intolerant or arrogant.

I think the whole idea of common ground when people have completely different views is silly. I can only have common ground with you if one of the following is true:
1. we believe the same things
2. we believe different things but we believe them weakly
3. we don’t believe anything, OR
4. we believe that whatever you believe is okay.

So, is the purpose of faith to agree with everyone else’s views? Is the purpose of faith to get us through life on this miserable planet? Is the purpose of faith to live a moral life? Or, is the purpose of faith to come into a personal relationship with the God who created everything and wants badly to know us and spend time with us?

Alethia,
You are still doing what I described, even as you deny it. I will not duel with you.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

Can there be common ground? Some people are capable, others not. It's always been that way. Out of every faith system we've gotten tremendously advanced people who were able to leave human squabbles and insecurities aside and approach the real stuff. But they're the exception. The rest of us have to try to hash it out as best we are capable, inside ourselves and with our neighbors.

For years it's been an interesting venture for me to look for God as he exists outside of human failings, insecurities, and misunderstandings. A patently impossible mission, seeing as I'm human with limited understanding, but it helps avoid the petty fights for spiritual ground.

It would be interesting to bring back the 'locus of control' idea in relation to this thread. People who rely on external sources of security and control are going to perceive a very different god than those with an internal locus. Not that either is right or wrong - kind of hard for me to say - but the moderate internals seem to function best in societies.

My bet is that the debate will continue as long as there are humans. And it's my belief that no human has a lock on the truth.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

Hello Semnotes,

God is the one who tests the faith of those who say they believe in Him. I am constantly learning as I grow in what I believe. When I look back over my 15 years of walking with God I see places where I was wrong about God and wrong about some of my convictions. The thing that has not changed is that Jesus is Lord and my faith in Him. So you see there have been changes in my viewpoint about certain things but not the object of my faith. I am assured that He is the truth and do not need to have that proved over again as you say. You misunderstand what I said. Perhaps, I should have said. God uses this to test the mettle of a person's faith. For example the Pharisees (the religious leaders of the time) in the Bible where shown to be hypocrites when they interacted with Jesus. Notice I said, “It demonstrates whether one's faith is authentic or not.” In other words the testing is not about proving oneself it is about authenticity. If it is not authentic it is hypocrisy. What is your faith in?

Alethia

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

To Thomas:
Thank you for your refreshing hospitality to humanity. I'm as empirically oriented as we come, and you and I could get along just fine. My heart is warmed. I'm a little more hopeful for my species.

Alethia,
If you approach such a conversation with a resolve that your viewpoint will not change, no matter what, if you are not willing to expose your opinion to the possibility of being altered in any way, then you are disingenuous in the conversation. If you are only testing your faith's "mettle," to reassure yourself that you are strong, then you are motivated by base pride and vanity. Such an exchange is not a true conversation; it is a duel. The only "common ground" in that case is a battle ground.
I am not questioning your faith; I'm questioning your motive.

Wow. Way too much conversation on people and what they believe for me.

As a Christian person it seems to me that the focus is to be on the mystery that is at the heart of the universe, the heart of love and the heart of human beings.

Conversation is possible if we start in humility before the One, the mystery, that can never be totally comprehended our understood. Of course there are those who recognize a revelation of this mystery in the lives of individuals or communities past or present, but most of these individuals turn us back to focus on "God", not what God is going to do for us or to us, but in awe toward the God who creates and loves.

And for those who don't believe, that's O.K. Let us look at the stars together, and stand in awe of the magnificence of the universe. Let us agree that we live in a paradox of being specks of dust in a great cosmos while at the same time carrying an immeasurable trasure of humanity in our little lives and our brief lifetimes. Let us make life larger for one another and refuse to diminish one another through religion or through a denial of mystery.

Maybe we will all learn something.

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

Brian:
“If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible?”

Yes, I have had conversations with people about God before I was a believer and I have been having conversations with people about faith since the day I became a believer. We have common ground in that we are all humans.

“If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?”

The difficulty lies in the listening to someone else whom you do not agree with. This tests the metal of a person’s faith. It demonstrates whether one's faith is authentic or not. It also challenges the non-believer to see if what the believer is saying is true.

Alethia

Okay. I’ll take Brian’s challenge and try to answer the question.

I think maybe we first have to define ‘tolerance’. To me, tolerance means that I recognize each person’s right to believe what they choose to believe. But, tolerance does not mean that I have to agree with every person’s belief system. In fact, I cannot believe both what I believe and what someone else believes if we believe conflicting things. So, an Atheist and a Christian can (and should) tolerate each other’s opinions, but they cannot endorse or agree with those opinions since they are opposites.

So, the common ground only comes from allowing the other person to share their beliefs with you in exchange for the opportunity to also do so. That’s it. If, after discussing things, both sides continue to believe as before, there is no other common ground.

To fully answer the question, what are the benefits of such discussions? First, you get an opportunity share your spiritual beliefs. Second, you have an opportunity to hear someone else’s beliefs. Lastly, you both get the satisfaction of knowing you were able to come together for a moment and respect each other, without compromising your own beliefs.

What are the difficulties? I think this forum has the answer: most people have trouble being nice about other people’s views.

Now, a personal note: I am a born-again Christian who reads the Bible and believes it when it says that Jesus is our only hope of spending eternity with God in heaven. But, I respect everyone’s right to believe what they want to believe (as does God). I also enjoy having civil, caring discussions with people of other faiths, and atheists. After sharing our beliefs with each other, we part just as fond of each other as when we started. I think that’s tolerance. (And, it's the kind of tolerance that doesn't require me to change my beliefs, while allowing me to show my respect for others.)

after 584 comments if this question has not been
answered yet, chances are it will not be. i posted a question on 11/21 to an athiest on this
page, but i thought to myself, why are people who
have no faith reading and writing 'on faith?'
what i say will not change your view, and vice
versa. common ground, regarding the headlines
this last week? no. from iraq, where if your
mosque was not attacked, then you were doused with
kerosene and set ablaze...from n. ireland, where
a pastor of a free church refused to publically
acknowledge the very existence of catholic sinn
fein...from the vatican, as the holy father departs for a muslim country...he will answer the
question, if the opposite of common ground does
not assasinate him on his journey to search for
that very thing. i respect the comments of all
but the post should consider another option; if
you cannot comprehend the question, then try
this other link, 'against faith.'

Greetings:

A person can have conviction without being intolerant. I appreciate that this discussion is pointed at making peace between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. However, Islam cannot be reconciled with Christianity or Judaism because Islam contradicts both of these faiths. Muhammad saw himself as one sent by Allah to correct all the supposed mistakes in Christianity and Judaism. How then can these faiths all be reconciled? The only way in the Islamic mindset is for all Jews and Christians to convert to Islam. Since Bible believing Christians and Jews hold to the inerrancy of the scriptures historically and currently there is no way for these faiths to be reconciled. That does not mean that Christians and Jews should reframe from befriending Muslims and dialoging with them. In fact, we are commanded by Jesus to love them and tell the truth about Jesus identity (It is blasphemy in Islam for one to say that Jesus is God).

Like Koran believing Muslims believe that Islam is the only true faith Christians also believe that Christianity that is rooted in Judaism is the only true faith. Jesus the Son of God is the only person who can forgive sin and give eternal life. God the Son became a man to die on behalf of man because He is the only one who could propitiate (satisfy) the judgment of God on behalf of sinful humanity. Paul said, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). That means no man is good enough to merit salvation. There is no sacrifice for sin that satisfies God's justice in Islam. A god who does not judge sin is unjust and arbitrary. A god who does not judge evil is no god at all because that would be inconsistent with the nature of the true God. Most Muslims and the politically correct puppets in the post-Christian West are angry at what was just stated but I call for a reasoned response to this charge. God must judge all sin if He is just. The only man that can satisfy that judgment is a perfect man. That man is Jesus Christ. God judged the sin of all humanity in His son Jesus Christ so that His justice would be upheld while at the same time justifying those who believe. Paul makes this point as he continues from the verse quoted above, he wrote, "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:24-26). It did not end with Jesus paying the debt; He then arose from the dead and conquered death so that we could have new life. If a person will turn from their own way to God and place their trust in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross they will have new life now and for the rest of eternity. They will be united with God in a relationship of love. They will become part of the family in the community of God.

I look forward to your interaction in this debate.

Sincerely,

Alethia

True Christians have an absolute monopoly on truth. It is written, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9) It is also written, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:9) The new birth, being born-again, is given to those who have been given the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth and all things seen and unseen. (Reference John, Chapter 1)

There is no such thing as faith outside of faith predicated on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) The Scriptures also read, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (I John 2:23)

There is no such thing as common ground between any religion and Christianity, which is founded on the blood of Jesus Christ, who was God in bodily form. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6) Mankind today is deceived and being deceived and the fact that Newsweek raised the question of common ground clearly indicates the deception is widespread. “….if it were not so, I would have told you.”

Rev. Chester Debnam, Jr.
Phone: 919-828-8057
Fax: 919-828-0232

indeed goood =)[url=http://gooogle.com/]gooogle[/url]

The web page addresses for Professor Somerville's commentary have recently been changed. See

1. http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/mayjune2000/exclusivism/

2. http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/julyaugust2000/somerville/index.html

What is needed is that all believers and non-believers accept the following as per James Somerville:

"""""The faith of the vast majority of believers (and non-believers) depends upon where they were born and when."""""

It is disturbing that religious-based violence and hatred continues unabated due to radomness of birth.

And as per Somerville , "There is no religion in Heaven. Religion is only the vehicle to get there. It is left at the Gate."
http://www.theosophical.org/theo...00/exclusivism/ and http://www.theosophical.org/theo...000/somerville/

I respond to Gene:

Don't be overly concerned with offending people. As long as your courteous and respect the viewpoint of the others, there is really nothing to be offended by.
If people are that sensitive, and without the courage of their convictions, then, their faith can't be all that strong to begin with. When we seek the approval of others, we become their prisoners.
I am only an atheist in the sense that I don't see God in the traditional sense. A person can be spiritual, without belonging to one or the other orthodox religions.
I don't see god as being for or against. The rain falls and the sun shines on good and evil alike.
I suppose in the technical sense, I adhere to a certain religion, but I do not call it religion because I don't worship, and the beliefs that I adhere to don't involve a supreme being.
I am a Taoist. Although I really don't like to classify one belief system or the other.
The Tao Te Ching is a collection of 81 idiograms, that deal with man's relationship with nature, and the way of nature. Tao Te Ching, translated, literally means, The Way. The Tao is the creator of everything. It gives birth to both good and evil. It is within all of us. We can choose to ignore it, or use it to guide our lives and see the joy in the most simple of things. It doesn't name or judge, it doesn't scold or punish. It creates all and resides in all. I guess you could say that it is a force, more than being. The natural laws of nature are the best example as to how we approach the world. To not place ourselves, "above," nature, but to realize that we, ourselves are nature.

If religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth I doubt conversation and common ground are possible. A monopoly on truth prevents conversation as it assumes common ground has already been discovered. Conversation can be said to develop the more a common ground is felt to be lost--in a sense conversation develops the more uncertainty is felt.--But of course the uncertainty must not be so great that no one speaks and instead resorts to violence in a desperate attempt to discover or resurrect common ground...

People have quite logically pointed out that for much of religion there is no proof, therefore we should remain in a state of suspension with regard to the mystery of existence and not superimpose imaginings on existence let alone expect others to conform to our imaginings.

People (atheists, agnostics, etc.) often approach religion as if it is a weak way of looking at the world, equivalent to believing in unicorns, etc.

Obviously there is a certain psychological strength to being able to simply wait with regard to existence, to remain in suspension and not superimpose on existence.

But what many non-religious people--especially scientists--fail to see is that not all illusions are a sign of psychological weakness and that some illusions are stronger--lead to more reality--than scientific fact.

Musicians such as Beethoven, painters such as Cezanne, give us creations which have no counterpart in reality but they stimulate us to more reality, to investigate reality more deeply.

In fact we can say that there is no scientific revolution in the sense of truly making a revolution and returning to the beginning--there is only an evolution of science--unless science posits as its goal a mastery of existence to the point that one day science will literally be able to create the birth of the universe...and what is this goal but a perpetual hypothesis, an illusion superimposed on existence which stimulates to more science than simply believing what has already been demonstrated?

In fact the latter paragraph can be taken to state that science must believe in God in a sense--that it must at least believe there is a hypothetical beginning from which it can replicate the birth of the universe--or there is no satisfactory goal of science...unless scientists want to continue telling us evolution is random (cannot even be directed by humans) and that one day the universe will simply run down (or start again on its own after we are destroyed). If scientists want to continue telling us that then how can they expect people to awaken from religion?

Man must believe in something. The question is the caliber of his beliefs. Will he have weak beliefs or strong beliefs? But he must believe in something--believe in a direction.

So far science is only slightly ahead of religion. Science has challenged religious beliefs in every area but scientists in general are still held to the morality proposed by religion. The morality is the difficult thing to transcend. It is extremely difficult to get people to imagine truly different ways to interrelate. Only when people can truly alter how they relate to one another will religion as we know it be superceded.

But still even then we will not proceed totally by fact. We will still have to conceive strongly in the sense of throwing out hypotheses we will act on even if unproven...and these hypotheses will be considered strong because of being illusions we can reliably (all things considered) act on in the sense that they lead to a greater depth of reality...

The goal is not to demolish illusions as if then we will get to reality but distinguish among ways of conceiving and pinpoint those ways of seeing which lead to more life--and this does not necessarily mean simply taking things as they are as scientists are fond of doing.

Scientists work with fact and discount the illusions of religion but beyond is always philosophy...creating how existence should be seen...The question is one of creating how existence should be seen and that is a common ground more difficult to achieve than anything now given by religion or science.

What to make of ourselves is the thing, and this is beyond taking ourselves as religion takes us or mere scientific fact.

Man is the animal which makes himself and a making is never a given. I suspect there will be no common ground until we all decide to make ourselves once and for all.

Many of the comments in this discussion seem incredibly muddle headed but occasionally the comments are well worth reading. One of the topics that has come up concerns the issue of those who changed religions or moved away from religion altogether. Since I have done both I think I migth be able to throw some light on this topic.
I was brought up an Anglican(Episcopalian)and I was at one time a very enthusiastic and committed Anglican. And what made me leave was quite simple really. I realized that I was being dishonest by tacitly endorsing beliefs which were quite obviously untrue -- like converting bread into something more holy by saying words over it.

You have to understand that at the time I was an engineer/scientist/mathematician -- in training as it were. So I left the Anglican church and joined the Quakers (Society of Friends)where I was much more at home -- given the absence of a creed or other formal set of beliefs. But I ended in leaving that as well and for the very same reason. It seemed to me that Quakers were/are a little disingenuous. Their services are still called Meetings for Worship with the tacit assumption that there is a God who can be and should be worshipped -- despite the fact that many of them are really agnostics or atheists.

So I drifted away and am now a fully blown agnostic and don't have to be dishonest about it.
So it is my personal quest to be guided by what I see as the truth that has caused me to switch religions and then become an agnostic. Throughout all of this my own ethical and moral outlook has remained largely unchanged. And any idea that not being religious means being without a moral compass strikes me as being without any basis in fact.

We all know that the leading monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, the Bahai faith etc espouse mutually contradictory beliefs. This means that at most one of them is true and it is far more likely that all of them are false. It is no good pointing out that they do have overlapping beliefs in common such as the Golden Rule -- since if they reduced their belief sets to only those beliefs they have in common they would cease to be competing religions -- and could in fact coalesce. That might not be a bad thing and it sure would make the possibility of meaningful conversation /dialogue much easier when it comes to interacting with agnostics and atheists.

How was the God in the Old Testament and the New Testament that killed people and led people to kill like David, Solomon, the Children of Israel, etc. the God that said 'Thou shalt not kill'?

Was this God, Jesus? Was the God of the Old Testament, the Triune God of the New Testament?

Does God condone Killing? Is the God that GW Bush said led him to go to War in Iraq and kill people, so they will not kill us, the Father God of the Old Testament and Jesus?

Why did Jesus say turn the other cheek, and not carry a weapon? Who do we follow when we Kill? The angry and killing God? Jesus?

Does God say if someone threatens to kill you, you should kill them first, like Bush says? Who did the Iraqis threaten to kill? Us or Bush's father? Did the Iraqis kill the people in the 9/11 attack

Why is Jesus called the Prince of Peace, if he condons killing? Why do we sat we Love Jesus or God, and then Kill our fellowman? What kind of Love is this?

Was Man put on Earth to be the Killer of Life or the Caretaker?

Why did Cain kill his Brother? Is this why we kill our brothers/sisters of Life? Are we born with killer genetics? Can we be born with Pure-bred Genetics?

All your comments above are very good and we need some answers as to who and what God is, and why we kill our Brothers/Sisters of Life.

Peace.

Oops, my last comments were to David Fahey, not Jeff. Sorry about that! Gene

Jeff---

Thanks for your comments. Your ideas are interesting.

I know I cannot satisfy Atheists or Believers with my ideas. If I accept the possibility of a Supreme Being, I offend Atheists. If I say that IF a Supreme Being exists, he/she/it would not, could not, should not be what most religions claim that Supreme Being to be, I offend Believers. I suppose when you come right down to it, I believe both Atheists and Believers are wrong. I refuse to close my mind to the possibility that God may exist, and I refuse to believe that God and God's teachings can be so inhumane as many religions show God to be. Until Atheists see that their minds are just as closed as Believers, and as long as Believers are not going to question the ideas and actions supported by their “words of God” and religious dogmas—in terms of human values that uphold love and brotherhood among ALL peoples, I guess I see no hope for Believers and Non-believers to find common ground, come together and walk together with the highest ideals of humankind as their focus.

Perhaps you are right about an Atheist religion, but if an Atheist religion is contradictory, how about just A religion that believes in the real possibility of a truly loving and peaceful God, or perhaps even a Supreme Being that created us and has just been observing us (or any other concept of God that doesn’t make he/she/it inhumane in human terms). Also a religion that reveres life of ALL human beings, and whose doctrines, dogmas, and actions support love and brotherhood of ALL human beings. My, how this would change the world for the better! Do we need to be either Atheist or Believer? I don’t think so. We just need peace, harmony, and love for each other as our driving force.

Can the truth without any actual proof be called the truth or just another opinion? I believe the 'one truth' can be found in life itself and no where else. The truth or understanding the truth comes from within life itself and not outside life. Ne separation between the person and the environment in which one exists. I will believe your truth when you show me with your life the actual proof of your own individual happiness that does not effect others in a negative fashion, as it relates to your understanding of the one truth of life. I believe most people are this way. The teachings I follow states actual proof of the three proofs is most important. The three proofs being documentary, theoretical, and actual.

All of you, stop telling me what to do! It's too hard for me do the opposite!

To David J. Fahey: Thank you for this passionate comment on the golden rule and all about it. I myself have had a long and painful struggle in my life until I really could understand the real meaning of Karma.
To All:Yes...the heaven is before us and we should be thankful and enjoy it. Nonetheless we should be realistic and perceive the world as it is:that is to say, that there are people with their inhumane values who are making other people's lives into a living hell, like the american intelligence agency or the corporates reaching out with their sharp claws for the throats of the have-nots.
And everything on the path to the divine begins in the bosom of one's family. Some iranian Poet said: "We should wash our eyes and see the world through the windows of love". But explaining love to a gun-horney president from Texas must be a hard task. And if you ask them why they kill and destroy, they'll answer: the stronger will survive! without knowing that the animal differs as a species totally from human beings. and believe me not everyone deserves the name human being, because we are not only defined biologically but also morally. I think we are somehow an experiment or the logical baby of mother nature. Nature wanted a species which is not forced to kill in order to survive, that's why we exist, but somehow humans build their values through "the window of society" and if you live in a peace loving world where aggression is proscribed(not like our world where the media aggrandize aggression and glorify killing)then we are going to meet real sons and daughters of God. Please do not misunderstand: In every era of mankind aggression has exist, but I think it could be less if we really act on the maxim of Peace, beginning in our own heads.
In Love
h.b.

To Gene, I respond to your post. And to all others for that matter.

I noticed you used the word, "attack," in your post. That implies resistance and struggle. I don't believe that is the best way to look at life.

While I agree with you, that atheism is a way to avoid all the dogma and lack of trust or understanding between religions. To suggest that there be an atheist religion or faith, is contradictory. Speculation is a form of faith. When you speculate, you must in the natural course of things, come to some sort of conclusion. No?

I certainly don't have all the answers. Life is too complex and ever changing to hold on to ideas for any length of time.

Not believing in a supposed supreme being, does not suggest that a person cannot be spiritual, regardless of denomination or sect or even secularism.

I know, as well as you seem to know, there are many different ideas or perceptions about the nature of everything.

I think we complicate the simple. We attempt to give names to all the divisions in our lives, thus perpetuating those divisions.

I am not a religious man. I think, that while religion is not always a bad thing, it just sets up bounderies in an existence that knows no boundaries. Religion is a governance of the spirit. It limits, and restricts the free will that God supposedly has given us.

God is easy to know. We don't have to give a thousand different names or reasons to explain the spirituality in us all. Even in what we term, "bad." Life is not as easy as good or evil suggests. Not everybody achieves knowledge or enlightenment simultaineously. This can cause differences for sure, but no man has a monopoly on God. The term itself, God, only came about for lack of a better term.

Isn't it enough to enjoy the many splendors we have right before our very eyes. Isn't it enough to love the world as we love ourselves?

God is simplicity. God is a name given to the un-nameable. Just look at the beauty and wonder that is all around us, every minute of our lives.

Our actions toward one another need only be those of respect, kindness and the belief that we are all forged from the same celestial matter. To live without resistence, and to love one another with out labels or distinctions is enough.

When we fail to realize the wonderous and explicit beauty that is there for all to enjoy, that is when we enter a Hell of our own making.

Either we live in a natural world or there is such a thing as "supernatural". If you once posit supernatural, meaning outside of the boundaries of space and time, it makes literally anything possible. That can lead to some mystifying or entertaining or terrifying concepts, but they are all the product of imagination, not observation. Religion begins with an inability to understand what happens and why things happen the way they do. If the volcano does not erupt for 30 years, it must be because we have made the volcano-god happy. When it does erupt, we or some among us or maybe our neighbors on the other side of the river must have done something to irritate the volcano-god. We must pray more, give more to the temple, kill the infidels on the other side of the river, and then we will be protected. It is based in fear and ignorance and it has no place in my life. I wish all the religious people, no matter which pack of lies they espouse, would move to another place. Another planet might mean they are still too close. Another galaxy would be preferable. If you ask me how the universe came to be, I will say I don't know. You say "God did it."
Meaning you don't know either. God, the devil, demons, elves, life after death, ghosts, fairies. All pure nonsense. The claim that there is some sort of intellectual, philosophical basis for religious faith has no merit. Believe whatever you like but it is not reasonable for you to expect me to share your delusion. I am not Napoleon and I know it. You are not Napoleon either, but your "faith" says you are. You are not Napoleon no matter what you think.

First, I would like to quote Einstein on the debate concerning Science/Religion.

"The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, in comparison with it, all the systematic thinking of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principal of his life and his work."

Who am I to argue with Albert Einstein.
I suppose some would classify me as an atheist, because my idea of God does not include the classic definition as defined by Christianity. I do not believe that some hugely powerful and vengeful being is watching my every action from some cloudy pillow above.

But I do believe in a creator. This creator is not some supernatural being that may or may not exist. It is not a judgemental and damning human-like entity that attempts to scare us with a Hell or reward us with a Heaven.

I can't believe that people make the very simple and very natural knowledge of God so intricate and complicated. To know God, all I have to do is open my eyes. I don't complicate and therefore deny my rapturous feeling at the sight of a beautiful sunset or the wonder of a star-filled night. It is enough to know that they are there for me now, not in some weird paradise where I have to die to be a member. How silly.

As Ralph W. Emerson says, that our knowledge of God is through the intellect. Our minds are a conduit for the divine sentiment.

To see and to realize that the observed and the observer are one in the same. To live simply by the Golden Rule is enough. We give too many names to the same thing. Thus creating resistance and confusion in our path to the divine.

The universe has its laws, for sure. To realize that what we put out into the world is brought back to us in time. I believe the Eastern Philosophys call this Karma. This applies to the smartest and the most educated among us as well as to the simple and uneducated.

I learned a long time ago, that the primary law of the street is, "What goes around, comes around." Hence the golden rule.

Enjoy the heaven before us. It is there continually for all to enjoy. Do wrong after wrong and the laws of action and reaction will surely guide you to a very real Hell right here on Earth.

I would like to thank all for their input.

now THIS is interesting...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GregKoukl/2006/11/21/christianitys_real_record

Add to my comments above on Pure-bred Physical Life.

Today, we reproduce a fetus, and take out some genetic inherited diseases, and then put it into the female womb. We still have not made a High Tech Womb so still have birth damage to the female and child.

So the sex reproduction act is not necessary any more for reproduction. When did sex for pleasure start? As a result of sex for reproduction? Should we continue making Genetically Mis-bred Humans now that we have the High Tech Science Knowledge of genetic correction reproduction?

Peace

High Tech Science and Religion and Myth are about the Same Physical Life On Earth. Myths are stories about real happenings on Earth.

Earth is a Spaceship, with All the Resources Aboard, to be Shared Equally with All Life, just as it is in a man-made spaceship. Man is the Crew. How long would our unequal Killing Lifestyle last in a spaceship? Would we have to breed an Asexual type of Human for Space Living?

In the Beginning, the 6 Days/6000 years of Creation of Life on Earth, is the steps our scientists would use to Colonize Human Life on a Planet.

Life may have Evolved somewhere in the Universe, but Life was Colonized on Earth with High Tech Science, by our High Tech Ancestors (HTA).

The Gods and Angels that looke like Humans and were seen and talked to people, were our HTA. We have the High Tech Science Knowledge today to Colonize a planet.

The Gods that looked like Man, that flew in fiery chariots, sat on thrones up in the air, or their UFOs, were our High Tech Ancestors (HTA).

The Noah/Atlantis Society also had a knowledge High Tech Sciene explosion, and a population explosion for 100 years, just as we have had the past 100 years. In 1900 we had 1 billion people. Today we have over 6 billion people. How are we doing, taking Care of this Crew?

The Bible is also about the Atlanteans, that also flew in the air and were the killer Gods of religion. Some natives think of us as Gods, that are not aware of our High Tech. Our pilots in WW2 landed in New Guinea, and they thought they were Gods, that brought them gifts. It started the Cargo Cult.

Our HTA do not kill. Their Commandment was 'Thou Shalt Not KIll'. It is Time for Humans today, to start obeying this One Commandment before we blow up our planet with our Nuclear Bombs, the Abomination of Desolation in the Bible.

Jesus taught not to carry a weapon, and turn the other cheek. How many Christians follow Jesus? How many Christians Kill for their country, instead of following God's 'not to kill' commandment? What does it 'literally' mean to follow God and Jesus?

Why do we talk about Love your Brothers/Sisters of Life and then not Share the Resources of our planet? Why is there Haves and Havenots, orphans, starvation, homelessness? All should be Equal Crew Members of Spaceship Earth.

Is it Love of God and Jesus, that has set down all the nuclear waste on land and sea? The nation that has the most nuclear bombs, and has military bases all around the world is supposed to be a Christian nation. Is this how we follow God and Jesus?

The One True GOD is the Source Of LIFE (SOL) of the Atom (Matter) and the Electro-Magnetic Force (Spirit) of all Life as we know it. This GOD has never been seen and we may never know this SOL.

This GOD should be Served with Balanced Elements, not worshipped in pagan temples made by Human Hands. The Temple of this GOD is LIFE. Man should Serve Life with Balanced Elements.

The Man Gods, Goddesses, Angels, etc., of religion are our HTA, they were seen and talked to by many. They are worshipped by Fallen Man in pagan temples made by human hands.

Our HTA do reproduce by High Tech Science, and are Asexual Pure-bred Human Higher 'Beings'. They have the Science to keep their physical bodies Pure and also use their High Tech Science to escape their planet when their Sun dies.

This is the Eternal Life that Fallen Man looks for after Death. Is there really Life as we know it after Death? Our Atoms and EMF do return to GOD, to be used again. Does this account for the reincarnation teachings?

The Hell in the Bible is the Black Hole of a Universe. Humans cannot escape from this Black Hole. Our HTA can escape with their High Tech Science, and go to another Universe.

The elements of the Black Hole do 'regenerate' and make a new Universe. No elements are ever lost. The elements we are made of do have Eternal Life.

The Asexual category of Humans was lost when the Pure-bred Asexual Colony of Adam and Eve, 'fell' to Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth. They reproduced genetically Mis-bred Humans and Killing and Death began. This was the Original Sin of Humans. All people since, have been born in sin.

Body Birth is responsible for all our birth defects, birth damage, Multiple births, etc. Body Birth also reproduces all the other sexual categories of Humans, and also pedifiles, incest, killers, and all the other sexual mis-practices since.

No one knows what good and evil genetics the seed that made them. Monks and Nuns probably got more good genetics. Sexual abusers and killers, probably got more evil genetics. Also accident of where we are born, our environment makes a difference also. Like the people in Africa, etc.

Male and female were created Equal Caretakers, and High Tech Science was supposed to continue on Earth. Our HTA do not kill. so could not kill out the bad strain of Cain and Abel, so left Earth and took their High Tech Lab with them. They do return off and on to keep track of our 'Fullness of Time' in the Killing 'nature' of Birth.

Humans can reproduce by the Higher 'Nature' or the Lower 'nature' of reproduction. It is up to Humans who have Free Will as to which process they will use, and the resulting Lifestyle of each. One has Eternal Pure-bred Asexual Physical Life After Birth. One has Heterosexual Mis-bred Physical Life and Death.

The flesh lust of all kinds is bred out of the seed during birth process, so I do not think sex lust was the reason for the Fall of the Pure-bred Adam and Eve Colony.

The SOL joins the seed of Humans, in both processes. It up to Humans which way they will sow their seed. High Tech cleans up all the defects in the seed and the fetus is matured in a High Tech Womb.

Body Birth is how the female lost her Equality and has had to be subjected to the male, and bear the child in pain. The male had to then start being in competition for thier daily needs, to support the female and child. So both lost their Free Will.

The Ten Commandments were to control the Body Birth Lifestyle. They are not used on a Pure-bred High Tech planet.

We have the History of the results of Human Body Birth ever since, of Man's inhumanity, inequality, killing and death in the Bible, other Scriptures, Myth, and secular History.

The Bible is the Code Book, and has the outline of Life from the Colonization to the Last Days 'Arm'ageddon, which we have set up with our nuclear bombs all over the planet.

Man was put on Earth to be the Caretaker Species, not the Killer Species. Are we ready for the Judgement Day, when our HTA will return with Jesus, who they 'regenerated' in the tomb, and took him with them, Alive, up into space?

Our HTA will return with Jesus, to 'regenerate' the ones left at the Judgement Day, and take them with Jesus to a new planet they have Colonized for the New Colony. Will this Earthly experience help them to stay Pure-bred Asexual Humans? This evacuation of Humans is called the Rapture in religion.

Rapture means to be caught up by God and saved from the Judgement Day Fire, that Fallen Man is setting up with their nuclear waste, pollution and oil spills on land and sea.

The Bible does have the History of Humans from the Beginning pf Pure-bred Human Life to the End of Mis-bred Human Life.

My web site:
http://home.kc.rr.hightech/home.html

Peace and Jesus' Asexual Love that passes all understand for Fallen Humans.

There can always be common ground. We are all human and have similar wants, needs, desires, etc., even if in some cases those are not exactly alike in the details. What we should not and cannot expect is agreement on every issue. To use a (hopefully) non-hostile example, I will never like brussel sprouts no matter how much my sister loves them. I never have, and I cannot fathom that I ever will. This does not mean we cannot get along or agree on other things. For instance, we both enjoy pumpkin pie.

While this is admittedly a weak example, I think the concept holds true for larger topics. I have a very good friend with whom I have conversations of religion versus science quite often. We are able to discuss the issues in a very friendly manner. Over the past several years, neither of us has changed our stance one bit in terms of what we believe. As a Christian, I long for him to believe as I do and I disagree with several decisions he has made for his own life. However, it is his life. He is free to choose what he will.

The most important aspect of our friendship is that we do not take our disagreement as a personal insult or offense. We both realize that we start from two different perspectives on things, and we both draw logical conclusions from those base assumptions of how the world works. I believe both Sam Harris and Albert Mohler, while they hold completely opposite viewpoints, respect the other for at least staying true to their core assumptions. I, too, can respect someone for holding to a logical train of thought based on their core assumptions, while disagreeing with those assumptions.

As I have read through some of the posts, I have continued to be amazed that so many have chosen either to rant and rave rather than discuss, even while ranting that the Christians are the ones who cannot discuss. I find that incredibly amusing, but that really is neither here nor there. I've also noted that everyone seems to want to start with their core assumptions of how the world is, but no one has gone back to discuss how we even know what we know. Are our senses the only tools we have? Are our minds so limited?

If we truly want to have common ground--and I use the term want purposefully as many seem to desire neither common ground nor discourse--we must first be able to communicate. Thus we must have ground rules. R. C. Sproul described four points in his book Defending Your Faith that seemed to fit rather well. They are as follows:

1) The law of non-contradiction
Something cannot be and not be in the same sense and relationship. Some would say that the Bible is filled with contradiction. There are surely parts that appear that way but are not (paradox) and some that simply transcend our understanding (mystery). These are not the same as contradiction. Some other items definitely appear contradictory until taken in context with what was historically considered "accurate." Our standards today are much higher than that of the ancients.

2) The law of causality
Every effect must have a cause. This still allows for a "first cause" as the ancient Greek philosophers described. My biggest question in this area has always been, "How can anyone believe in a 'big bang'?" I still don't get it. When did entropy decide to cease for one moment in time and then never fail again? On this point, I would love someone to explain.

3) The general reliability of the senses
I don't know that many would argue this point. Science depends on this, otherwise we could not have science. The only pitfall is that we can only have general reliability. Our senses are often deceived.

4) The analogical use of language
I believe Dr. Mohler noted that as we are finite, we cannot know or conceive of all truth. Therefore we must speak in analogy. If I were to describe an elephant to someone who had never heard or seen such a creature but was familiar with a dog, I could do it well enough to get the point across.

While these points come from someone else, I cannot see how anyone can try to sidestep any of these and make any logical sense. We then have a common ground, albeit a very general common ground.

In my own experience, I was raised in a Christian home but was also taught to think for myself, which I did. While I attended church, I was not a Christian until college. Instead, I thought about it, tried to make sense of it and realized I couldn't. I could find no evidence, at the time, to support a God hypothesis. However, I was very afraid of death, and I could never find satisfaction in who I was. I continually tried to remake myself into what I thought I wanted to be. These faults kept me open to the hope that, if there were truly a God, He would hold true to His promise to help me.

I experienced a very real call to believe in faith, without evidence, and experienced several changes in my life immediately upon confessing my belief. Since that time, I have not feared death, I have ceased trying to be something other than what I am becoming, and I have never wavered in my faith. I continue to experience closeness to Christ through prayer, meditation, and service. These are very real, though I know many think them merely self-fulfilling prophesies or delusions. But how could someone outside of me know that? Therein lies a presumption that boasts of pride and arrogance.

Since my conversion, I have come across several resources that I find to fill in the missing logic that I could never find previous to becoming a Christian. I also realize that all of that would not have mattered. I was too set on believing a certain set of assumptions. My faith challenges me to think, and especially to think critically. I never found that before.

I always hope that people will choose to think rather than close their minds to something they don't like or don't understand. Unfortunately, many do not and do not wish even to be challenged in their own ideas. When this is the case, all hope for common ground and for discussion is destroyed.

Gene:

I apologize to : (Nov.22, 2006, 2:31PM) for my poor choice in using the word “attack.” What I should have said was that any belief in God and/or any religion that encourages and causes harm to any human being and/or attempts to deny them their individual freedoms should be “attacked” i.e. challenged with the most powerful logic and reasoning that human beings are capable of.

Since no comment was made about my other ideas, I’ll repeat them in another way, and add one or two: (And feel free to attack them with reason and logic.)

1. I am not supportive of Atheists who show NO respect for a belief in God and religion as a valid concept for human beings to believe in.

2. I support any concept of God and religion that does NOT cause harm to any human being, nor take away any person’s individual freedoms.

3. I learned a great deal of “goodness” from religion when I was younger, and I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for the potential of religion. However, that so many religions and their practitioners believe in ideas that are clearly harmful to those who disagree with them (and sometimes those who do), is very disturbing to me. Atheists attack religious ideas, but Atheists seldom attack other people for their religious beliefs as many religious people do.

4. If you dismissed every religion whose doctrine and dogma violate what I said in #3 above, there are few, if any left. I believe it should be possible and practical to create a religion based on a belief that God MAY exist, and have that belief supported by religious doctrine and religious dogma that are based on the goodness that exists in human hearts. Would this be an “atheist” religion? Perhaps—and why not.

5. I want “spirituality” in my life and I believe human beings can find that spirituality within ourselves without the need of the “traditional” belief in God and adherence to “traditional” religious ideas. I believe there should be a concentrated drive to seek such spirituality within ourselves by intellectual discussion as well as the scientific method.

GOD is the author of logic, science, and truth.
i believe we should search for the truth, logically analyzing different viewpoints, and
coming to a logical conclusion. always respecting
what others believe. kindness must be present.
being adamant is not always good.

GOD is the author of logic, science, and truth.
i believe we should search for the truth, logically analyzing different viewpoints, and
coming to a logical conclusion. always respecting
what others believe. kindness must be present.
being adamant is not always good.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).

No, for me love is not too hard to understand. But for those raised in an environment where they are taught that they are showing the ultimate expression of love if they convince others of the truths they were taught, it is.
The best "defense" against those trying to convince the rest of us we "need" what they have, is to just do unto them as you want them to do to you...just love them.

The Origin of Nature
Beginning cannot be found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend there is no beginning or end
Religion's Theocracy is ending Democracy
Religion's pollution is no solution to Darwin's evolution
The origin of Nature for instance, is ceaselessness! existence

One more post. I just read this one:

"Come on, you guys who're thoroughly secular - how do you honestly feel about this? Do you genuinely support freedom of conscience, or do you agree with NEO, and think that government needs to get directly involved in the religious life of its citizens?"

Absolutely not. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, and the freedom of the citizenry to worship (or not) as they choose. My ancestors came here in the seventeenth century, fleeing the British Isles, where every time the throne changed hands, members of another religious group were burned at the stake.

To be perfectly honest, I see religion as self-delusion at best, and a force for the spread of hatred and ignorance at worst, but I would never, ever advocate trying to legislate or otherwise force it out of existence. That patently does not work, and is more likely to be counter-productive.

The idea of an atheist religion is absolutely absurd. The other word for atheism (or agnosticism that approaches it) is "freethinker." It's not free if it's organized. Bleahhhh!

My hope would be the gradual dying away of religion as people become more educated (not brainwashed from birth, just educated); but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime, and it might never happen. Religion is a powerful drug, and breaking the addiction is tough. Paticularly when the religious leaders are working so hard to keep the flock enthralled. It's their livelihood, after all.

If we could give it up, we might realize that we're all here on spaceship Earth, and she's all we have. We might then agree to work together to feed ourselves and each other, and to preserve the natural habitat, instead of exploiting it.

To the one who wrote about the peace of Jesus, which the true believer experiences, as opposed to the peace of this earth, I don't see it. The true believers I've seen experience the same sadness, pain, anguish, and fear in adversity as anyone else, in my experience. Nor do they get over it any faster.

I think you're all misreading Gene's post. It was an open (and sarcastic) letter to Sam Harris, the atheist writer of "Letter to a Christian Nation." I think Gene is a believer - right, Gene?

As for the poster who asked about the "creation" of life from non-living matter, you might be surprised to know how close we are to replicating that event. The recreation of conditions thought to have existed when the Earth was young have yielded the production of amino acid bases (the building blocks of DNA), and even the organization of those bases on a DNA-like spine. When they replicate themselves, we'll be there. I expect that to happen in my lifetime (and I'm not all that young). :)

"...remember that that the word "know" is repeatedly used in the Hebrew scriptures to mean "have sexual intercourse with.") Whatever was going on with Adam and Eve, I don't think it was a search for pure knowledge in the sense that a scientist would think of it today."

Almost forgot to answer this part. :)
Oh, yes...SEX. Gotta hand it to the Abrahamic religions, they stand second to none for taking nature's best invention and turning it into something twisted and ugly. So God makes two people, and makes them in such a way that they *fit together* (not to get too graphic for those of tender sensibilities), and gives them certain, ummm, *feelings*...and then tells them to just ignore it all or ELSE. Gee whiz, cursed to the end of time. Cover those women with burquas so we poor men aren't too tempted. Sick. Sorry.

"I do need to have it answered. Sure, we know that matter exists - but why, and what does it mean? Many thoughtful people consider this important as we consider the potential meaning and purpose to our own existence."

OK, maybe I didn't explain my thoughts very well. I think there is an answer - a natural answer - that is knowable according to the tenets of science, and understandable for the human mind. Perhaps even easily so. But I'm not sure that we can ever find it, because of the limitations of time and space. It's like a homicide "cold case". There might be an unidentifiable body - no forensic evidence, no missing persons report, nothing to match the DNA to. There IS a murderer, and he IS knowable, but the means to find him and know him are unavailable. It might be so with the origins (or non-origins) of matter.

As for a meaning and purpose for our lives - why are the religious so hung up on this? Why is it necessary to have a meaning and purpose? I exist because my parents had a drive to perpetuate their genes. I'm here. That's enough for me. This life is enough for me. It might be nice if life was a bit longer, but *eternal*...? No, thanks. Not under any conditions. Eternity is a long, long, time. :) Sometimes I think that leaving art, or books, or something like that behind to be remembered by might be nice, but then I think - what the hell - you won't know about it anyway. And in a few billion years the Sun will turn into a red giant and our little planet will be toast. Enjoy it while you've got it. Don't waste time on your knees worshipping the unseen and very likely imaginary.

Now, what about those tormented animals?

Happy Thanksgiving, or Harvest Home, or Turkey Day, or Day Off Work, everybody!

To PLHeart: It does make sense to me that you can find inner peace in many different things. I would make a distinction between the nature and endurance of that peace and the kind that Jesus offered. If you will forgive me for making a Biblical reference here, I think I can explain what I mean. Jesus said in John 14:27, "I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give. It isn't like the peace that this world can give. So don't be worried or afraid." Then in John 16:33 he said, "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." In the first reference, Jesus makes a distinction between 2 kinds of peace: the one the "world" can give and the one that he can give. Then in the second reference, he tells his followers that they will experience that peace even while they suffer from the "trouble" that they will have to endure in this world. So the difference in the two kinds of peace is that experiencing one is dependent upon your surrounding circumstances, while the other endures even in the midst of the storms and pain that we all experience in this life. It's like drinking water. If I am thirsty and I drink water, then my thirst is satisfied. However, this is not a permanent satisfaction because I will become thirsty again and will have to drink again. Again, with your endulgence, Jesus said to a Samaritan woman that if she drank from the water that he could give her, then she would never thirst again. (John 4:13) Obviously, Jesus wasn't refering to a physical thirst, but an inner thirst...that nagging since of not ever attaining the real satisfaction...peace, rest, relief from the anger and turmoil...that we all long for. PLHeart, from what you describe, one of your motivations for living is to defy those who have hurt you. It appears that your anger has become your sheild of protection from the hurt, and I think that is probably a reasonable response, even though I do not know your particular pain. Yet I do not sense that you are at peace, but in conflict. I wish for you the enduring peace that I have described here and which is available to you.

Now that we've all had a chance to read Gene's "Open Letter," can we now agree that at least some atheists are openly hostile to religious faith?

As he put it, "[m]ay I suggest a two-prong attack on religious belief . . . "

Surveying what's been said in this blog, why would a devout Jewish (or Christian, or Muslim) individual even begin to think that non-believers have any interest (or would even be willing to) in intering into an honest and respectful dialogue? He's not trying to share his faith - he's trying to tear ours down, and INVENT one that he doesn't even believe to be true to stand up in its place!

Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, for they perform different functions. I happen to believe that the Bible is absolutely true (but not literally). I also happen to believe that my science textbooks are also absolutely true (though how many times over the centuries have we had to revise scientific principles that we "knew" were true at one time?). Belief in one does NOT preclude belief in the other. Science is an amazing, eye-opening way of explaining this wonderful, God-created world.
It's not a zero-sum game. It need not be true that God exists OR science is right. Why can't they co-exist? Those who espouse either and completely deny the validity of the other are doing their argument a supreme disservice.

Anyway, Gene, it should be easy for you to start a new religion. Just be crucified and rise from the dead on the third day.

Re: GM's agenda

Also abolish the 7 day weekly calendar, with its association with Genesis, awa the yearly calendar as the sept, oct, nov, dec, are stemmed from Latin (as in Roman) words and are also clearly wrong as sept is not the 7th month but the 9th, oct not the 8th but the 10th, &tc.

As well abolish the way of dating yrs., AD meaning after Christ, who as we all know did not exist. Date year one from the beginning of the establishment of atheism as a religion, or AR, yr. 2 AR &1.

Finally decrease respect for the clergy by expelling them from their respective churches, which in future would be used for animal sanctuaries and graneries.

It's been done--in 1789. We call it the French Revolution.

How soon do brilliant scientists forget--this stuff has all been tried before! (And failed, but never mind...try again, fail again, fail better.)

An Open Letter to Sam Harris and Others:

Some interesting ideas were presented during the forum at the Salk Institute.

Perhaps there is hope for mass conversions of people to Atheism in a conference of this type—though I have my doubts. I still insist that Atheists for a long time have shot themselves in the foot time and time again, even though they are correct about the fiction in so many people’s beliefs in God and religion.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see much evidence of a Master Plan of conversion, on either a nationwide or worldwide scale. Conferences like this are quickly forgotten. However, I loved Carolyn Porco’s suggestion of an Atheist religion. Damn, why can’t Atheists create a religion based on SPECULATION that a Supreme Being exists—and describe this God in a more reasonable manner? Even creating a dogma based on rational thinking about our actions, something akin to the American Humanist Association manifesto.

I see no reason why Atheists can’t accept a belief in God and religion as valid beliefs. Supernatural, yes. Based on speculation, yes. But I still insist that most Atheists fail to se that there is nothing ridiculous or irrational about believing in a Supreme Being of some sort, and speculation about the possibility of an Afterlife.

I know you hate it when respect is given to religions. But as a highly rational and intelligent person I believe you REALLY mean respect given to all religions that we currently know of. But why can’t there be respect for SPECULATION, if it is called that up front? I do believe Atheists can legitimately have respect for a speculative concept of God, and about the possibility of creating a religion that eliminates all the dogma of most religions that make a mockery of a human being’s capacity for brotherhood and love.

May I suggest a two-prong attack on religious belief:

#1 Reasonably and rationally attack the beliefs in God that currently persist, as well as religions that are associated with them, including their “words of God” and their dogma. (You are doing that very well.)

#2 Proclaim that it is valid and rational for human beings to yearn for the possibility of a Supreme Being, and an Afterlife. Proclaim that Science can accept SPECULATION about a Supreme Being and can even accept a religion based on that speculation. Proclaim that Science is interested, and will pursue research and intellectual discussion about spirituality and the “inner” nature of human beings. However, what Science cannot accept is a belief in a Supreme Being and religions that support them when those beliefs and actions harm people and take away their individual freedoms.

Would this be so hard for a brilliant scientific mind to accept? GM

Neo:

Nice post neo, but science is descriptive and religion proscriptive. I doubt if they’ll ever meet, although I agree that the universe is strange, far stranger and mysterious than we had ever thought.

But I think we’re coming to the end of these postings and I’d like to sum a little. Organized religion (defined by the Jesuit Gerard Hughes in “God of Surprises”) has three parts: the institutional (the physical churches themselves, their architecture, art—for Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches anyway--their liturgy, doctrinal and moral teaching), the critical (the philosophic element, the proofs of existence, the continuous questioning of religious understanding of God and human life), and finally the mystical (the supernatural as experienced by the mystics, a God ‘tremendum et fascinans’, or frightening, yet attractive.) This is the inner world of which someone in Fr Bryan’s discussion group wrote and is usually the last to develop in the believer, if, indeed, it ever develops at all.

This mystical element, and God is mysterious above all else, is why it’s hard to approach parts of the religious experience using a scientific framework. It is also why sometimes a religious will look away/walk away from a dialectic argument. It simply is not amenable to discussion. At religion’s most deepest, mystical level there can be no common ground between believer and non believer.

Hence, amicable discussion between the atheist and religious (emphasis on amicable) can take place at the institutional and critical level..

Does PLHEART stand for "pitifuly lost heart?" It sure appears that way. So sad.

Does PLHEART stand for "pitifuly lost heart?" It sure appears that way. So sad.

Neo:

Nice post neo, but science is descriptive and religion proscriptive. I doubt if they’ll ever meet, although I agree that the universe is strange, far stranger and mysterious than we had ever thought.

But I think we’re coming to the end of these postings and I’d like to sum a little. Organized religion (defined by the Jesuit Gerard Hughes in “God of Surprises”) has three parts: the institutional (the physical churches themselves, their architecture, art—for Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches anyway--their liturgy, doctrinal and moral teaching), the critical (the philosophic element, the proofs of existence, the continuous questioning of religious understanding of God and human life), and finally the mystical (the supernatural as experienced by the mystics, a God ‘tremendum et fascinans’, or frightening, yet attractive.) This is the inner world of which someone in Fr Bryan’s discussion group wrote and is usually the last to develop in the believer, if, indeed, it develops at all.

This mystical element, and God is mysterious above all else, is why it’s hard to approach parts of the religious experience using a scientific framework. It is also why sometimes a religious will look away/walk away from a dialectic argument. It simply is not amenable to discussion. At religion’s most deepest, mystical level there can be no common ground between believer and non believer.

Hence, amicable discussion between the atheist and religious (emphasis on amicable) can take place at the institutional and critical level..

For all of you folks that claim that evolution is science, as opposed to faith, and is based on the five senses, tell me:

What evidence supports the transformation from non-life matter to living matter? I suspect that there is no such evidence. If science is what is based on observation, I would expect someone to tell me when and where they observed this phenomon. I doubt anyone has.

And, if anyone is familiar with process, they should know that processes begin with a "first" step. If the first step of evolution has not been observed (at all), how can anyone even suggest that the other steps are FACT? You guys deceive yourself.

Evolution - the science based on faith IS faith!

") And finally, those that truly believe that there is a God, he created this universe of ours, and guides our daily lives in order to fulfill his design concepts and plans. This last subgroup has been indoctrinated from birth and has most likely expanded and augmented their belief system in order to elevate themselves above their respective teachers in their own minds."

"This last group is of course the most dangerous because they believe God talks to them and guides their actions no matter how heinous or unacceptable. They feel self gratification in “knowing” that God has a plan and they are part of it whether it is a Jihad, a path to heaven, or whatever ridiculous self generated concept that provides tolerability for their individual actions."

I have to object to this - it's a characature of intelligent, thoughtful belief. The author here would presumably place me in his fourth category (and psychoanalyze my motivations). I do not in fact believe that God "talks to" me, or "guides my actions no matter how heinous or unacceptable."

If we can't step back and start our conversations assuming (or at least entertaining the possibility) that people who disagree with us are intelligent people of good will, there's no point in opening our mouths.

What's really sad about this is that genuine, thoughtful believers are perhaps more disturbed by the misuse of religion to support hatred and jihad than anyone else. And while religion has been misused many, many times in the past with disasterous and murderous results, I have to ask if atheist hands are really so clean? Which religion motivated Stalin? Pol Pot? . . .

"People on religion (except for Buddhists, diests, unitians and the like)somethings is more danger than a drunk drug addict with their finger on an atomic bomb. Right W?

If you are going to regulate drugs, why not regulate Religion?"

How can anyone read this and say, with a straight face, that religion is not under attack in this country? NEO here has come much closer to advocating the establishment of an official religious faith (in this case, atheism) than any religious person in the discussion. Separation of church and state? No, he wants it REGULATED!

Come on, you guys who're thoroughly secular - how do you honestly feel about this? Do you genuinely support freedom of conscience, or do you agree with NEO, and think that government needs to get directly involved in the religious life of its citizens?

Your answer to this has the potential to completely destroy any chance you may have of entering into a meaningful dialogue with the majority of Americans who are religious. If your answer is "yes, government needs to do something to control the religious groups in this country," then you've effectively declared war on us.

I’ve traveled extensively around the world and witnessed many, many events surrounding religious beliefs and people associated with religion. These observations have led me to classify people into four general subgroups in regards to religious belief.

They are:

1) Those that are not sure if there is a God or not but play it safe just in case and attend church and are somewhat active within the church. This of course has benefits other than the belief in God but it is the safe bet. They know little to noting about God, religion, its beginnings, etc….but still attend and participate.

2) Those that follow the larger, acceptable religious group in order to have a sense of belonging rather than be alienated and appear to be alone. They also know little to nothing about the religion to which they associate. Again, other benefits are linked to this group of people and provides support for their individual decision process.

3) Those that need religion and the sense of belonging in order to help guide their lives in order to provide meaning, self esteem, acceptance, and other obvious benefits. These people have had an education into the God concept and it agrees with and supports their version of reality.

4) And finally, those that truly believe that there is a God, he created this universe of ours, and guides our daily lives in order to fulfill his design concepts and plans. This last subgroup has been indoctrinated from birth and has most likely expanded and augmented their belief system in order to elevate themselves above their respective teachers in their own minds.

This last group is of course the most dangerous because they believe God talks to them and guides their actions no matter how heinous or unacceptable. They feel self gratification in “knowing” that God has a plan and they are part of it whether it is a Jihad, a path to heaven, or whatever ridiculous self generated concept that provides tolerability for their individual actions.

Although religion is man made as is the Bible, the Koran or whatever publication, this concept does not matter to any of the above groups.

I have been a life long Atheist and am fascinated with all the above groups and why they believe what they believe. I have studied and read many, many books about God, religion, the origins, and the advancements. The result of my studies and my observations are that religion is dangerous and provides an excuse for behaviors that are both acceptable and unacceptable and is responsible for more deaths than any other cause on Earth and throughout history.

I belong to a small group of people but we do not have wars for religious purposes, we do not kill because of opposition to abortion, we do not bomb people because they are different, and we do not force our belief system on other countries by sending missionaries that disrupt the entire region they visit which ultimately leads to devastating results.

These are my observations and I will continue to observe.

To: David Star

Boy! I am just not keeping your name-order correct, am I? My apologies_ as names are personal, and can also be understood as important recognitions of the spirit that goes by many names: I am not separate from any other, when I remember (the truth) in the experiences and exchanges of this life_ as conscious presence.

In response to the mistake of two earlier postings, that is all that it was...techno-thumbs!

To: Everyone_(risky, but context for my offering of perspective)

All is the truth. No, I am not stating absolutism_ only what is, when understanding follows ( a mental discipline perhaps of) no attachment, no aversion.

As to the tone of my most recent previous post_

I am not trying to gush or become personal, just noticing many ages, many education levels, many life experience backgrounds, many religious, spiritual, and non-belief backgrounds and reveling in those observations for their own sake; very rich collective material!!

Peace,

K

PLHEART

By the way, why do you assume I'm male?
(""Creation Science"? Sir, there is no such thing as "Creation Science".")

To Star, David_

Thank-you for your responses and apology about boundaries. Thank-you for the clarity about the way you see. It made me happy to read.

I am also glad that my beginning felt inviting for your participation in a conversation that is waking me up at night, in good ways.

Hey everybody! WE are doing it!! The common ground is US!

What is everyone doing over this coming week-end?!
I would love to hear all the wealth of differences that we are living together on this planet with!

Joy to you in the everyday_

PLHEART

We get how you feel about religion.

When you're ready to really talk to us, we'd love to hear some concrete examples of rights that have been legislated out of existance over the last thirty years by the people you're so concerned about. Honestly, I can't think of anything that was legal in, say, 1965 that the "religious right" has managed to legislate out of existance. But surprise me - I could be missing something.

"Creation Science"? Sir, there is no such thing as "Creation Science". That is what is called an oxymoron,(hope I spelled that right). You either believe that some God made this planet or you believe that this planet was formed from what I have learned is called "thickened light". Science is the proof by trial & error of truths. While being Christian requires a belief system, a faith. Faith is a guess. Science requires that all 5 senses be used in attaining information.
It is true that while you can use all 5 senses to attain a truth, you can indeed marvel at how we learned that truth. But, that does not require a God. It requires self-value, self esteem. Joy in knowing a thing should be all you need to value yourself, not faith that you've guessed it correctly.

"Aah, but you didn't have the option of creating perfectly good, perfectly obedient, and perfectly loving children, and he did. So why didn't he exercise that option? And how many children does he need? This has been going on for a few hundred thousand years now (since we became the humans we are today); and a few million if you take it back to our earliest non-chimp ancestors. Billions and billions of children. What's the magic number?"

But if we had been created so that we were - of necessity - perfectly good, perfectly obedient and perfectly loving, we would have in essence been robots. The very essence of free will is to have a choice - the possibility of doing something else. I can't tell you how many times, when frustrated, my spouse has said to me "I don't want you to do it for me because you HAVE TO, I want you to do it for me because you WANT TO." Pretty normal human reaction.

To use another analogy, most men want a real wife, not a Stepford Wife. Any that don't are looking for a fantasy toy, rather than love.

I knew that my kids might break my heart - it was a risk that my spouse and I took willingly. Frankly, our oldest child has had some real problems (borderline mood and eating disorders) over the last couple of years. Things are better now, but we still don't know how it will ultimately turn out. Neither of us regret our decision, though.

Why did God give humans the possibility of choosing evil? So they would have the chance to genuinely choose good.

How many is "enough?" I don't know. I suspect that may be unanswerable given our current state of knowledge. Is it inconceivable that love could motivate creation? I don't think so. Is it inconceivable that God could choose to create beings with free will in order to enjoy a relationship with them, knowing that some would choose evil and suffer as a result of it? Again, I don't think so - parents do the same thing every day.

"If God created us in his image, then God is like us. If He is like us then He is flawed like we are. I would not listen to what he says. That is what God is trying to tell us. We need to better than the vengeful God that created us, not worship."

I don't think that this follows. None of the major world religions suggests that we are "made in the image of God" in the sense of being a little "mini-me" for the creator of the universe. They teach that we share certain characteristics with God, but that we are limited in ways that he is not (physical bodies and mortality leap to mind). We should not anthropomorphize God by projecting our limitations and weaknesses back onto him.

"People who claim to be Christians are nothing but racist or just miss-informed... and this is a simple fact...
THINK-If Jesus was painted black in your religious books you would drop your religion like you dropped O.J. Simpson..."

Get off it - the one region in the world where Christianity is currrently spreading the fastest is in sub-saharan Africa. In this country, some of the most vibrant and active Christian groups are predominantly African-American. And yes, in many churches (the one I attend, for instance) whites, blacks, hispanics and asians worship together in peace.

And just to blow your mind, given where he lived and the populations involved, Jesus probably looked more like Arafat than either you or me.

ohetothks666 http://ohetothks666.nu/

This is all most fascinating, but it gives me little hope.

If God created us in his image, then God is like us. If He is like us then He is flawed like we are. I would not listen to what he says. That is what God is trying to tell us. We need to better than the vengeful God that created us, not worship
him.

How about them apples.

"We cannot control our children - and sometimes they can be hateful to us and everyone else around them - but ultimately, it is worth it. The experience of loving them, and the love they give back, is one of the greatest joys we can know."

Aah, but you didn't have the option of creating perfectly good, perfectly obedient, and perfectly loving children, and he did. So why didn't he exercise that option? And how many children does he need? This has been going on for a few hundred thousand years now (since we became the humans we are today); and a few million if you take it back to our earliest non-chimp ancestors. Billions and billions of children. What's the magic number?

Did the Mind create God or did God create the mind?

People who claim to be Christians are nothing but racist or just miss-informed... and this is a simple fact...
THINK-If Jesus was painted black in your religious books you would drop your religion like you dropped O.J. Simpson...
Islam does not have any color or racism - that that is why you hate it because you folks don’t control it...
Solution: clean your heart from racism and realize that GOD IS ONE... The GOD that Jesus prayed to: Our Father which are in Heaven….etc. He was not praying to himself..
When Jesus will return to earth he will break the cross (whip away all the liars and racists) and kill the swine... ‘I hope that you are not eating pig at this time’ or looking for a blond hair blue eyed Jesus, because he might be a devil... Jesus is and was a Muslim and he will return as one- Worshiping 1 Creator so shut your Racist mouths…

Science really does not have any limitations, it is people's minds that have limitations.

A priest proposed the big bang theory. Einstein was looking for God. Godel (a friend of Einstein and a great mathametican) proposed a theory that was intended to prove that God could exist without scientific proof.

Chew on this: Consciousness if a fundamental element of the Unverse, not just people or animals but of matter. NIST did an experiement that provides that schrodinger's wave equation is correct,i.e., Shrodinger's cat is both dead and alive. The problem is most of us just can't get our heads around this stuff. More below:

"This question has been brought into vivid relief by the recent work done by the NIST team, which includes Christopher Monroe, Dawn Meekhof, Brian King and Dave Wineland. The group confined a charged beryllium atom in a tiny electromagnetic cage and then cooled it with a laser to its lowest energy state. In this state the position of the atom and its "spin" (a quantum property that is only metaphorically analogous to spin in the ordinary sense) could be ascertained to within a very high degree of accuracy, limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The workers then stimulated the atom with a laser just enough to change its wave function; according to the new wave function of the atom, it now had a 50 percent probability of being in a "spin-up" state in its initial position and an equal probability of being in a "spin-down" state in a position as much as 80 nanometers away, a vast distance indeed for the atomic realm. In effect, the atom was in two different places, as well as two different spin states, at the same time--an atomic analog of a cat both living and dead.

(The clinching evidence that the NIST researchers had achieved their goal came from their observation of an interference pattern; that phenomenon is a telltale sign that a single beryllium atom produced two distinct wave functions that interfered with each other"
http://www.idmon.freeserve.co.uk/cation.htm

In simple words, they found that the mere act of observing the ion made the ion determine its spin state. Hey, that is magic to me.

Why can't faith and science co-exist? Why do we have to be so rigid in our beliefs? Can't we be wrong about somethings and right about others? This is the big Mystery.

And Mr. Hewitt, you have a point.

People on religion (except for Buddhists, diests, unitians and the like)somethings is more danger than a drunk drug addict with their finger on an atomic bomb. Right W?

If you are going to regulate drugs, why not regulate Religion? OR at least make sure its not guiding the policy of your government right? Its a question, not an answer.

What's so bad about the Golden Rule? That is all you need for morals, unless you're a sadist.

Ok have at.

It wold be easier to have a dialogue concerning religion if we could heed the advice of Father John Neuhaus who said that "it is the will of God that we be tolerant of those who disageree with us about the will of God ."

One of the tenets of Buddhism is to respect all religion. I think that is a very wise approach to the inter-faith problems of the entire world.
I don't believe that there is one truth that fits all. All too often in this world we look at things in black and white. (I am not talking about race) The world, for sure, is not as simple as that. At times life can be very complex, resulting in a feeling of helplessness. Like the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Or, especially in the addiction recovery process, there is a need to understand just where we went wrong, or a need to know what is lacking in our lives that seems to cause such pain and a hunger for oblivion. I used to say all the time, that ignorance is bliss. I have long since changed my tune on such empty phrases.
The key to understanding, mercy and kindness, is to believe we are all of the same substance, forged in the same universal furnace.
I think people get too hung up on religious dogma and leave out the question of a shared spirituality within us all. From time to time people have asked me for an example of spirituality. My answer is usually to give the example of a fireman rushing into a burning building, at the risk to his own life. What is it that allows for such courage and selflessness? Spirituality.
But, there is a real danger in orthodox religion. And that is one person or a small group of people who scare others into believing in a torturous, enternal painfull after life. A hell. This is not spirituality. This is nothing less than spiritual despotism. A governing of the soul and imprisonment of the spirit into a servile obediance, without questioning the so called spiritual leader. Jonestown comes to mind, where over 800 people commited mass suicide at the direction of a man gone mad with the belief that he, and he alone had god's ear.
Its a very delicate balance to exist in the empirical world and keep one foot in the realm of spirituality. Some describe it as a journey, and I tend to think they are right. The journey itself is the teacher, not the destination.

If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?

Do "religious people" have a monopoly on "truth"? That's really brings up more questions. Who are the "religious people" being referred to? Christians, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Budhists? If you would define that question then my next question is what are you defining as "truth"? Someone's ideas, or The Holy Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormons, etc? You see the question that you've asked only begs for more questions to be asked to clarify the answer so that more questions can be asked. Thus, you've begun a whole conversation just from the question asked.

Is conversation and dialogue possible and healthy? Yes. However, a conversation requires that teh parties involved be open-minded and willing to accept others views. That does not mean you will believe their viewpoint, but respect their veiewpoint regardless of how whacked you might think that view point might be (or is).

Personally - I think there is only one true way to discover what is the truth and that is through reading and studying The Holy Bible, King James version. And study it in its entirety taking it as a whole idea not ideas picked out through a verse or verses or a chapter or book. You have to read and study it all and cross-reference and re-cross reference. In reading it you will discover what is true and what is important in this life. But you must read it and truly agree to read it with an open mind and read it, study it, cross reference every verse and chapter, and re-read. It's teh whole book that will provide you an understanding ofwhat is true and not true.

Hope you have a blessed day and HAPPY READING.

If someone believes that they have a monopoly on truth, then no discussion is possible. They already know all there is to know. Next, they will try and convert you or, failing that, kill you, since heresy is intollerable.

You can't talk to a religious fanatic. You can only kill them before they kill you.

"No, there haven't yet been any national laws or constituional amendments passed, nor have the courts upheld the teaching of Creation "Science" in any school systems yet, but there have been state and local laws, like the stickers on text books declaring that evolution is "just a theory" and there's definitely a repressive effect on science teachers in general, and biology teachers in particular. Many just skip that part of the book to avoid any controversy. Americans get one of the poorest science educations in the Western world, and it's no coincidence that we're the most religious country in that same grouping."

Look - you and HLHEART don't want "creation science" taught in schools, and are appalled that anyone would take it seriously. It doesn't make much sense to me either. But no one has tried to suppress the teaching of evolution in schools - that's still done everywhere. And I hate to be this way, but that's only one aspect of science - you can't reasonably lay our broader educational woes at the feet of religion. We're not teaching physics, chemistry, literature, mathematics, spelling or foreign languages very well either. Basically, we provide some of the poorest educations in the Western world - in subjects that religious people WANT taught!

Beyond that, this demonizing of evangelical christians is simply overwrought. HLHEART is talking about decades of losses of civil liberties, and attributing it all to a religious group she disagrees with and dislikes. It simply hasn't happened. If anything, the laws we have today are less to the liking of evangelical christians than the ones from 30 years ago.

Honestly - is there one, single thing that you want to do that was legal in 1970 that is illegal now, as a result of pressure from the "religious right?"

"Hmmm...I think there are quite a few that it can't answer, given current knowledge and facts in evidence. This doesn't mean that it will never be able to. The ultimate question, of course, is "Why is there *something*, rather than *nothing*?" I think there *is* an answer to this, but science can't, in our present state of knowledge, tell us what it is, and perhaps it will never be able to; but postulating a god, or gods, or God, doesn't answer it either. It just changes the question to "Why is there God, instead of nothing?""

I'm convinced that science, by its very nature, will never be able to answer this question. Its methods and object of study are limited to the nature and properties of the physical universe that we observe around us. That doesn't mean that it's unanswerable - I simply believe that the tools of philosophy and religion are the proper ones to bring to bear. And yes, the same question can be asked of a supreme being - "why is there a God, instead of nothing."

Many great thinkers have spent their lives working on this one (well, more properly, on the question "is there a God?"). I would never suggest that you simply assume there to be a God (except, perhaps, as part of a thought experiment or as part of a proof, as one might say "assume that a point outside a circle exists such that . . . "). But this is inextricably tied to the question of religion, and whether or not the beliefs of any particular religion are compatible with reason.

"I don't need to have it answered."

I do need to have it answered. Sure, we know that matter exists - but why, and what does it mean? Many thoughtful people consider this important as we consider the potential meaning and purpose to our own existence.

"As to the rest of your post, it seems to me that most of the more enlightened Christians (of which you seem to be one) do a fair amount of "cherry-picking" with regard to the Bible. I'd be interested to know what you do believe. Do you think of God as corporeal? That we were "made in his image"? Do you believe that he's a "he"? Do you believe that he's omnipotent? Omniscient? Do you believe that there was a flood, and that Noah loaded up an ark? Do you believe in Hell? Satan? Do you believe that "Heaven" is an actual place?
Do you, really and truly, believe in eternal life?"

Cherry pick? I try not to. There are sections of scripture that I understand better than others, and some seem to me more central to the life of the believer than others (for instance, all those "begats" in the Old Testament). For the rest, I try to understand scripture as best I can. I also try very hard to place scriptures in their historical context, rather than reading current-day preoccupations back into them.

What do I believe? God is spirit - that means non-corporeal. "In his image?" That has nothing to do with our bodies, but with our nature as morally responsible spiritual beings who have free will. In other words, we aren't robots, and we all share something of the mental, spiritual and moral nature of God.

Is God a "He"? On a fundamental level, God is neither male nor female, because those are both characteristics of a body. In the Hebrew and Greek of the original scriptures, masculine pronouns are used when speaking of God, and the most common picture given of God is as "Father." I don't know why - there seems to be something about the nature of fatherhood that's being used to help us understand the nature of God. While God is not described using female pronouns or explicitly described as a mother, there are certain maternal images that are (relatively infrequently) used to help us understand God's care and concern. Why this is, and what it means for us today, is actively debated among most Christian groups.

"Omnipotent" and "Omniscient" are part of the package, as described in both the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures. And really - nothing else would quite fit the bill if we're talking about a supreme being responsible for creating the entire cosmos (although there have been some who've played with the idea that God might be limited in some way, in my opinion, that's inconsistent with the Christian conception of God). There are things that God cannot do. He cannot perform a logical contradiction - the classical example is that he cannot make a square circle. He cannot do anything fundamentally inconsistent with his own nature, such as lie (all of this is based on my understanding of scripture and Christian thought - please don't make me try to work through all the footnotes).

Do I believe there was a flood? Define flood. Seriously, some more liberal Christians believe that this whole section of scripture should not be taken literally. I don't think that's taking it seriously enough. One thing that seems to me critical here is that the "world" discussed as being flooded was "eretz" or land. Given the state of the world described, I think we may be reading too much into the text if we assume it's saying that the entire globe was blanketed with water. So yes, I'm inclined to believe in a catastrophe that overwhelmed the world known to the people of that time (which might well have been quite circumscribed).

Heaven and Hell? Well, yes - but not as physical places. We talk a lot about hell, but really, not all that much of the Bible is devoted to the topic. I believe these are both very vivid pictures of the eternal results of the choices we make during our lives.

And just as a bit of food for thought, have you ever considered that Jesus describes hell as "being cast into outer darkness" perhaps more often than he uses the metaphor of fire? Most theologians consider hell to be the absence of the presence of God. In other words, God wants people to have a positive, loving relationship with him and with each other. If someone ultimately rejects love, they will in the end be given their wish, and left to themselves cut off from the life and light that come from God. Conversely, heaven is the direct knowledge and experience of the divine presence. So yes, heaven is very, very good and hell is very, very bad. But thoughtful Christians have never expected to see physical angels with little gold harps, physical devils in funny red suits, or a hell that ran on propane (and yes, the writings of the early church authors confirm this - they understood heaven and hell in spiritual terms).

Satan? Let's start by saying that we do not live in a peaceful, idyllic world. Frankly, it looks more like a war zone - and that's the way scripture describes it, as a war zone between good and evil. That seems right on the mark to me - if the last century has taught us anything, it's that evil is real and active in the world. Satan is described by scripture as a created, subordinate spiritual being (angel) who rebelled against God and is actively opposed to God's purposes. Again, some Christians see that as metaphor. I personally have no problem believing in Satan as a real, but non-corporeal, being.

Eternal life? Yes. Bottom line, if you're not convinced of the reality of 1) God, 2) Jesus of Nazareth, and 3) the eternal life of your spirit, then Christianity makes no sense and you should find something better to do with your Sunday mornings. Of course, if someone is well and truly convinced of those three things, then odds are it will affect what they do. But in my mind you're just "playing church" if you can't accept all three and yet still try to be a Christian (and honestly, I can't imagine why you would).

"I was struck (apropos of the last question) by the narrative of one of the earlier posters in this forum, who told the story of his father and two uncles who didn't speak for 40 years because of differing religions. He said that the one uncle, whose death he attended, told him how terribly afraid he was to die. It was odd to me that someone would have such strong religious convictions that he would give up the love of his siblings over it, and that then he would have so little conviction on his deathbed that he was going to his reward in Paradise."

That's a tragic story. It shows an understanding of Christianity that is, at best, pretty limited and immature. Some people have what I believe to be a warped idea of God, imagining him to be playing "gotcha" with people. Just so you understand (I'm not trying to become a missionary on you all of a sudden), my understanding of the key message of Christianity is this: we have been alienated from God due to the evil we all inevitably do as the result of our greed, fear, hate, envy, etc.; God provided a solution in the person of his Son (who was fully God - just footnote this concept "trinity" and recognize that it's a whole 'nother discussion) who suffered and died on our behalf; this means that we don't have to "do it" on our own (personal perfection on our part is not required - it's more a matter of allegience), but if we're willing, we can have reconciliation to God as a free gift from him (the illustration here is the parable of the "Prodigal Son" - when he comes back from wasting his dad's wealth and shaming the family name, his dad RUNS to meet him and welcome him back home without recriminations).

What's my point? It sounds as if this man was afraid he wasn't "good enough" - and that's a perversion of the Gospel message.

"Which brings me to the question - why would God create the world? For amusement? Out of boredom? He wants to test a few billion people, who are given varying amounts of aid (had I seen the Red Sea part, I might believe. I've never seen a miracle of any kind, nor heard of one that I found in any way credible) and then, on the basis of those results, send them all someplace to live forever? Why? To what purpose? To have his ego stroked by having people genuflect before him? He could have that at any time if he just revealed himself unambiguously. What's the big secret?"

The picture in the New Testament is that he desires sons and daughters. It's the same motivation that any parent has today - to love and be loved. This gets to the heart of free will - love is not genuine if it is not a free choice. A robot can't love me - and love that's forced isn't love at all. This is something that makes more sense to me the older I get (my oldest child is in college now). We cannot control our children - and sometimes they can be hateful to us and everyone else around them - but ultimately, it is worth it. The experience of loving them, and the love they give back, is one of the greatest joys we can know.

If I were going to pick a belief system that feels good to me, the Buddhist ideal would be a way I would consider. But, they in their own way do not allow women equal states as well. Yet their quiet dignity is an attraction to me. I wish I could learn silence of the soul. But, the damage of my soul keeps assailing me.

The Muslims & Christians think alike?If you do not practise Islam or Christanity then all the rest are going to HELL and thus this 2 relions have a Monopoly?
What a load of Rubbish.
There are more Hindus and Buddhist then either of Muslims and Christians and they have never Invaded any land.
Both Islam and Christians have killed and pillaged over the centuries and those will go to HELL.
Look at the Middleast,Muslim countires all of them and most of the populations are poor and illitrate and ruled like autocracy.One day very soon these Muslims will go back to dark ages and to their desert way of life.

The Muslims & Christians think alike?If you do not practise Islam or Christanity then all the rest are going to HELL and thus this 2 relions have a Monopoly?
What a load of Rubbish.
There are more Hindus and Buddhist then either of Muslims and Christians and they have never Invaded any land.
Both Islam and Christians have killed and pillaged over the centuries and those will go to HELL.
Look at the Middleast,Muslim countires all of them and most of the populations are poor and illitrate and ruled like autocracy.One day very soon these Muslims will go back to dark ages and to their desrt way of life.

Well, just let it alllllll the way out, John. But, you may be right.

YOU TAKE AWAY ETERNAL LIFE , AND RELIGION WOULD FADE INTO TIME...WE DON'T NEED IT..YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, BELIEVE IN YOURSELF.. BELIEVE IN YOUR NEIGHBOR.. YOU WANT TO LIVE FOREVER?? FIND SOMEONE THAT HAS.. THERE ISN'T ANYONE..WE ARE PREACHED THAT CHRIST ROSE ON THE THIRD DAY...
I WAS NOT THERE.. DON'T KNOW ANYONE THAT WAS THERE.. IF THIS FACT WAS PUT TO A COURT OF LAW, THEY WOULD THROW IT OUT.
when we're able to accept the fact that when they bury us.. it's over.. this world will come to peace...but. probably never happen...

Dear George, Doesn't it feel wonderful to look at life as though it is new? To gaze at things with some of the awe a child would have when a magician pulls a quarter from behind the ear. To be old enough to know you may not have the absolute answers, yet young to see the joy of the lives you touched & indeed saved.
I applaud you Sir.

I know I don't have any monopoly on what a universal truth is. But, it does scare me when "Religious Rightists" won't allow the exploration of truths that may deviate from so called "Religious Truths". If "religious people" would admit that their set of "truths" are not absolute I wouldn't fear a conversation with "religious people". But, "Religious Rightists" will not admit it's possible that they may have it wrong. Ever.

George-
I applaud this effort. Yes it can be successful & must so as to avoid the destructive course we are on. The greatest benefit is it may bring us closer together as brothers and sisters on this earth.
Where I am coming from- PhD in life after 28 years in law enforcement & 67 years of life with now many children & grandchildren. However I have never read or wrote a blog before this so bear with me. I am not a fan of organized religion as I have experienced & read about many abuses now & throughout history. But it has positives, such as giving children a foundation to grow more into a spiritual person. My main purpose at this stage in my life is to be more in touch with ???? (God, higher power/ he/ she/it) & reflect the love. My life experiences have hopefully taught me that there are fewer black & whites & more grays. I have fewer answers. In fact I’m not sure what the questions are. But again I applaud your efforts. I feel this is good.

What a profoundly insulting question.

What if I asked: "If some Democrats believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"

I don't imagine the Washington Post would pose such a question. So why do you ask this question of "religious people?"

This is clearly a topic with which you are not especially comfortable.

As Mark Twain once said, Americans have freedom of religion and freedom of speech and the good sense to practice neither, however, this exercise is still a very good idea no matter how painful it seems. On with it my friends and may freedom rain or is it rein or may be reign?

In the end hopefully we will all learn to keep it to ourselves and respect one another's beliefs without trying to force it dowm other's throats, right?

PLHeart may be expressing herself in a little too emotional a fashion, but there is some truth to her assertions.

No, there haven't yet been any national laws or constituional amendments passed, nor have the courts upheld the teaching of Creation "Science" in any school systems yet, but there have been state and local laws, like the stickers on text books declaring that evolution is "just a theory" and there's definitely a repressive effect on science teachers in general, and biology teachers in particular. Many just skip that part of the book to avoid any controversy. Americans get one of the poorest science educations in the Western world, and it's no coincidence that we're the most religious country in that same grouping.

I agree that religious fundamentalists with a political agenda are very scary people.

BTW, someone above said something about atheists being fundamentalists. Fundamental *what*??

Have you seen Kansas? Have you seen Missiouri? Have you seen school boards all across the Bible Belt trying to limit what is taught in public schools. Just let 2 or 3 "Religious Rightists" be elected to the school board & they tie up everything because they want & demand the right to "approve" what is taught in science classes. So rather than get up-dated science books & up-dated labs for high schools, kids are reading & study-ing books from as late as 1978. Because nobody wants to stand up to these "Religious Rightists". I've been watching this happen every where. They even tried it here in California. It didn't go over very well, but, "Religious Rightists" tried to limit knowledge anyway.
Nope, you "Religious Rightists" scare me. You dominate every part of human freedom with the axiom, "we were sent from God to tell you all how to live, so do it our way or go to hell." And if anyone says to you, "But, I want to learn about this scientific discovery, or I want to believe something else," "Religious Rightists" lose their minds.
If it hadn't been for this election where sensible Democrats won the majority, "Religious Rightists" would have claimed that they had a mandate to keep American's stupid.
I'm waiting for some "Religious Rightists" to twist up a reason for why "real thinking" Americans decided they didn't want to live in religious darkness anymore.

I wrote:
"And however you view Genesis - even if you think it's nothing but allegory - you *do* believe that God created everything, so answer the rest...how can you worship someone so cruel? If I had infinite power and wanted to create a world, I could do much better. Hands down."

You wrote:
"That's quite a claim. Two ideas: 1) the purpose of the universe may be to develop human potential in an environment allowing for free choice; 2) in a world designed to allow moral actors to have free choice, for those choices to be real, some things are the consequence of choices made by someone other than God."

OK, I've heard this before, testing people with their free choice; but it doesn't address the cruelty to animals - are *they* being tested? Or "developed"?

And if God is omniscient, he already knows what choices they will make, ad infinitum. If you believe that he had a hand in the creation of each human, he made them what they are, and their basic characters and mental abilities put certain limits on the flexibility of their choices.

Which brings me to the question - why would God create the world? For amusement? Out of boredom? He wants to test a few billion people, who are given varying amounts of aid (had I seen the Red Sea part, I might believe. I've never seen a miracle of any kind, nor heard of one that I found in any way credible) and then, on the basis of those results, send them all someplace to live forever? Why? To what purpose? To have his ego stroked by having people genuflect before him? He could have that at any time if he just revealed himself unambiguously. What's the big secret?

"Stepping back, I have no problem saying that science is the best tool we've come up with for figuring out how this world we're in works. But there are some questions that I'm convinced it can't answer."

Hmmm...I think there are quite a few that it can't answer, given current knowledge and facts in evidence. This doesn't mean that it will never be able to. The ultimate question, of course, is "Why is there *something*, rather than *nothing*?" I think there *is* an answer to this, but science can't, in our present state of knowledge, tell us what it is, and perhaps it will never be able to; but postulating a god, or gods, or God, doesn't answer it either. It just changes the question to "Why is there God, instead of nothing?"

I don't need to have it answered. It's an interesting problem, but not a deal-breaker. I know that matter does exist, and I know that when you break it down to the smallest particles we're currently able to assess, it's pretty flimsy stuff. I know that there's a reason why it exists, and I'm comfortable with not knowing exactly what that reason is.

As to the rest of your post, it seems to me that most of the more enlightened Christians (of which you seem to be one) do a fair amount of "cherry-picking" with regard to the Bible. I'd be interested to know what you do believe. Do you think of God as corporeal? That we were "made in his image"? Do you believe that he's a "he"? Do you believe that he's omnipotent? Omniscient? Do you believe that there was a flood, and that Noah loaded up an ark? Do you believe in Hell? Satan? Do you believe that "Heaven" is an actual place?
Do you, really and truly, believe in eternal life?

I was struck (apropos of the last question) by the narrative of one of the earlier posters in this forum, who told the story of his father and two uncles who didn't speak for 40 years because of differing religions. He said that the one uncle, whose death he attended, told him how terribly afraid he was to die. It was odd to me that someone would have such strong religious convictions that he would give up the love of his siblings over it, and that then he would have so little conviction on his deathbed that he was going to his reward in Paradise.

PLHEART

Please slow down and really talk to us.

You say that there's a move to prevent anything being taught in the public schools other than creationism or intelligent design. Can you name a single public schools system where the teaching of evolution is prohibited?

You say that "for the last 30 years 'Religous Rightists' have been whittlin' away at what I believe to be my social rights as an American." What specific things are there that you want to do, that were legal 30 years ago but are now by statute illegal?

I'm willing to talk, but if you want to get me up in arms, you're going to have to tell me what the heck it is that you want to do that the "religious right" has managed to get outlawed.

You've only seen censorship from the left??? Just who are you kidding??? It ain't me!!! The "Religious Rightists" want only creationism or intelligent design taught in public schools. If that's not tryin' to take this country back to the dark ages pray tell what is??? No wonder Bill Maher says that all of the patents for the new scientific discoveries will be held by other countries. Please stop yourselves.

"I suppose if one defines the existence of
God as the most imporant and defining
characteristic of one's life, then it becomes
much more difficult to make friends among those
that don't place the same importance on it."

I'm not sure I would agree with that. If someone really does believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions - in the sense that they are convinced that his existance is a fact, and that he cares how people live - then it's going to be a key factor defining their life. It may make them worry about non-believing friends and relatives, but should not reduce their genuine love and affection for them.

Sorry--double post.

But have a read Yeats' "The Cold Heaven" for the sense of wonder at the universe. There is a lot of that in Yeats.

PS for Pam

But for me
Something from nothing
Order from chaos
Light from darkness
The earth teeming with life and vitality from a cold, empty rock

is enough to make me fall on my knees with wonder and give thanks. I'm not going to thank myself--or any other part of humanity. They didn't do it! God will do, I'll never understand fully, but I still know a miracle when I see one.

And YOU wouldn't be able to do it better. (Such arrogance!) YOU are not able to do anything like it. That much I do know.

XXXXXX
MC

"But, as I've said, for the last 30 years "Religous Rightists" have been whittlin' away at what I believe to be my social rights as an American."

O.k. - let's talk, then. What specific things are there that you want to do, that were legal 30 years ago but are now by statute illegal?

- smoke pot? No, that wasn't legal back then, either.

- have an abortion? Whoops - that's gone the other way.

- call conservative Christians nasty names? You're o.k. there too.

- protest in the streets? It's a bit less popular these days, but still legal.

Seriously - what the heck is it that you want to do that the "religious right" has managed to get outlawed?

Thank you Syrinx, you have pretty much summarize
my point of view.

To "Believer" I say that most people I know
do believe and practice a religion and that
I count some of my best friends and my most
dear relatives in this group.
Just because we disagree on the existence
of God or an afterlife or on the type of
emotional "clutches" we use,
we don't stop valuing each other's contribution
to each other's life. We respect each other
and understand we have different needs. Yet
there are areas where we have many similar
views and needs and we provide help and love and
support and respect to each other.
It is not only possible, but it is enriching.

I suppose if one defines the existence of
God as the most imporant and defining
characteristic of one's life, then it becomes
much more difficult to make friends among those
that don't place the same importance on it.
The same could be said of many other
aspects of life
that people place different importance on.
That is why you can't be friends with everybody
and tend to be friend with those with whom
you share some common ground.

Fundamentalists (religious or atheists)
by definition tend to define themselves by
their adherence to a religion (or lack thereof)
and therefore do have a much more difficult
time dialoging with others that don't share
their priorities.

I am hoping that fundamentalists remain in
a minority.

To Pam:

PS

But, frankly, I think
something from NOTHING,
order from chaos,
light out of darkness,
an earth teeming with life and vitality from an empty rock
is enough to make me fall on my knees in wonder. And give thanks. I;m not going to thank myself, so God will do. If there are some design faults, well, there are those faults.

And no, you couldn't do better. YOU couldn't do anything--well, nothing that compares to it.

XXXXXXX
MC

The question posed on the Post's main web page is "Can Religion and Free Speech Co-Exist?", to which my answer is a somewhat qualified "yes", depending on how the proponent of religion defines free speech - an issue which has troubled and continues to trouble the Supreme Court, among others.

The question posed above, however, is "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible?", which is not in any way the same question. And my answer is "no". It is not possible to have conversation or common ground with someone who believes s/he has a monopoy on "truth", whether that truth is religious, political, economic, scientific, or whatever. I recently had a sort of discussion with a co-worker who said he voted Republic in the recent election because as long as we are fighting the terrorists "there", we won't have to fight them "here" - and he truly believes that and believes it is the "truth". And, of course, as long as he holds to that "truth", there is little if any value in trying to have a conversation or find common ground on terrorist, the war in Iraq, or related issues.

I am personally inclined to think that Pilate had a very valid question when he asked "what is truth?", and I have come to differentiate between "truth" (that is, what I personally believe to be "truth" for me) and fact (which can repeatedly be proved).

For Pam:

Good grief! Animals are not sinful, they are what they are. They kill, the strong kill the weak, sometimes to eat, sometimes just to kill. Just watch them.

We can be evil and because we have knowledge the evil is sinful.

Anyway.This is not the time or the place.

This is it from me.

"So *you* believe. I have a friend who believes that every word of Genesis is absolutely, literally, true - the revealed word of God. Frankly, her viewpoint seems to me to be the more honest one. If you're going to buy into the bible, why not go for the whole thing?"

Look - if you're going to take any ancient book (and we're talking truly ANCIENT when we get into the earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible) seriously, you have to consider who it was written for, what the purpose was, and what the literary conventions of the day were before you have any hope of understanding the message correctly. You haven't told us exactly how your friend understands the Genesis accounts - I suspect from what you do say that it's a "young earth, six day fiat creation" interpretation. Fine. But that's not any more intellectually or spiritually honest than a variety of other approaches that attempt to understand in the context of what we know about early Hebrew life and thought.

A "literal" of the Bible does not require a boneheaded refusal to recognize figures of speech, metaphors and other literary devices - it means that we assume the message is conveyed in natural human language using the ordinary literary conventions of the day. Basically, you assume that it had a specific meaning that would have been understandable to the first readers. And after all - isn't that the most natural way to begin reading any piece of great literature.

"And however you view Genesis - even if you think it's nothing but allegory - you *do* believe that God created everything, so answer the rest...how can you worship someone so cruel? If I had infinite power and wanted to create a world, I could do much better. Hands down."

That's quite a claim. Two ideas: 1) the purpose of the universe may be to develop human potential in an environment allowing for free choice; 2) in a world designed to allow moral actors to have free choice, for those choices to be real, some things are the consequence of choices made by someone other than God.

An equally valid question is, "Can extreme secularism and free speech and religious liberty coexist?"

The threat of censorship in America today comes almost exclusively from the "tolerant" Left, not from the religious community. There are very few examples of anyone from the "Christian Right" attempting to compromise individual liberty or freedom of conscience, but instances of the same from the "Progressive Left" abound.

Look at any university today. Christian and conservative students have been subjected to neo-dhimmitude in an intellectual caste system on campus -- whether it be through speech codes, onerous "non-discrimination" policies, denial of SGA funding or summary ejection from campus, the stench of hatred emanates froma single source.

If "guilt" is to be assigned for the "fault" of claiming the copyright on Truth, the secular Left must be judged along with the religious in this discussion. The greater threat to free speech and liberty, as any objective observer would conclude, comes from the faithless Left, not the faithful, who for the most part want only appropriate Constitutional protection.

"You mention that you don't discount evolution, and that you're not a "young earth creationist."
I find this generally true of intelligent, educated Christians, but it seems to me to beg the question - it's like trying to have it both ways. If you subscribe to the "watchmaker" philosophy - the hands-off God who created the world, put in place natural laws, and then sat back to watch it play out as it would, then you run into trouble when you come to Jesus and his miracles - not the least of which is rising from the dead. And you really have to throw out the Old Testament in it's entirety. And then what's the point?"

You've done a good job of expressing where you're coming from. And this may help identify where we part company - I truly don't think you have to throw out the Hebrew scriptures in their entirety to accept both evolution and a faith in the God of Abraham. (And many other thoughtful believers don't either.)

Why not? Well, one important piece of context is the great age of the Genesis accounts of creation. Ballpark, when we think of them and try to imagine the world they came from, we should think "Iliad." They are among the oldest pieces of literature most of us will ever read.

I am absolutely convinced that, whatever else we may say about their intended message, they were not intended to speak to the chronological age of the universe or to provide a scientific explanation of the creation of the cosmos. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are purely metaphorical, or that we can read any meaning we want into them, but it does mean that we shouldn't read them as if they were written by a contemporary of Darwin as an alternative to his theory of natural selection. They were intended to provide a message that would have been meaningful to the original readers (or hearers). That message may be (and I believe is) still meaningful to us today, because people are still people - but it was one that would have made sense in that day and age. I think that pretty much excludes any concern about evolution or the dating of creation as a central theme.

I also don't think that this necessarily means we have to adopt the "watchmaker" theory of God. Pretty much all traditional believers are convinced that God established natural processes, and that they are designed to operate in a way that will accomplish his purposes for the world. In other words, no one who's seriously considered the matter thinks that God runs the universe through a constant stream of special & particular miracles. The routine and ordinary operation of natural law does not, in the minds of believers, preclude the possibility of God choosing to act through his divine providence acting in any particular situation. (Just as a footnote, many theologians make a distinction between "providence" which they define as God accomplishing his purposes through natural law, and "miracle" which they define as God acting outside of natural law.)

What does this mean? Many believers see no necessary logical contradiction between God using evolutionary processes to create our world, and his intervening in history through, for example, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Of course, if you think that it's a choice between the "watchmaker" who wound it up and left it run down and the "organist" who's constantly pushing eack key and stepping on every pedal to make the universe work, then this would be a real quandry. But frankly, I have no problem imagining the clockmaker resetting the clock occassionally (for daylight saving time, perhaps), or the organist using a pre-recorded rhythm track and just playing the melody.

Stepping back, I have no problem saying that science is the best tool we've come up with for figuring out how this world we're in works. But there are some questions that I'm convinced it can't answer.

Perhaps the most significant one is "Why is there a world to begin with?" Some would suggest that this question is meaningless or unanswerable (so stop asking) - I find both of those responses unsatisfying. In general, most thinkers have assumed that something is eternal, but they've disagreed over whether it's matter or mind. Frankly, the "Big Bang" theory makes me even more convinced that science can't answer this question - there appears to be a point in the past behind which matter ceases to exist (or, at the very least, a veil falls behind which we can't follow it).

Of course, as a believer, I come down on the "mind" side. There are scientist who come down supporting an eternal, but cyclic universe. My impression is that at this point cosmology becomes more and more like philosophy, and less and less like what we ordinarily think of as laboratory science.

"We know that there is something of the sheep that's part of the human equation. Humans tend to be gullible and easily led into cult situations - the examples are numerous: Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate...one could go on and on. This is part of being a social animal and wanting desperately to *belong*. Did you ever wonder why most religious people in Europe and America are Christian? Why most in the Middle East are Muslim? Why most in India are Hindu? Why most in the far East are Buddhist? They aren't adopting their religions after intellectual searching and free choice - they're adopting the religion of their parents and their peers. It's just so much easier to *follow*."

Heck yeah - people are far too often sheep. That's not limited to the religious realm. Sure - people tend to think like their parents. That's true of politics, religion, taste in food and social prejudices. But not all beliefs are dictated by parents - I think you may have underestimated how much religious and intellectual ferment there is in the world.

I'd also note that the same sociological factors can work in the lives of people who adopt a purely naturalist world view. There are others who we respect and admire (or do not respect and admire) and settings in which it is or is not accepted and respected. Does that mean you've been manipulated or duped? No - but it does mean that neither one of us should assume that the other's beliefs are dictated by their social environment, but we have risen above our own.

"I know that religions explain away the human tortures with Original Sin, but I have as much trouble with that as with anything else - imagine the sheer pettiness of a mind that would punish thousands of generations of offspring because their parents had the GOD-GIVEN curiousity to seek knowledge."

Honestly, while the doctrine of original sin is important in some Christian traditions, many Christians don't see it that way. And I'd caution you to be careful about how you interpret the first few chapters of Genesis - I really don't believe that "knowledge" in that context had anything to do with academic or intellectual understanding of the world. (With literature that old, we can't automatically assume that a word are used exactly as we would expect today - remember that that the word "know" is repeatedly used in the Hebrew scriptures to mean "have sexual intercourse with.") Whatever was going on with Adam and Eve, I don't think it was a search for pure knowledge in the sense that a scientist would think of it today.

A blog isn't the right vehicle for addressing the problem of evil or the problem of a flawed world. I will note that these two topics account for a large proportion of the Hebrew and New Testament writings - and much of the work of Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers and writers. But basically, yeah - we all admit that in many respects "life stinks . . . then you die" and that Mother Nature is not like Mrs. Santa with a plate of milk and cookies. We all struggle with it at times, too. But real religion is not an attempt to escape these questions - it's an attempt to struggle with and understand them. (And no one should bother with a religion that doesn't take them seriously and grapple with them head on.)

"I don't need religion to make me live a good life. I obey traffic laws whether or not there's a police cruiser visible, because doing so makes traffic flow. If there were no laws, there would be chaos and gridlock on the roads. People make laws, including those against murder and theft, in order to make social life bearable. Not because they were handed down by God. They would have made them in the absence of religion. Animal societies also have rules, they just aren't written down."

I know that you're a socially responsible person, and that every viable society has to agree on some basic "rules of the road." Most Christians also believe that there is a basic moral sense comman to all healthy, sane people. We do sometimes wonder, however, if the laws made in the absence of religion would be ones that we would be comfortable with. That's one reason the example of the communist realms of the 20th century disturbs us - many Christians suspect that the supression of religion and the oppression and brutality of the regimes may be connected.

I'm not sure where faith and truth intersect. It seems clear that faith does not represent truth, but faith exists and is a truth in itself.

I am an atheist. From time to time, I flirt with accepting the God argument. But if I do so, which religion do I choose? What makes one right and another wrong? How do I reconcile the differences? Why would God create such a mess?

My speculations. If there truly is a God, then God has created (permitted) all these religions and their variations. Maybe the truth is not in any one religion, but spread among them all - including atheism. Maybe to truly find God requires us to listen, respect and learn from each other. Perhaps it is God's plan to point out there is no "right" answer for everyone. So, why not just remain an atheist - for now.

"Evil in animals and, from the animals, sin/evil in us come from what we are made of, which is nothing, we are something come from nothing and that nothing, that chaos, is part of us. Is it a design fault maybe? I don't know, but I know it is there, in the beauty of the very world that I love, the X-sanctifed world I wrote of earlier. "

Oh, man, this is such tortured logic! So the animals are sinful, too? What did *they* do wrong?
And how can a perfect designer design something flawed?

"Regarding your point about creation/evolution, I think you and many others are missing the the point of the book of Genesis. The MAIN POINT is that God Created, not how he created. Genesis is not a science text book, nor is it intended to be, it is the revelation of God to His people."

So *you* believe. I have a friend who believes that every word of Genesis is absolutely, literally, true - the revealed word of God. Frankly, her viewpoint seems to me to be the more honest one. If you're going to buy into the bible, why not go for the whole thing?

And however you view Genesis - even if you think it's nothing but allegory - you *do* believe that God created everything, so answer the rest...how can you worship someone so cruel? If I had infinite power and wanted to create a world, I could do much better. Hands down.

To Pam
Regarding your point about creation/evolution, I think you and many others are missing the the point of the book of Genesis. The MAIN POINT is that God Created, not how he created. Genesis is not a science text book, nor is it intended to be, it is the revelation of God to His people.

For Pam:

I've never had much trouble with Catholicism. The old Celtic myths believed propounded a God-in-nature (pantheism) & RCism, with its Christ-centred sanctified view of the world, accorded well with these (often inchoate) feelings.

Evil in animals and, from the animals, sin/evil in us come from what we are made of, which is nothing, we are something come from nothing and that nothing, that chaos, is part of us. Is it a design fault maybe? I don't know, but I know it is there, in the beauty of the very world that I love, the X-sanctifed world I wrote of earlier.

Hey! I don't know.

As usual, I'm standing on the outside looking in. You can go ahead & 2nd guess or even 3rd guess me, I don't care!!! I see things a whole heck of alot differently. "Religious Rightist" talk a so called "reasoned" game. "Don't worry about us, we're not a big enough block to lead you down the prim-rose path, just let us have this much of your life", & then begins that slippery slope. But, as I've said, for the last 30 years "Religous Rightists" have been whittlin' away at what I believe to be my social rights as an American. I don't like it & I want no part of it, in my secular government.

Dearheart: AKA PL Heart

More tranquility, less hysteria.

It seems you're hyperventilating. And Christianity promises peace not this kind of stuff! I should think a few deep breaths, or maybe a tranquility pill would help. Better still: some meditation. Since you hold Christianity anathema (look up the word) I suggest some Buddhist chants, maybe "OMMMMMM".

Anyway, for your information--post the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, 450 AD, NO ONE ruled Western Europe, iron fist--which I don't think had been invented, iron I mean not the fist--or otherwise. The conversion of Europe to Christianity (that brought about by the Romans did not hold) was peaceable, effected largely by Benedictine monks (FYI these are not known for their martial prowress.)

My own people, the Irish Celts, who had never been occupied by the Roman, were enthusiastic converts to the new faith--about 400 AD & by none-other-than, naturally, blessed St Patrick himself--not only taking the religion up, but becoming ardent missionaries to the continent as well. England was reChristianized by St Augustine, (not the bishop of Hippo), northern France by St Ives (I think).

I can only guess why the conversion to Christianity of these Celtic peoples was peaceful. Celtic paganism demanded human sacrifice to very harsh gods, Christianity offered a god who sacrificed himself for humanity. I would say they thought it was a pretty fair exchange!

I'm glad to hear that there's a well-read Christian in this discussion, and not surprised that it's you.

I never had any doubt that there are intelligent, thoughtful, and scholarly Christians. I watched Bill Moyers' series on PBS "On Faith and Reason" (transcripts may be still be available on the PBS Web site), and heard many intelligent and well-educated Christians explain their faith quite eloquently.

Coming from a scientific perspective, however, I just can't help seeing it as sadly misguided intelligence.

You mention that you don't discount evolution, and that you're not a "young earth creationist."
I find this generally true of intelligent, educated Christians, but it seems to me to beg the question - it's like trying to have it both ways. If you subscribe to the "watchmaker" philosophy - the hands-off God who created the world, put in place natural laws, and then sat back to watch it play out as it would, then you run into trouble when you come to Jesus and his miracles - not the least of which is rising from the dead. And you really have to throw out the Old Testament in it's entirety. And then what's the point?

It's so easy to see how religion got started, and how it perpetuates itself when, like me, you have a naturalist philosophy. We're the only animal that knows definitively that we're going to die, and the only one that has the full cognitive ability to wonder where we came from.

Our brains were evolved for an entirely different reason - to allow us to compete with animals that are faster, more agile, better equipped with weapons (horns, hooves, claws, poison). But that brain also allowed us to think abstractly, and in the absence of scientific answers, we made up stories of our origins and our purpose, and dealt with the very discomfiting idea of our own demise by inventing an afterlife.

In the light of today's knowledge, it would seem difficult to understand how people hang on to these ancient ideas, but even when you except the ones who simply stick their heads in the sand and refuse to look at anything that doesn't validate their childhood beliefs, evolution explains this, too. Children who didn't listen to their parents ("don't play with snakes") didn't live to pass their genes to the next generation. As a result, we're programmed to take to heart what we're taught when we're young, and we find it difficult to overcome this. Particularly when we're home-schooled, or sent to parochial schools, where the precepts are further ingrained.

We know that there is something of the sheep that's part of the human equation. Humans tend to be gullible and easily led into cult situations - the examples are numerous: Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate...one could go on and on. This is part of being a social animal and wanting desperately to *belong*. Did you ever wonder why most religious people in Europe and America are Christian? Why most in the Middle East are Muslim? Why most in India are Hindu? Why most in the far East are Buddhist? They aren't adopting their religions after intellectual searching and free choice - they're adopting the religion of their parents and their peers. It's just so much easier to *follow*.

Like Syrinx, I think there was an historical Jesus, a rabbi with some radical ideas for his time - someone who wanted to believe in a loving God, unlike the petty tyrant of the Old Testament. His vision was appealing, and he gathered a following - a cult. He angered both the traditional believers and the ruling Roman powers, and was crucified, making him a martyr. His followers were then more determined than ever to spread his ideas (martyrdom does that to people) and they embroidered the legend, throwing in miracles to make the story more convincing. By the time people got around to codifying all this, two or three generations later, the miracles had grown, and Jesus had risen from the dead.

Here's why I can't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God:

Foxes in the fields are infested with fleas, making their summers a torment. Warble flies lay eggs on cattle, and the larvae bore through their skin and gather near their spinal cords, sometimes in such numbers that they paralyze the cow, then bore out again to become flies and repeat the process. Reindeer deal with bot flies that lay eggs in their nostrils - the larvae burrow into pouches at the base of their tongues. The sound of the flies buzzing causes such distress, that some deer fail to feed enough to survive the following winter. Children in Africa go to the rivers for water and are bitten by blackflies. The bite injects microfliariae that travel to the eyes and (painfully) make the child blind.

As a naturalist, I understand that if there's a niche to be filled, something will fill it - there's no malice in the fleas and the flies, they're just trying to survive and pass on their genes, the same as are the foxes and the cattle; but how could you find a god who would create - or even concieve of - such things to be worthy of your worship?? And what would be his purpose? Why torture the innocent animals? I know that religions explain away the human tortures with Original Sin, but I have as much trouble with that as with anything else - imagine the sheer pettiness of a mind that would punish thousands of generations of offspring because their parents had the GOD-GIVEN curiousity to seek knowledge.

I don't need religion to make me live a good life. I obey traffic laws whether or not there's a police cruiser visible, because doing so makes traffic flow. If there were no laws, there would be chaos and gridlock on the roads. People make laws, including those against murder and theft, in order to make social life bearable. Not because they were handed down by God. They would have made them in the absence of religion. Animal societies also have rules, they just aren't written down.

To sum up, before this turns into a book, not believing keeps me sane. It allows it all to make sense.

PLHEART

Now you've slid completely over into parody.

"The Catholic Church ruled states with an IRON FIST. Because of it, Muslim's were nearly wiped from the face of the earth."

Sorry - the Islamic expansion swallowed up, by the sword, multiple lands that had been Christian for centuries (including Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, and all of North Africa). Yeah - the Christians got a foothold in Palestine for about 150 years, and finally managed to take back Spain, but that's about it. (Had you not noticed that many of the cities and lands that were most prominent in the early history of the Church are still under Muslim rule? - Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Carthage, Hippo - the birthplace of St. Augustine, Alexandria . . . )

"It is not legitimate to use God & the religions from this God as a reason to dominate a Government or womanhood."

You're loosing your grip on reality here - absolutely no one in this discussion has even suggested this.

"To my last breath I will not let you make me believe that because I am a woman I will be made to live under any man-made religion sactioned by any Government!!!! Now, I'm angry!!!! How Dare Any Of You Demand That From Any Woman???!!!???"

Again, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is saying this (much less demanding it). It just ain't gonna happen.

"Am I Over-Stating My Point? Some of you might think so, but, for the last 30 years I've watched my country sink under the weight of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins & now the "Radical Muslim" Rightists into the, or back to the "Dark Middle Ages" & I truely & profoundly fear for my freedoms & my country."

Heck yes, you are - and bizarrely so. No one (except perhaps some radical Muslims who don't even live here) is trying to create an established religion in this country. You may not like the fact that some Christians tend to vote together, but hey - I hate the way that some other groups vote together (and hold values that strike me as irresponsible and immoral).

"you'll have to drag me kicking & screaming, before I let 1 more so called "Voice From God" take me backwards."

You're fighting a boogyman (I take it that what you're fighting is a man, is it not?) in your own head. Calm down - you're making yourself look foolish.

The question is an interesting one. The answer depends on who is involved in the conversation and whether their intention is to seek converts or wisdom. A radical Islamic cleric will rally his troops to make converts by the sword. Similar tactics have been used by other faiths in past eras. All rational people believe this is wrong. Obviously, this mindset could never lead to finding common ground.

Unfortunately, rather than react to information that is contrary to what we hold to be true with an open and investigative mind, we tend to react with our emotions, to what we "feel" about the information we have been presented. The amount of emotional capital invested in a belief often determines the openness to listening, considering, investigating, accepting or rejecting an opposing point of view.

The question of faith is an interesting one, laden with emotion. Yet every day, we place our faith in things, based on the facts we know about them. For example, fact: elevators are built to rise and fall, safely lifting us within vertical space. We place our faith in elevators that when we get into them, they will take us to our offices on the 21st floor. We place our faith in the fact that our ignition keys when turned, will start our cars. We place our faith in the fact that chairs will hold us and exercise that faith when we sit on them. We exercise faith in multiple ways every day. We don't even blink an eye about accepting this kind of faith - because we understand the principles around which objects work, and act according upon this understanding.

When it comes to faith in a higher Being and in acting upon what we understand that higher Being's intent and direction to be, somehow we lose our objective, rational approaches to learning, understanding and acting according to that understanding. While accepting objective truth in the physical world, a vast number of people reject the notion that there is objective truth in the metaphysical world. If there were true truth, and one lived outside that true truth, it would mean that they have been incorrect in their assumptions about life. And as most feel they have the right to live their lives the way they want to live their lives, they dismiss the concept of true truth because they fear it would prevent them from doing so. The result is a world where opinions built on rights and emotions reign and intellectual dishonesty rules.

Few of the comments in this blog acknowledge an academic or literary investigation into the literature and history which form the basis for the precepts upon which several faiths named herein are based. No one has acknowledged the writings known as the Bible are the basis of the Christian faith or have presented a critical review of its origins as a) trustworthy for belief or b) lacking credibility. The same is true for the Torah, Book of Mormon, or Mohammed's writings. Faith as discussed herein appears to be faith in faith, rather than in a belief system based on credible facts or objective truth that, like gravity, functions in a cause and effect state. With faith in faith as the accepted definition and presupposition to many of the views presented, there is no objective way to determine the rightness or wrongness of a view or find common ground.

Like Lew Wallace, who wrote Ben Hur, many scholars have set out to dispute the validity of the Bible as a basis for faith and life. Yet a scrutiny similar to that which is extended to other works of the ancient world establishes, rather than negates its credibility.

Perhaps a similar investigative approach to sources of belief would help one participating in the initially proposed conversation to understand the basis for his or her views. At least then, one would know if the instruction of youth, "feelings", contrarian reactionism, or objective, credible sources were guiding them. And then, finding common ground - those hopes, values, outcomes desired deeply in the hearts of most humankind - might become an easier task and lead to agreements that could be sustained. Until then, an apples and oranges comparison would lead to frustration, rather than to common ground.

Boy... Are you both sooooooo wrong. The Catholic Church ruled states with an IRON FIST. Because of it, Muslim's were nearly wiped from the face of the earth. Because of it, Jews were nearly wiped off the face of the earth!!!! It took a murderous Henry the Fifth to crack the Holy Church!!!! Did he kill women for the wrong reasons? You bet your self-righteous butts. No woman should have suffered domination from any man in the name of any God!!!! It is not legitimate to use God & the religions from this God as a reason to dominate a Government or womanhood. It is this domination of women that has & will continue to prepetuate the dominance of man. A man would have no place to put his seed, if it were not for a woman's care & attention to who she is as part of the eternal circle. Yet & still in this country "Religious Rightist" including Christians & Muslims demand that women be marginalized in what their freedoms should be. No, I AIN'T BUYIN' WHAT YOU'RE SELLIN'!!! To my last breath I will not let you make me believe that because I am a woman I will be made to live under any man-made religion sactioned by any Government!!!!
Now, I'm angry!!!! How Dare Any Of You Demand That From Any Woman???!!!???
Like I've said before, you're going to kill me before I will submit to that kind of myopic view of who I am as a human soul, a woman, & free person of the United States of America. And Trust Me, I'd Rather Be Dead Than Live Like That
Am I Over-Stating My Point? Some of you might think so, but, for the last 30 years I've watched my country sink under the weight of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins & now the "Radical Muslim" Rightists into the, or back to the "Dark Middle Ages" & I truely & profoundly fear for my freedoms & my country.
Go ahead, beat me up here, I don't care, but, you'll have to drag me kicking & screaming, before I let 1 more so called "Voice From God" take me backwards.

One man, Gary Wolf, writing in WIRED magazine, says after analyzing the new atheists that "our bedrock faith is: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance that we could turn out to be wrong."

For the Christian, it is more like this: "no matter how wrong someone is in their beliefs, they are to be accorded the dignity and respect of one created in the image of God. It is not given to us to carry out the logical consequences of their unbelief (which is spiritual death), but rather to speak the truth in love, consistently holding before them the message with them that "God was reconciling the world to Himself in His Son." Ultimately we bring not condemnation, but good, saving news. We bring life, not death. It is given to us by the Triune God to say "Father forgive them" always. Even as they may not only cut off dialogue with us, but seek to cut us off from their world forever.

That said, unfortunately I don't have time to dialogue about this right now.

Whilst Islam maintained a ruling role in Islamic society, the heritage of Christianity before the rise of the nation state saw state and church (then the Catholic Church only) firmly separated--a kind of original check and balance. Early Christianity, unlike Islam, sought no political power, in fact the earliest Christians were pacifists. The Orthodox (Byzantine) Churches were national churches but in Western Europe not until the Reformation were national churches establishmed. In England the established church was the Church of England...and the country (more specifically its Catholic and Dissident citizens) would suffer terribly with its establishment, including a very nasty Civil War culminating with regicide. (The Irish would never accept the established church.)

In contrast, the US was founded on a separation of Church and State--in conscious opposition to the British example. But that does not mean they BANNED religion, as Mr Brown wishes would have happen today. Rather that, there was no 'official' (or established) religion in the US. They tolerated all, even Catholicism, which was a very enlightened position for (mostly Protestant)men of the late 1700s to take.

But I remain rather astonished that anyone would hold up the Soviet Union, with its almost unimaginable (up until that time) massacres against its own (and other) people as a good example of society without religion! Well, maybe, it is a good EXAMPLE, but it was not a good society.

"Was that all you got from from Mr. Brown? That's not what he meant & I think you're take is myopic of his views. He never said he was in agreement of those type of "Crimes of Humanity" or "War Crimes". "

Was that all you got from Ms. Cunningham? She made the legitimate observation that those societies in the last century that made consistent efforts to marginalize and ultimately eliminate religion have also, in the end, developed into some of the most repressive and murderous regimes on the planet, killing millions of their own citizens. Bad, bad stuff.

"There is a religous practice in Islam that says women should be circumcised, should that "religious law" be made a government law? Hell No!!! Why should we allow Islamic "Religous Practice" become law in the U.S.? "

This was completely and totally over the top, and unfair enough that you should be ashamed of yourself. Ms. Cunningham never suggested that sharia (or rabbinic law, or canon law for that matter) should be codified into the statutes of the U.S. federal government or any of our states. Yes - religious individuals evaluate legislative proposals based on their moral beliefs and values - just as do those who have advocated the banning of fois gras because they consider it to constitute cruelty to animals (and frankly, I get very torqued about some of these stupid, stupid nit picking attempts to micromanage what I eat and do). But we are in no danger of becoming a theocracy in this country - there is no serious attempt or even desire (except perhaps on the part of some of the most radical pan-islamists) to establish an official religion, require any religious observance, or place religious law in the place of or above secular law.

And frankly, if you can't deal with the fact that it might, just might, be possible that the majority of the people in this country believe something to be morally wrong that you think is o.k. (whether it be smoking, eating veal, or late-term abortions) - and that it might affect the way they vote - then you haven't really bought into democracy. This is how we make decisions - and you don't have the right to declare someone else's beliefs and approach to thinking through the issues out of bounds.

Was that all you got from from Mr. Brown? That's not what he meant & I think you're take is myopic of his views. He never said he was in agreement of those type of "Crimes of Humanity" or "War Crimes". While we all know in this country the idea of banning all religions in this country is just not possible, asking that it be kept from influencing Government is indeed extremely important. Yes, Government's should ban religious laws. There is a religous practice in Islam that says women should be circumcised, should that "religious law" be made a government law? Hell No!!! Why should we allow Islamic "Religous Practice" become law in the U.S.? As a matter of fact a Muslim man who took a pair of shears & damaged his daughter is serving 10 years in prison. Yes, to stop that type of hate crime(yes, to circumcise any woman is a hate crime) being perpetrated against any girl or woman, religion needs to be banned from Government. Islamic men ought to think of circumcising a woman as a man having his testicles removed. Believe me, the law proposing women be circumcised would die in committee on the spot, if a corresponding law removing men's testicles were brought forward.
Now, stop & think. Do we need to go forward with these types of religious dogmas in a free country? I don't think so.

Jay S. Brown :

writes "Frankly, I think the Communists were right on this issue: ban religions entirely becaue it is time that mankind found other ways to live ethical and moral lives without the crutch of faith in something so ephemeral."

Oh my, oh my! Missing the Soviet communists, with their gulags, genocides (Polish elite, Ukranian farmers, Armenians, just about anyone Stalin didn't fancy)--but they did something positive, that compensates for those ten million innocents--maybe more--slaughtered. They banned religion!

Missing Pol Pot, with the mass killing of his own people, four million strong--but he banned religion! So there! He wasn't all bad.

That this banning of religions seems to have coincided with mass murder on a gigantic scale seems to elude him, but Mr Brown's (incredible) statement does demonstrate that today's secular warriors are the direct descendants of 20th c.communists and, earlier than that, 18th century Jacobins.

To R. Moore: Thankyou. There is a thing we will agree upon, we can not allow "Religious Rightist" whether Christians or Muslims to turn our beloved country into a theocracy.
For you R. Moore, I am glad that you found your path & that your heart & soul are at ease. If you found it through your God, it must be a measure that keeps your inner peace alive, & that is all anyone can hope for.
For me, I see a different thing. I've always known that ending my life would have been a non-starter. For 1 thing, those that damaged my soul in the name of their God, expect this of me. I stay here on this plane out of defiance. I wake every morning & say to myself, I wish to stay to see who will screw up something else on this planet. George Bush has been very entertaining, he never ceases to amaze me! When I finish laughing at him & the stupid things he does, I then find another reason to stay around. Every moment of every day I find reasons to watch what goes on around me.
Yes, I know that this doesn't give me what others would consider "inner peace". But, I find that what I require to have around me for inner peace is a thing that I need to be able to touch. A rose gives me inner peace. To touch, to smell, to gaze upon a rose, gives me inner peace. To touch, to hold, to rock a baby in my arms, gives me inner peace. Because I can look at those things & with a happy hope know that while a rose will wilt & the baby will grow, both will in their own way show me the joy of life.
Does this make sense to you? Do I need a God to show me that...?? I don't think so.

"If we discovered a person who had never encountered, and therefore didn't believe in electricity, would we coin a word to define his unbelief in electricity? It would be "the amish""

Come on, guys - you can't really think religious people are that dumb, can you? Or are you just that ignorant about what the various faiths actually believe?

The Amish do, in fact, believe in electricity. They know that it is real, and that it can be harnessed and used to do a number of very useful things. They also are convinced, however, that it is better to live a very simple life, without unnecessary luxuries and distractions. This means, for instance, that someone who is Amish would be much more likely to use power tools in a woodworking shop to better accomplish their work (which they see as part of their service to God) than they would be to put a radio, CD player or television set into their home.

Of course, the Amish are not monolithic in their beliefs and practices. You will see significant variations among them, though all will likely live in a much simpler, plainer way than most of the rest of us. But this is absolutely not because they are ignorant of the modern world - it's the result of a conscious choice.

To PLHeart: I hear you...and I agree! I do not agree that America should be a theocracy, and I believe that everyone should be free to make their own choices about God and faith. I am vehemently opposed to imposing my faith on anyone because it is something that must be chosen in order to be valid. I hear your concern about just such an imposition on you and the rest of America, and I am sorry that you have been so turned off by Christians that may have given the wrong impression or who may have actually behaved very badly. I think they mean well, but the methodology of the Christian power political block is something that I am not comfortable with...for the same reasons that you have mentioned here. My real heart's desire is not to win a debate about God and faith. My desire is that your wounded soul find a place to be healed and rest from all the noise that surrounds us all every day. I am also a wounded soul. I nearly ended my life over the wounds that I received, but God intervened and gave me all that I was really looking for: peace, happiness, security and a sense that my life had meaning and purpose. I am convinced from all my study that Jesus is who he claimed to be, and I know that he changed my life. However, I cannot convince you or anyone else that this is so. Only he can do that. All I would like to do is offer this as an option for you to consider if you choose to do so. I don't want you to see this as an imposition. Just an offer to consider the evidence and then come to your own conclusion. If it turns out that I am wrong about Jesus, then I will have lost nothing since there was nothing there to lose...but I will have enjoyed a life filled with the 4 qualities that I just mentioned. I wish you the best in your journey and healing for your heart.

"THEARCHON"

Certain forms of Buddhism claim not to know "Truth". Zen in particular has no statements about the supernatural.

Of course some argue that Zen and some other forms of Buddhism (more dogmatic types of Buddhism are not in this group..like Tibetan) are not really religion.

Yes some religion believe they have a monopoly on truth, and yes common grounds is possible. Most probably when it is time for magnamity e.i. when disaster strikes or when human species or creatures life is in danger, or just for pure economic reasons. Then they can be forced to find common grounds to talk. But the difficulty is that they might fake the common grounds or be submit easily to the other persons point of view if needed then retract. However the benefit of is that humanity will be best served regardless of the intention of each party and this could create framework through which all parties can operate and function in future to be of service to humanity.

I not only agree but I see this as possible...someday, not now...we have a long ways to go...but it's a starting point.

Imagine

by John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Kerrie,

Thanks for your response, comments, and perspective. I too feel that this forum is a wonderful place to read all these great minds that have chosen to participate in this dialogue no matter what their view.

I have put in my two cents only to engage others and to participate in this great opportunity to share my perspective. Long ago I stop trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking; I have always tried to provoke critical thinking in others so they may find their own awareness, whatever that might be and without the attachment to the outcome.

I have to apologize if I overstep my boundaries (especially when you found the need to post your response twice); it’s just that when I read your post I was taken back by such clarity which resonated so well with me. I too agree that this dialogue is a symphony and a choir of humanity. I just think that your post showed your ability to sing and carry a note and mine was just humming along. Now that I have put that in perspective we can move on.

To all others:

I do believe there is common ground to have a discussion on faith and religion. If we can open the discussion to include those of us that are not involve in organize religion but fall into the category to the idea of open possibilities. I only mention this because someone on an earlier post divided the world into believers and non-believers.

Truth when it refers to faith (the way I see it) is like an illusion it fades when you approach it looking for evidence. It’s in the eyes of the beholder and if that works for him or her that is all that matters. The evidence is in the Bible or whatever book believers follow and hold sacred. There are a number of us that don’t require a book but Reason and that in no way dilutes your faith in anyway the way I see it. I guess it all comes down to semantics.

I believe the conflict arises when those that have a different view and either party insist that they emphatically own the truth. That is when people say, “how can “they” believe in such nonsense”?...is usually what triggers division. As I said on my last post this is where the brick wall comes up and nothing gets through to the other side.

No need to go any further into the dynamics of conflicts. The common ground or rather the medium which the world has never had before is the “Web”. No wars, no governments, no boundaries to hold us back of what we can discuss out in the open is what gives me hope for this world. Humanity can at times be barbaric but it has the potential to be so much more when it comes from a space of love.

Again, semantics, I’m sure there are a million ways to say the same thing of what I just said. But there you have it, at almost 1 in the morning after a very long day.

David Star

arnold s. :
iIf God is defined as "the unknown source from whence we came" ,then there would be no atheists.If we discovered a person who had never encountered, and therefore didn't believe in electricity, would we coin a word to define his unbelief in electricity?

It would be "the amish"

arnold s. :
iIf God is defined as "the unknown source from whence we came" ,then there would be no atheists.If we discovered a person who had never encountered, and therefore didn't believe in electricity, would we coin a word to define his unbelief in electricity?

Ok... R. Moore I will let it be. But, yes, some of the things I've seen written here do scare the bejeepers out of me. I think some of things I've seen written here ought to scare a great many people. Things people have been taught from childhood are in-grained into a soul & therefore are carried to un-natural conclusions. That was the reason the Constitution was written the way it was. Because the men who founded this country knew that they couldn't trust themselves to bring into the public discussion their use of their form of God without abusing other's form of God.
Men & women have decided that they must "carry the day", on how this country is supposed to function & how they see God ruling the planet. Yet every religion has it's own interpretation of what they think God would do. I fear this.
I have a damaged soul. From childhood many things happened to my soul, things that are considered mortal wounds. Yet, these wounds make the sum of what I would hope is the better part of my heart. The heart not to use my soul's wounds to make other's accept my beliefs. I thank God, if there is a God, that I live in country & a time that I should not have to explain whether I believe in a God, or any form of a God or not. Yet, I see many men both of Christian Rightist Religions & Radical Muslim Sects demanding that I avow or adhere to those beliefs that they espouse.
If this country falls prey to those that demand that of me, I will soon be put to death by both, because I won't do that, because no matter the damage, my soul still feels free here, in this country. Let those of us who truely understand what the founder's tried to do, by seperating belief from natural human thought the right to accept natural freedom.

Have you included members of Bahai Faith in your panelists?

The fundamental principle of Bahai Faith is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society.

It is important that Bahais are involved in your efforts of promoting religious harmony.

Best wishes

The discussion in this forum and the responses to the individual panellists have been very interesting but I am at a loss to understand where this is all heading.
Could Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham perhaps tell us how this mound of information is going to be processed and what the eventual outcome is meant to be.

. . Ted Swart . .

To PLHeart: I don't think you're stupid. I don't know you at all. I was trying to say that you, me and everyone else are capable of saying and doing stupid things from time to time. My point was that we shouldn't dismiss Christianity simply because Christians do not live out their faith perfectly, and that includes being abusive or insensitive in sharing that faith. I apologize for not making my comments clearer and for offending you as a result. Oh, and I'm really not so scary. Seems from your comments about me that you have made some pretty heavy conclusions about someone you don't know, either.