Welcome to On Faith

Hi Friends!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
give thanks
Herbert Nikolaus
berirtrerejas

I just started reading this forum and already have many Socratic questions for other readers. Why do people think we are finite? Why can't the body be in one place and the "mind/spirit" in another? How can someone be so arrogant as to believe that God is any one religion? At what point does a person go from believing in God to knowing God? I believe I know the answers to some and I do "know" the answers to others. Any opinions are welcomed! Your humble student.

ljzraoqc cnewky xdrwsj oklszdnwr tlaqckfyj ijcda zyqn

ljzraoqc cnewky xdrwsj oklszdnwr tlaqckfyj ijcda zyqn

ljzraoqc cnewky xdrwsj oklszdnwr tlaqckfyj ijcda zyqn

I believe that we have in us the capacity to believe in love, a love that corresponds to a promise that God believes in me. I am loved and can love in return, it is my free decision. Pascal tells of the benefits for belief and not loosing anything if there is no God in the end. This is the reasonable wager, are there any takers?

Anthony S.

Religion is what it is religion.
Us that have Faith in Relgion will be rewarded and those that don't will suffer.
Look at all that has happen lately in State & Government & Schools=no ruling for religion just against that why American & Leaders due to no religion=has mess up tremendously and we see it!
Wars within and over seas. Speak of sending more troops to continue a job that has been proven to be USELESS!
People need to wake up if Gov. felt they were winning=then why not invite their children in to fight the war!People wake up!

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

to GOLFGOD,

J. Lennon was really a nice guy, and a fabulously gifted musician / songwriter. But within his lyrics for 'Imagine', he wasn't 'on to' anything, but he was defintely 'on something'... chemicals.

Dear Cayambe,

Faith is only as good as the object of faith. If you trust in that which is dying (you are dying) you cannot expect to have life beyond this life, only eternal judgment. If you trust in the eternal God (Jesus Christ) who is the source of life then you may have eternal life.

In Jesus' Love,

Alethia

To Meacham & Quinn:

Please consider restricting the length of comments from respondents. Your site will attract more visitors if you can prevent the postings of long and pedantic theses by some.

You may want to look at the BBC's site which seeks readers/viewers opinions. Similar to what BBC does, I suggest that you restrict the length of responses to no more than a certain number of words. I suggest that 300 words be the maximum. Long peadantic babble detract much from a good site such as the one you have started. All the best!

To Meacham & Quinn:

Please consider restricting the length of comments from respondents. Your site will attract more visitors if you can prevent the postings of long and pedantic theses by some which detract from the utility of promoting healthy dialog.

You may want to look at the BBC's site which seeks readers/viewers opinions. Like that site, I suggest that you restrict the length of responses to no more than a certain number of words. I suggest that 300 words be the maximum. Long peadantic babble detract much from a good site such as the one you have started. All the best!

To Meacham and Quinn:

I would like to suggest that you reformat the comment window to restrict postings to no more than 200-300 words. Long dissertations bore and tire most surfers who neither have the time nor the patience to wade through pedantic and self-serving babble.

BBC seems to have perfected their feature seeking comments from readers. Please consider following BBC's format which limits the length of responses.

Otherwise, your site is a very worthwhile addition to those interested in the role of faith serving peace and humanity.

ALETHIA :

“Would you say that a globe had no maker or a GI Joe no designer?”
That is definitely a puzzle, I’m not quite sure of your meaning. But taking a “globe” to mean a small model of the planet earth showing countries and continents mapped over it, I would say that one or more humans made it. I would also put one or more humans at fault for the design of GI Joe.

“Would you say that morality is based on opinion and that reason finds it source in impersonal matter?”
About morality. The first thing I would say is that it is a local phenomena based on a common behavioral agreement by some collection of people. Morality may be based on reason, or religious teachings, or ideology (in any combination). The moral person holds to the agreements, the immoral person does not.

About reason. I’m not entirely sure I know exactly what you mean by “source” and “impersonal”. I’m persuaded that reason operates largely in brains, in brain matter, personal or otherwise. I have to put it that way because I don’t believe reason is just a human trait, but extends in one way or another throughout the animal world. I don’t have the foggiest idea how we reason, how our brain actually works. We have barely scratched the surface of this subject. At this point scientists are just delighted at being able to see which specific areas of the brain become active under specific inputs. But we really have no idea how signals are passed between areas, how images are stored (digital or analog, electrically or chemically), much less how conscious or unconscious logic is exercised. They are just not making progress fast enough. I would like to get at least a rudimentary idea how this thing between our ears works before I die. At the rate they are going I won’t make it.

“I am glad that I can look to a transcendent God for if I looked for life in that which is finite I would have a limited life.”
I can’t say that all life is limited since so many of us are still living. By the same token, I have never discovered, perceived, or sensed any life with the eternal attribute so I have no reason to expect same. To the extent that anticipating eternal life removes the unwelcome prospect of death, belief in an eternal transcendent God is of pragmatic benefit and comfort to the believer, whether it is actually true or not. My problem is that I just have no sense or awareness of anything like a transcendent God so I just have no reason to believe in it and every reason not too. Eventually, I too will die, and as near as I’ve been able to discern, dead is just that, dead-finito-acabado.

“Who or what is the object of your faith?”
I’m not persuaded I have a “faith”; I’m not sure what the word actually means in a religious context. When I was a lot younger in the Army, we jumped out of airplanes, something your mind naturally rebels at doing. Overcoming that rebellion takes faith, faith that your parachute will open, that it was properly packed by somebody you don’t even know. Still, there are reasons that justify that faith. The people who pack the chutes are randomly required to jump their own work. Different people pack the main chute and the reserve chute. You have seen hundreds of these things open properly before. Thus, by the time I have fully thought through the process, and weighed the probabilities, the faith required of me is not so very large. But as CNN was putting it tonight, “When Faiths Collide”, it seems to me that the word “Faith” is being used in place of the word “Religion”. In neither faith as I use it or faith as CNN is using it, does it make sense for faith to have an object. I am not quite sure what you are driving at here.

D.J. Fahey tells us:

How would you know something is evil if you didn't know what was good? You see?

Hi, D. J.,

If every thing I knew was good then I might not need a word for goodness -- maybe not until I needed to talk about something that was *better* than another. ISTM it's mainly when I find something evil that I need a word to distinguish good and evil in speaking about them. So yes, I agree that I need words to talk about the differences.

It seems we're not so far apart after all.

Ann O.

D.J. Fahey tells us:

How would you know something is evil if you didn't know what was good? You see?

Hi, D. J.,

If every thing I knew was good then I might not need a word for goodness -- maybe not until I needed to talk about something that was *better* than another. ISTM it's mainly when I find something evil that I need a word to distinguish good and evil in speaking about them. So yes, I agree that I need words to talk about the differences.

It seems we're not so far apart after all.

Ann O.

For Anne O.

Hello Ann o. Taste is a tactile response that is automatic. Like touch or an aroma. These are basic biological responses. We don't really have a choice in these perceptions.

The world and our place in it is so complex, that good and evil don't encompus all. Some aspects of life transcend good and evil. There are alot of grey areas in life. Good and evil sometimes, most times, are objective. They are such because we deem them as such. So one does depend on the other. I am not talking about longing for one or the other, I am talking about describing, or believing some to be one or the other. How would you know something is evil if you didn't know what was good? You see?

Hot and cold, dark or light and so on, are such because that is their physical properties at the moment. They are neither good nor evil, they just are.

Excesses are balanced by lessening, and deficiencies are balanced by adding what is missing, to acheive a perfect balance, or harmony.
This is seen throughout nature. Our trick is to maintain a balance in our lives. Not too fat, not too skinny, not to tense, and not too relaxed, or not too tired, and not overly energetic.....and so on. They really have nothing to do with good or evil.

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

D.J. Fahey tells us:

"For Ann O;

Throughout Nature, there is a duality inherent in everything and everybody.
Why do we see good, to be good? How do we know what is good and what isn't? For one, we learn very quickly as children. We usually get a sense of what is good from our parents and teachers and religion. We learn what is good on our own, by trial and error. Good is also dictated by the social mores particular to the society in which we live"

Hi, D.J.,

Wouldn't you know that your mother's milk was good without tasting vinegar? I guess I'm saying that we have to know both independently to be able to contrast them.

Yes, we learn the consequences of our actions by experience, but we only take actions because we perceive something as either good or bad. And, yes, our parents and others point out what they think is good and bad. But for someone to tell you that bubble gum tastes good she doesn't have to tell you that something else tastes bad.

D.J.: Would there still be a need for God or the mystery of God, if it were not for the Devil?

ANN O.: Oh, I think definitely that we long for absolute unending goodness simply because we hope there is such a thing. Longing for good isn't the same thing as fleeing evil. In fact I don't think I believe in the Devil, though sometimes I wonder, when I see human actions such as genocide.

D.J.: think Lao Tsu is trying to demonstrate this by a litany of opposites:
hot and cold
dark and light
strong and weak
loud and soft.....etc.

ANN O.: I agree that they are opposites, but I don'nt think that *either* is evil in itself. It's destructive combinations of them that are evil. Doesn't his recognition of the relationships of yin and yang recognize that these combinations can be good? The trick is to leave room for both in the pattern!

ISTM that the theme of the value of harmony among differences which the Asians always emphasized is one of the themes that Western Christian philosophers and theologians need to reflect on more. What yields the harmony of differences rather than destruction of them both?

And isn't that one of the big themes that Sally is presenting us with? :-) Thanks, Sally.

Ann O.

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

Organized religion is a business. Some sects are rackets. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and I know it is sexist and hypocrititcal. Money is more important than a woman who devotes years to Altar duty, training future altar guilds, mending linens, staying late to clean up after Christmas Service so the younger members can go home to be with their families.
I believe all must come to their own understanding of a divine being, but I have never found that in a church. I now believe I am an agnostic. My life experiences have led me to find more help outside of a church. The majesty of western sunsets and the serenity of the mountains are more inspiring than ritualistic churches where the people go through motions, but don't seem be inspired. They attend devoutly Sunday after Sunday, but don't know the order of service, never hear the announcements, but pay more attention to the fellow worshipers.

For Ann O;

Throughout Nature, there is a duality inherent in everything and everybody.
Why do we see good, to be good? How do we know what is good and what isn't? For one, we learn very quickly as children. We usually get a sense of what is good from our parents and teachers and religion. We learn what is good on our own, by trial and error. Good is also dictated by the social mores particular to the society in which we live.
Would there still be a need for God or the mystery of God, if it were not for the Devil?
The physical universe operates on the very simple premise that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Its the nature of all movement.
I think Lao Tsu is trying to demonstrate this by a litany of opposites:
hot and cold
dark and light
strong and weak
loud and soft.....etc.
It is because of one, that we know the other. But, there is a mystery that lies between. Lao Tsu calls it the Tao, or the way. Its just the nature of the conduct of life.
I hoped that helped, but I think I even confused myself there.

The following is an excerpt from a new book called The Second, and Last Coming: A Movin-On Novel by Luigi Enrico Pietra d'Oro to be released early next year by ProfessorPurplePants Publishing. www.professorpurplepants.com

A letter to all people, of all religions, who believe your home is elsewhere and are eager to exit planet earth:

Dear Brothers and Sisters who are eager for the end of days,

I write this at the very start of this story because once you read what’s next, you will likely not finish this book and this first request is important for you, and everyone to read; more important than this story. I have heard from you that ‘soon’ this world will end and you will be raised up in rapture into heaven, while everyone left behind will perish in the destruction. I have heard the eager anticipation in your voices, the certainty that you are among the special and the saved, and your righteous condemnation of the damned, all those who are of a different faith, who are unbelievers, of a different sexual orientation, who are at home on this planet, who do not fit your criteria, and in your eyes deserve to die, perhaps even suffer eternal damnation.

This I say to you.

“In your eagerness to reach the ‘end,’ do not advocate, hasten or contribute to the destruction of this exquisitely beautiful planet that has hosted and nurtured life. We have no certainty, not even any evidence, that there is any life like ours beyond this small sphere flying through the vastness of space. This fact alone warrants we do everything possible to honor and preserve what is.

By all means, leave if you are called. Go wherever you believe you can. But do no harm to our Home and we who prefer to be left behind. Your destructive desires and actions will not bring salvation, nor will they usher in a time of peace on earth. Only care and love and cooperation will move us towards peace on earth. That’s right, only peace on earth will bring peace on earth. I am bewildered that this is not obvious.

We like it here and we will not miss you. Good bye and good luck, and don’t mess with the earth.

Sincerely yours,

Luigi

There is no religion exempt from the faults of men, but if we look at the teachings that each of these 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?

Pagosa Springs Colorado residents are trying to get the town to fine another resident $25.00 a day for a peace symbol/Christmas wreath display. They claim it is a satanic anti-war display. How sad has America become, when peace at Christmas is illegal? Is free speech a crime now also? George Bush has set the example of what an American Christian is. Holier than thou's, willing to destroy other countries and force their ideologies on them. Because of this, I have renounced Christianity(not Christ, just the religion). I'm now a Buddhist, because Buddhists are the only religion that focuses on cleaning up their own act, instead of demonizing other religions. Buddhists are the only religion that doesn't want to commit genocide on another religion.

What does Judeo-Christian mean? Is it the cowardly Christians' way of letting themselves off the hook for the continuous slaughter of Jews for the past two thousand years?

For Ann O;

Thanks for your post. I just would like to adress the subject of evil. In brief.

"We only know good, because there is evil.
give evil nothing to oppose, and it will disappear on it's own."

This is just another example of the duality in nature. And we are a part of nature. Just as, the thought that we only know beauty, because their is ugliness

Hi, David Fahey,

I have never understood this position -- that we know good only by knowing evil. To me that's like saying we can't know white unless we know black. Yes, there are dualities, I have no problem with that.

Can you explain a bit where you're coming from? Not that the question causes me any religion difficulty. I just don't understand the basis for the position and am curious.

Ann O.

I would like to add to the discussion by saying that we do have some gudiance given to us by the world's great teachers...(ex. Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Bab, and Baha'u'llah.) These Prophets came to educate us on the purpose of life in this world and if we would read these doctrines from each of these religions we would find they are all saying the same thing. There is so much more and it's great to be investigating our true purpose by sharing instead of arguing!

For Ann O;

Thanks for your post. I just would like to adress the subject of evil. In brief.

"We only know good, because there is evil.
give evil nothing to oppose, and it will disappear on it's own."

This is just another example of the duality in nature. And we are a part of nature. Just as, the thought that we only know beauty, because their is ugliness.

For Alethia;

The intelligence that Einstein is talking about is the harmony of natural law. It's an intelligence that we can see in nature, but we cannot duplicate it. That is why he was saying, "by comparison." Can we make a tree, or a fish. Can we develop the harmony that exists throughout nature? No, not even close. I am not talking about cloning or gene splicing, or the other man-made imitations of nature. Just think about the DNA molecule. That is the blueprint of the species it reproduces. Man can't do that. All of this natural world had to come from somewhere, no?

This is why I like the Tao. Lao Tsu suggests that we don't try to explain this, but just to be at one with it. Just attempting to use logic, defeats the purpose. That's what he means when he says;
"Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source."

He talks about when you are free from desire you realize the mystery. When we desire, we are only thinking about the "things," created, not the mystery behind the creations. It's like pointing a finger at the moon, if we look at the finger, we can't see the moon.

You say that, "he came to give life to all who believe." What about those that do not believe, they too are alive? You see this is why I don't care for "orthodox religion." It attempts to place boundries, where no boundries exist. It sets up division and lack of trust between us humans. Hence, all the violence attributed to religion.
But it IS men that allow the suffering of human beings, and usually it is man that creates that suffering.
I am not trying to indoctrinate you and lead you away from Christianity. If that is what works for you, then by all means, stick with it. But, please remember the Buddhist tenet that tells us to repect ALL religions.

Once again, thank you for your post.

It seems that I read somewhere that about 1/3 of the world's population has experienced some form of a supernatural event. Many of the remaining 2/3 of the world's population spends a lot of time trying to to prove to those who have experienced these events that such events did not happen. I have also read that there is a "God Spot" in the brain which, in some individuals, is more developed/responsive than in other individuals; either due to genetics or perhaps stimulation or lack thereof by the individual. So, I must conclude that there are a good many people who are deprived of adequate God Spot development and some of these have become prone to atheism because of lack of personal experience with the supernatural. So, to those people who lack adequate "God Spot" activity, I propose the following statement for thought. Proving to an atheist that God exists is like proving to a man born blind that light exists. One can argue that life itself depends on the existance of light but if the blind man has no experience of light then he can offer other explanations for his existance, which would seem plausible to him. He can choose to either confirm what everybody else sees as obvious or he can deny "light" based on his personal experience with blindness. To the stubborn denier of "light" one can suggest that he develop his own sense of "light" by concentrating on the effects of light as the existance of life in plants and animals, the interaction of chemicals with light, heat generating light as the sun etc.. Similarly, to the atheist, I suggest that he develop his God Spot by concentrating his efforts on the spiritual/supernatural or just allowing himself to experience the spiritual/supernatural instead of retreating to a defensive position of denial. The athiest might not think it fair that it is easier for some to have supernatural experiences while he seems to be deprived of those encounters. However, every human being is born with different abilities. Some abilities just may take more time than others to develop. But, then the greater the effort, the greater the reward. Those who earn their supernatural experiences may have a greater sense of spirituality than those of us to whom such experiences just seem to happen.
PS
The atheist may begin his spiritual journey with a simple prayer as: "God, allow me the gift of spirituality." Remember, before one begins any undertaking, one must visualize that undertaking happening. It is easier to live in denial than create possiblities.
Take Care
Holly

Sally i saw you on washigton Journal this morning.You were talking on religion.
I agree with you on Islam. That Religion isn,t
violent, its only those that are Fundamentalist
rightwing part of the Religion.Just like the
conservative Evangelicals are violent take a look at the violence against abortion clinics, and gay night clubs
Paul Hill.

Sally here is a book you should read

Thy Kingdom come
How the Religious right distorts the Faith and
threatens america.

Andall Balmer

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
by the rulers as useful."

Seneca (4BC - 65 AD)

I would like all of you religious people to please describe to me indept what heaven is.
I am sure you can describe hell in detail because your religious leader want to instill the fear of a god in you because you are looked upon as sheep to be led to the slaughter.
How come you aren't looked upon as elephants, or dolpins, two of the most intelligent animals on earth, you are sheep that are easily led.
You have been brain washed since birth and don't question your beliefs because you fear some sort of punishment from a god that is decribed as love.
The power of LOVE is how we came into being but LOVE is rarely mentioned in religious circles.
If you want to see god look in the mirror.
Here is a Proverb of mine. " If you fear your own godliness you will create a god that you fear"

The Great Quest

It is silly to be a believer or non-believer. We simply do-not-know!
Mankind should go on the quest to find out our place in the Universe. We must judge ourselves from the perspective that we are but the tiniest dot in this vast Universe we are just beginning to know. The quest to understand our place in the Universe can unite all mankind. It would help us make the Earth the best it can be, give us Peace on Earth, and unite us against the forces in the Universe we may not be able to control.

The idea and Phelosophy of the site is praise worthy. This recall us the plurilisium that used by all the Holy Prophets, Pious man of GOD,AFLATOON, SUKHRAT and SADI and HAFIZ and congratulation to the Country "CANADA" and specially the people who are making the policy of this great country. In todays WORLD it is only CANADA who accepts the HUMANITY pluralisum.
With in the Human being it is only PRINCE KARIM AGA KHAN, Imam of the Shia Immami Ismaili Muslims Who devoted himself for the PLURALISIM and WELFARE of the Humanity, and says 'DIVERSITY IS STRENTH'

Hello David,

I like your Einstein quote. However, I do not think that Einstein is saying we cannot understand anything about this "revealed intelligence." The use of the word revealed demonstrates that we can understand something about God. I understand Einstein to be saying that in our finiteness our thoughts are small compared to God. I think this is an accurate assessment since we are finite and God is infinite. The great news is that we can have eternal life by having faith in His eternal Son. He came to give life to all who would believe. Eternal life in more than just duration of time but it is also a quality of life. I have life in God that began the day I believed and it will never end.

Consider part of Jesus’ prayer:
"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3).

Sincerely,

Alethia

FROM DAVID FAHEY"
For Ann O.

I just wanted to add a P.S. here. I forgot to add that I don't think Jesus was misleading us when he said God is love. Actually, Christianity and Taoism really aren't all that different from one another. Christ taught us that God resides in all of us. We can choose to acknowledge his presence, or we can deny or ignore it. Very Taoist.

Hello again, David.

Christians agree that God is present in all things too. We also believe that His being transcends the level of being that we combination of body and soul are.

The presence of spirit (soul) in body is a problem for many people, however. As I see it, my consciousness (part of my spirit) is present in all parts of my body somehow, so although I don't understand *how* I have to think *that* it is so: spirit can be present in a body and remain spirit. This amounts to being in more than one place at a time. But now some physicists are introducing the that there are realities that can be present in more than one place at once. Hmmmm.

Anyway, we too believe that God is present everywhere and that there is goodness - and evil.
Evi, of course, is the great theological problem for Christians.

Ann O.

For Alethia;

Thats a very good point, and I would say accurate. Here is a quote from Albert Einstein that might help;

"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."

"The Tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught up in desire, you see only the
manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."
Lao Tsu

It is called darkness because none of our senses can percieve it. It could also be called light, because the less we obstruct it, the more radiant we are. It really is just simple wisdom, with a bit of poetic mystery thrown in. I think that's why The Tao is so influencial in Zen Buddhism.

Hello Cayambe,

Welcome to the discussion. I hope you are having a great evening. Would you say that a globe had no maker or a GI Joe no designer? Would you say that morality is based on opinion and that reason finds it source in impersonal matter? That is the natural conclusion of what you assert. I am glad that I can look to a transcendent God for if I looked for life in that which is finite I would have a limited life. But since I believe in the eternal God I have eternal life. Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. Who or what is the object of your faith?

Alethia

Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).

Hello David,

Thanks for your kind explanation. Taoism is said to be "beyond logic." The problem I see with this is the attempt to explain Taoism with logic. Much like you have done above.

Alethia

Sally Quinn…….
I don’t know that I would classify myself as an atheist. I was born with no conception of God or religion, indeed it wasn’t until I was six years old that I was informed such a conception existed. Alas, as explained, it made no sense to me then, or since. I can’t really say God does not exist, just that I have no perception of him in any way shape or form, or feel a need for such.

If your yearning should bring you to believe in something transcendent or spiritual, I hope you will share your reasoning and perceptions which bring you to that condition. It has always been a puzzle to me how so many otherwise intelligent and discerning people persuade themselves of something so obviously silly, but they do. It leaves me wondering what the hell I’m missing here.

To those who believe that people come to faith in God because they are afraid of death, I can assure you that that was not the case for me. I came to God after finally getting over my fear of facing the truth. It is an earnest search for truth that led me towards God.

Wow! Some very interesting comments. This is a wonderful forum and something that supports what I already believe. As corny as this sounds---I grew up learning about the 3 onenesses---Mankind, Religion, and God. I am a Baha'i and believe we are all striving to grow closer to God and it's nice to see that there is a place to try to understand where others are coming from. Beautiful :)

For Ann O.

I just wanted to add a P.S. here. I forgot to add that I don't think Jesus was misleading us when he said God is love. Actually, Christianity and Taoism really aren't all that different from one another. Christ taught us that God resides in all of us. We can choose to acknowledge his presence, or we can deny or ignore it. Very Taoist.

For Ann O.

Thanks for your post. I don't know that much about Zen Buddhism, other than to say it is a slightly newer form of Tibetan Buddhism. I think it is a form of trickery that leads us to question and observe life, or the nature of life. All life.

I would like to give you an example of the Tao as written by Lao Tsu. (as translated by Stephen Mitchell):

"As it acts in the world, the Tao
is like the bending of a bow. The top is bent downward;
the bottom is bent up.
It adjusts excess and deficiency
so that there is perfect balance.
It takes from what is too much
and gives to what isn't enough.

Those who try to control,
who use force to protect their power,
go against the direction of the Tao.
They take from those who don't have enough
and give to those who have too much.

The Master can keep giving
because there is no end to her wealth.
She acts without expectation,
succeeds without taking credit,
And doesn't think that she is better
than anyone else."

I hope this helps.

For Alethia;

Personalities are developed through our upbringing and our life experiences, mostly. But I do believe there are inate qualities passed along from parents to children.

When I say that I don't think God is a personality, I mean that God is a force, and creator of everything in the universe. I think we made God in our image, not the other way around.
I call it God for lack of a better term.

I am a Taoist, and according to Lao Tsu's Tao Te Ching, the Tao created everything. Basically the Tao is nature. And we are just as much a part of nature as a tree or plant or some other living thing. To live in accorance with nature, by learning about the conduct of life in nature, for me, makes alot of sense.

It doesn't require belief in a supreme being, there is no dogma, no judgement no "given reward or punishment." The natural laws of cause and effect govern our lives just as they effect everything else in the universe. If we are mean and greedy, for instance, that is what we put out into the universe, and believe me it WILL come back to us in time. If we are loving and caring, bending and not rigid, content with the paradise right before our eyes, then that is what we get in return. Hell is of our own making and so is heaven.

If you would like to futher understand what I am so humbly trying to say, read the Tao. Also read the essays of Ralph W. Emerson. The father of transcendentalism.

Thank you for your question. I hope I made at least a little sense.

Being thankful is being appreciative of what is given to us. It is recognizing that what was given has great value. Being religious does not constitute thankfulness but our personal relationship with God first, then with others. Having a personal relationship with God teaches us to be thankful in what he has given us like life through his Son Jesus Christ, our family and friends and our physical possesions. When you have thankfulness through the root, which is God, then you can properly distribute the thanks through others and circumstances.

HUMAN BEING tells us: People interested in Tao Practices, check:
http://www.universal-tao.com/

Thanks for the site, Human Being. (I like your screen name :-) Very interesting.

Can you tell me -- do the Taoists believe there is objective goodness? From what I've read it seems Taoists seem to think there is, unlike some of the Buddhist teachings. If so, is this a difference between Taoism and Buddhism?

Another question. There is an oriental practice which I've found very useful in examining my conscience. (<<-- That's a Catholic phrase for remembering and examining one's sins). The practise is called "the One Thousand Petalled Lotus". Do you know from which tradition it springs? I recommend it all the time and would like to be sure which tradition it came from originally.

Ann O.

Remove the embellishments in religions and they basically converge. Abraham is the first of the embellishments that needs deleting.

People interested in Tao Practices, check:
http://www.universal-tao.com/

Hello David,

If God is not a person where did you get your personality? Did you get it from lifeless inert matter?

Alethia

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

Can you imagine yourself nonexistent after death without any sense of being, any sentient awareness of self, gone forevermore for all eternity? If you have no problem imagining your nonexistence, more than likely you find it easy to be an atheist. On the other hand, if you are not able to imagine your nonexistence after death, you very likely will be searching most of your life for some way to prepare yourself for an existence in the afterlife. For many people that transcends into exploration of religious or metaphysical explanations for their existence here as well as in an afterworld. It seems to me that people are born with one or the other of these two different types of thinking about life and death. Some scientific studies recently have isolated areas of the brain which are different in atheists and believers, even to the extent of proposing the presence of a "God gene." I doubt that a meeting of the minds is possible between these two groups of people.

DAVID J. FAMEY tells us:

The Tao te Ching is a collection of 81 ideograms, that deal with our place in nature and the conduct of natural life. All life, all species. It doesn't judge, it doesn't punish, it doesn't bless or curse. It maintains balance in the world, and following its example, we learn to balance our own lives. There is a delicate harmony between Mind, Body and Spirit. Following the Tao helps us acheive that harmony. I am not preaching, just familiarizing the people on this bd., as to my beliefs.

Thank you, David. I didn't know that Taoism is practised in the West, though I know of its huge influence on Zen. Could you tell us more about the relationship between them?

I can understand the pull of such a religion. The problem of the suffering of innocent creatures gets to me all the time. I'm a cradle Catholic and have been taught to look for both the good as well as the bad in life, and I've found in my own experience that there is much, much more of goodness than evil. But still I simply have to trust that my brother Jesus is telling the truth when he says that God is love -- that eventually, as Julian of Norwich put it, all will be well and all will be well, and all manner of thing shall be well. It surely isn't well here. So, no, being a Christian doesn't lead to a harmonious relationship with the Absolute, at least not in my experience. So I can see the attraction of your faith. And I agree that there is much wisdom in it.

Ann O.

To Ann O.;
I don't believe that God is a person, I am not a Christian. Therefore there is alot about, not only, Christianity, but all of the other major orthodox religions, with the exception of Buddhism, that I don't adhere to.
I refuse to believe in any God that is vindictive and cruel. I don't believe God permits or doesn't permit human beings to suffer. Human beings permit human beings to suffer. I don't include natural disasters, like tsunamis or earthquakes or tornadoes and hurricanes. These are natural events that result from the changing, geological world we inhabit. But it is human beings that not only permit human suffering, they also are the cause. I am a Taoist.
The Tao te Ching is a collection of 81 ideograms, that deal with our place in nature and the conduct of natural life. All life, all species. It doesn't judge, it doesn't punish, it doesn't bless or curse. It maintains balance in the world, and following its example, we learn to balance our own lives. There is a delicate harmony between Mind, Body and Spirit. Following the Tao helps us acheive that harmony. I am not preaching, just familiarizing the people on this bd., as to my beliefs.

Pat tells us:
The GOD that I was raised to believe in (mother Southern Baptist and father (Luthern) was a punishing GOD. My memory is of always being told if I did something wrong GOD was going to punish me and I would never get to heaven.

Hi, again, Pat,

That is not the teaching of Southern Baptists and Lutherans whom I have known. As I understand them, God has different sorts of punishment, both in this life and the next, and some of them can be quite mild. In other words, not every little wicked thing we do is cause for damnation and they do not believe there is no hope of salvation for sinners. On the contrary, like most Christians, they believe that God forgives easily and cancels out punishment. But He does require that we also forgive others.

Ann O.

Pat Everett

Does God punish us? I would be interested in knowing what other Christians and other religions believe. Is it possible for you to post responses to this question for readers on a future Saturday? Thanks!

The GOD that I was raised to believe in (mother Southern Baptist and father (Luthern) was a punishing GOD. My memory is of always being told if I did something wrong GOD was going to punish me and I would never get to heaven.

Maybe that is what drove me away from organized religion. The GOD I believe in today has rules, however, he/she is NOT a punishing GOD. I can't imagine believe in "a god" that I would have to be afraid of. Now in my "old age" I know that my GOD is a kind and loving GOD that understands my struggles to do the right thing and maybe not always being perfect. I think he/she loves me just the way I am and helps me through hard times and good times. My GOD is there when I need someone to pray too and someone to cry with. I also give thanks to this GOD for all of the blessings in my life.

I talk to GOD just as if he/she were another person that knows better for me than I know for myself but also lets me learn the lessons I need to learn inorder to grow as a better person.

So maybe most of the people on here think I have what they would say is my own dreamed up beliefs. It works for me. I neither worry about if there is a heaven or hell. If there is I will deal with that when the time comes. I believe that hell just maybe here on earth and the lessons we learn from it sends us to a far better place in death. I feel as if I lead a good life by helping and caring for myself and others around me. I am not obsessed about what will happen when I am dead and live each day to the fullest here on earth.

So in short NO I do not believe in such thing as a punishing GOD.

PAT asks:

Does God punish us? I would be interested in knowing what other Christians and other religions believe. Is it possible for you to post responses to this question for readers on a future Saturday? Thanks!

Hi, Pat.

It is the usual belief of Christians that God does punish us for the sake of justice and our own good. He also forgives us when we are willing to admit that we have done wrong and to make restitution if that is owed to others. And we are taught that we must also forgive others as God forgives us.

N.T. Wright recently wrote a little book about evil and forgiveness called _Evil and the Justice of God _. It's short and easy to read. He admits that there is simply no philosophical answer to the question "Why does God permit innocent beings to suffer?" but his consideration of the evil done by people and God's response to it is quite profound, I think. I haven't quite finished it, but I recommend it highly. You might find it interesting.

Ann O.

Tom (I am told by the religious and sectarians alike that love is the answer to problems between people and peoples, but no one bothers to define it in a useful way. At 77, I have yet to hear a minister define it.
I find that looking for the good in others is a place to start. It is hard to find in some cases, but the act of looking for it is what makes the difference.
It is sort of like forgiveness. To forgive, or cancel a demand made upon someone, addresses the needs of the forgiver rather than the forgiven.)

First, read 1 Corinthians 13

Then find a book called 'A Love Worth Giving' by Max Lucado. This is a very good commentary on what love means.

If you still have trouble, Read 1,2 and 3rd john.

Greetings:

If something exists than something had to exist eternally because something cannot come from nothing. Reason requires person. Therefore, that which exists eternally is a person. This person is God.

God is clearly seen in what He has made, thus, humankind has no excuse for their unbelief. God has made us in His image. We are emotional, intellectual, volitional persons. God is also triune, He is three persons yet one God. That means that God is relational and has lived in relationship with the three persons of the Godhead from all eternity. We, being made in His image are also relational beings. We may interact with each other emotionally, intellectually, and volitionally. He made us to be one with Him, to have a relationship with Him but we have all gone our own way. We have said we do not want Him. We have chosen unbelief in Him and exchanged it for belief in man-made philosophies. We have all sinned and are therefore cut off from having life in Him who is the source of life. We are like branches broken from a tree and plants without roots. Yet we lift ourselves in arrogance supposing we have life when there is no life in us at all.

God the Son became a man to satisfy the justice of God on behalf of all humankind. He did this by paying our debt of death for sin on the cross. Then He 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.

Bible Verses to Consider
“Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26).

“...Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jesus’ Prayer John 17:11).

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19,20).

In God's Love,

Alethia

Does God punish us? I would be interested in knowing what other Christians and other religions believe. Is it possible for you to post responses to this question for readers on a future Saturday? Thanks!

SMIJER tells us: The Unitarian Universalists are a rather small denomination, mainly in the United States. The UUA represents the merger of the Unitarian Church in America and American Universalists, both of which share a background in American protestantism, and a history dating to the original colonies. The basic tenets of Unitarian Universalism are the seven principles:

1 The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2 Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3 Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4 A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5 The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6 The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
7 Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Thanks, Smijer. Very interesting. Good to get some light instead of heat :-)

I find it interesting that you speak of your 7 "principles", not dogmas or credal beliefs. It seems to me that much of the acrimonious debate over the place of "religion" in law-making is due to not seeing that dogmas and ordinary moral principles can overlap.

For instance, according to Moses and Muhammed lying is evil, and this principle ("Lying is evil") is dogma in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. But everyone can learn this principle by ordinary human experience, and therefore "Lying is evil" is not simply a dogma for some believers -- for them it's *both* a moral principle learned by ordinary experience *and* an ethical dogma. In other words, some ethical dogmas and naturally discovered moral principles do not differen in *content* -- they differ only in the means whereby they are discovered. And some believers use both means.

It follows that some of the ethical principles of religious persons are indeed fit matter for public debate and should not be rejected simply on the basis that they are only religious dogma. Yes, they are religious, but some of them can also be gained by ordinary human experience and reasoning.

Yes, we can argue whether or not the experiences are relevant and the reasoning is proper, but such principles should not be automatically dismissed as being "unconstitutional" simply because they appear in a sacred book.

Ann O.

I think all religions, with the exception of a very few, believe they have a monopoly on God. But, interfaith discussions are not really new. Sure, I believe its possible. We are doing so now, although some posts a straying from the topic at hand.
I am of the belief that if one can stifle his or her passions as well as possible, it can be done productively.
But, there in lies the trick, because religion IS passion. It certainly is not reason. It is myth and cultus, with a touch of superstition.
Human beings seem to have a natural proclivity towards mythology. I think mythology can be very beneficial in regards to certain rites and rituals. But, I suppose it can be detrimental on certain levels. While superstition prolongs ignorance, it does does give us something larger than ourselves.
People need a connection to something larger than life. I think we all seem to need a certain sense of ascendency, something beyond the pains of this world.
But, as someone mentioned Emmanuel Kant a few posts back, I have to profess a certain agreement with Kant. He explains it well in his work, "Critique of Pure Reason."
Reason is cold and calculating. We need reason very much in our lives to say the least, but we also need a sense of wonder and awe. Some find that in a church or a mosque or tabernacle or synagog.
My personal belief is that heaven and hell co-exist, right here on Earth. My beliefs are simple. Too much intellectualizing cheapens or lessens that sense of awe. Without a sense of wonder, life would be just too boring and tedious. If there is a creator, surely it wouldn't go through the trouble of creating such beauty and magnificence in this world, if we we're born without that need to be amazed and awed.

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

Hello Davin,

Positing that the book that I believe reveals God is old does not answer the questions put forth nor does it disprove the existence of God. Dawkins assertions that “blind forces” are the source of the universe are a cop out. Ultimately the evolutionist believer assigns creative power to inert matter. The evolutionist reasons back to naturalism and thus assigns creative power to nature. In other words, nature is god. This presupposition does not match the real world that we live in.

Sincerely,

Alethia

Tom
That is so true. Please allow me to define love from my perspective.

Love is defined by God who is love, and through love, He decided to create man in His image so that they could have a perfect LOVE relationship together.

In order to manifest TRUE love, He had to give man the free will to choose TO love Him or NOT to love Him.

BUT

Man chose to love himself instead of God. Wanting to be his own God, determining what is right and wrong for himself.

BUT

God set out to prove His love and devotion to man by promising to deliver a Savior. You see God is perfect, holy, and just, and he requires the same of those He created, so first He, out of love, gave us a set of moral laws to live by.

BUT

We proved that we are unable to live by these laws to His standards, PERFECTION.

BUT

He did give us a Savior just as He promised. His own Son. “But God demonstrates His love for us in this, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” “Greater Love has no one than this, that He lay down His life for His friends.

You see God ALWAYS makes the first move in proving His love for us. That is why Jesus told us, “"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

That is LOVE!!

What I find intriguing is so called "religious" people, mostly Christians and Muslims, quote their own scriptures to justify their arguments that they are right and others are wrong. If I believe both the Bible and the Koran are great books and guides but not the infallible word of God, how can arguments based on these scriptures have any credibility with me? It's part of the arrogance of missionaries who assume the whole world will convert based on what a religion's scriptures say. The Mormons, for example, know that in most of the rest of the world, The Book of Mormon has no credibility. They use the Bible in their conversion attempts, naturally assuming that it has instant credibility in the Christian countries they try to get converts. It also intrigues me that religions say one thing in their scriptures like love, peace, harmony etc. and then in their actions are hurtful to their own or others. Many Christian and Muslim followers do not portray love and peace. On the other hand they are hateful and warlike in the name of their own exclusive God.

I have no faith in faith: Faith is the belief that certain propositions which are supported by no evidence whatsoever, are true! Indeed, such propositions may well be correct but one has no reason for believing that this is so, and such beliefs frequently lead to disaster. There are an infinite number of such possible propositions: Apart from the myriad of gods with different attributes postulated by various religions, we have such things as Russell's Orbiting Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. George W. Bush had faith that his god had chosen him to be president and that his god wanted him to invade Iraq and remove the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. I rest my case.

What I find intriguing is so called "religious" people, mostly Christians and Muslims, quote their own scriptures to justify their arguments that they are right and others are wrong. If I believe both the Bible and the Koran are great books and guides but not the infallible word of God, how can arguments based on these scriptures have any credibility with me? It's part of the arrogance of missionaries who assume the whole world will convert based on what a religion's scriptures say. The Mormons, for example, know that in most of the rest of the world, The Book of Mormon has no credibility. They use the Bible in their conversion attempts, naturally assuming that it has instant credibility in the Christian countries they try to get converts. It also intrigues me that religions say one thing in their scriptures like love, peace, harmony etc. and then in their actions are hurtful to their own or others. Many Christian and Muslim followers do not portray love and peace. On the other hand they are hateful and warlike in the name of their own exclusive God.

What I find intriguing is so called "religious" people, mostly Christians and Muslims, quote their own scriptures to justify their arguments that they are right and others are wrong. If I believe both the Bible and the Koran are great books and guides but not the infallible word of God, how can arguments based on these scriptures have any credibility with me? It's part of the arrogance of missionaries who assume the whole world will convert based on what a religion's scriptures say. The Mormons, for example, know that in most of the rest of the world, The Book of Mormon has no credibility. They use the Bible in their conversion attempts, naturally assuming that it has instant credibility in the Christian countries they try to get converts. It also intrigues me that religions say one thing in their scriptures like love, peace, harmony etc. and then in their actions are hurtful to their own or others. Many Christian and Muslim followers do not portray love and peace. On the other hand they are hateful and warlike in the name of their own exclusive God.

What I find intriguing is so called "religious" people, mostly Christians and Muslims, quote their own scriptures to justify their arguments that they are right and others are wrong. If I believe both the Bible and the Koran are great books and guides but not the infallible word of God, how can arguments based on these scriptures have any credibility with me? It's part of the arrogance of missionaries who assume the whole world will convert based on what a religion's scriptures say. The Mormons, for example, know that in most of the rest of the world, The Book of Mormon has no credibility. They use the Bible in their conversion attempts, naturally assuming that it has instant credibility in the Christian countries they try to get converts. It also intrigues me that religions say one thing in their scriptures like love, peace, harmony etc. and then in their actions are hurtful to their own or others. Many Christian and Muslim followers do not portray love and peace. On the other hand they are hateful and warlike in the name of their own exclusive God.

I am told by the religious and sectarians alike that love is the answer to problems between people and peoples, but no one bothers to define it in a useful way. At 77, I have yet to hear a minister define it.
I find that looking for the good in others is a place to start. It is hard to find in some cases, but the act of looking for it is what makes the difference.
It is sort of like forgiveness. To forgive, or cancel a demand made upon someone, addresses the needs of the forgiver rather than the forgiven.

To Post 128:
Don't forget the "Book of Mormon" and the "Dead Sea Scrolls" both of which are totally silly as to being what they claim to be. Option 2 would seem to be the realistic first step of the two but there will have to be some behavior code to go by. The people's of the world just don't seem programmed to "anything goes" and it apparently is not going to be "tolerated"; and it is not at all clear that a civilized society can be maintained under those conditions for very long.

The behavior code will need to be something relatively short and straight forward and incorporated in the civil laws.

Hi, Jim,

What do you and Harris mean by "religion"? What do you think that people who say that they are religious mean by the term?

Ann O.

There are only going to be two ways for the earth to survive.

1) Sufficient numbers come to the realization that the Bible and Koran are not the written word of God. There is no God, juat as Apollo, Zeus, Thor, the the Sun God did not turn out to be Gods either. The Bible, Koran etc are full of errors and none of their contents can be supported with any evidence. All the proponents of religion just cannot help themselves imposing their will and beliefs on others - that is why most people are dying in this world. If not Islam-Christian conflict then Islam-Islam conflict.
2) Keep religion, ensure that ANY religious beliefs cannot be imposed on others or form any part of state activities or institutions. Get Religion totally out of government and institutions, off the dollar bill, no prayers before meetings of Congress, State or Local gvernment, etc. No invoking of God, No discrimination against non believers.

Sam Harris has figured it out and has articulated it very well - His books *End of Faith* and *Letter to a Christian Nation* have it right.

The non-believers and believers of this world are all going to die because of religion. How silly is that?

Hi, Steve,

You comment that Sartre wanted to believe in God, but couldn't, and that contemporary atheists don't want to believe in God. I don't think that is true of Richard Dawkins -- he said a couple of times on The Colbert Report that he would love to believe in God, but he thinks the evidence doesn't justify belief.

I admire him for his honesty. Unfortunately his idea of "Christianity* is not my idea of it. I wish he knew more.

By the way, ISTM that we need to recognize that belief isn't the same thing as saying that we have absolute proof that something is so -- we believe that something is so when we have enough evidence to think that, yes, that's the way it is.

Ann O.

Creation in six days is more logical than evolution of intelligent beings without the use of intelligence. It should be fairly straight forward that evolution was arrived at because it had become apparent that creation didn't happen in six days. Since the group that made up the account of creation in six days obviously had the position of "there is no god" except the one they created, then they had to move to a concept compatible with their ongoing activities.

Humans are not nearly as intelligence as we assume ourselves to be; and things over time have been a lot more sinister than we have assumed them to be.

Design evolution over time by an "entity" would seem the more logical concept based on our current knowledge. But that doesn't fit with using religion as a political tool to control and manipulate people; or to maintain a religious organization.

It might be remembered that we have been taught that religious persecution was used to get people to move to "America"; and religious freedom had to be built into the constitution to get the people to agree to a central union of states.

Christianity needs to re-work its "theology" to stand alone, and away from, the writings attributed to Moses.

From Alex Schievink :

The conversation should start with this question:

"Do you believe in things without any evidence?"

The panelists need to answer this question, and they don't, with the exception of Sam Harris.

Once you believe in things for which you have no evidence, you can believe in anything. All bets are off: flying spaghetti monster, purple teacups, easter bunnies, tooth fairies, god, etc. They can all exist in the gray matter between your ears.

Hello, Alex,

I agree heartily that without evidence belief would be irrational. What counts as evidence with you?

The purely empirical scientists claim to accept only empirical evidence, that is, the evidence presented by our senses. This includes the data of seeing, hearing, touching, etc. But David Hume, the great skeptic, shows very clearly that our senses do not provide us with any evidence of causality itself. All the senses provide are bits of data -- sounds, sights, textures, etc. Search as he could, he could find no necessary connection between all those bits of empirical data. His classic example of such lack of a necessary connection is his consideration of a stick hitting a billiard ball. True, there is what I call a "stick" (a conjunction of long, brown, round, heavy ) and a conjunction of what I call a "ball" (round, white,heavy) and I see that data moving: the "stick" touches the "ball", the "ball" moves, and the "stick" moves away. But, Hume says, since all we know is long,brown,heavy,round,and round,white,heavy it could be that when the "ball" and "stick" touch it is the *ball* that moves the stick not the other way around. In other words, we do not find any necessary connection between those patterns of empirical data. We don't even find any necessary connection between the round, the white, nor the heavy, nor the long, the brown, the other round and the other heavy.

But necessary connections are the very things that purely empirical scientists claim they study: complex objects which have some sort of necessary connection with each other which produces the regularity in physical events.

On the other hand, purely empirical scientists also claim that *all* knowledge is reducible to empirical, physical data, but such data do not provide necessary connections between the data they call "myself". They have not even provided evidence for their *own* existence -- for any necessary connection between the conjunction of the empirical data that they call "myself". All they have provided is repeated patterns of sensory data, nothing else. (Yes, this is very, very similar to Buddhist teachings about self and substance -- they think that there's no such thing.)

My point is that empirical evidence alone does not even given us evidence that there are even *scientists*, much less God, or believers or non-believers.

Surely there are more sorts of evidence than what the pure empiricists claim. And that's where, I think, we start to look for reasons for thinking there is a God.

Ann O.

ALEX asks us what evidence do we have for our beliefs. I agree that evidence is a crucial question in any argument.

What should count as evidence? The empirical scientists of the last several hundred years or so maintain that only what you can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, etc. can count as evidence. If that were true, then I would agree that there can be no compelling evidence for the existence of God. But neither is there any compelling evidence for the objects that science studies.

David Hume pointed out hundreds of years ago that all we really know is one bit of isolated empirical data after another. He points out that there isn't even any evidence of causality -- that all we know on an empirical level are temporal associations of bits of empirical data, like colors, shapes, sounds, etc. There is no necessary connexion between them -- there is only, for example, the movement of a stick which seems to touch the billiard ball, then the ball moves and the stick moves away. Hume points out that judging on the basis of the physical evidence that is presented it could equally be that the ball causes the *stick* to move. We do not have any sensation of a necessary connection between them. In other words, empirical data gives us only empirical data, one damn thing after another. It presents no necessary connection between them, and science is concerned with necessary relations, not with what is true sometimes and not true other times.

The upshot of this is that if only empirical evidence is admitted, then not only can we not know whether or not there is a God, neither can we know whether or not there is a *scientist*!

So, if you limit science strictly to material data, then science *also* becomes a matter of belief, does it not? The scientist only *believes* that there are complex material objects to be known and only *believes* that there are necessary connections between them.

Ann O.

Thanks to the Washington Post for this new direction. There are not two more capable minds for this discussion.

Reading the thread comments only reflects the need and future success of this new discussion. My hope is that this discussion of thoughts and ideas will focus "On Faith" and not religious ideas.

Thanks

Dear Alethia Adams,

"Did evolution create the universe? Prove to me that you evolved."

No evolution did not create the universe, evolution is a theory about life, for proof please read another book other than the Bible there are plenty of accessable texts available, but I suggest you try a more recent publication as oppossed to the Origin of Species. The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins may be a good start.

On the flood and the writings attributed to Moses: since the earth is round if it rained 24/7 for 40 days and covered the earth to the top of Mount Ararat then it would take about 2.93 inches per minute over the entire surface of the earth and the water would have had to come in from the heavens as it couldn't have been just transferred from one part of earth to another. So it is an interesting and amusing story to explain the rainbow but it doesn't fit with the our knowledge of the universe. Since time was oriented to Noah and the flood as sort of a lynch pin, if the flood didn't happen, all writings attributed to Moses should be placed in that same category. But the human mind wants it to be true and the rainbow is hard to explain away.

How did this world get here Jim in VA? Did it create itself? Did chance create it? Did evolution create the universe? Prove to me that you evolved.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" Hebrews 11:1.

Jim in Virginia :
"If God wasn't even able to keep track of Adam and Eve when they were the only two people on Earth, why should I be concerned that he's picking me out of billions of people today and paying any attention to me?"

Haha...that's good stuff Jim!

1. There's no point in having a discussion with people who use god/Jesus more than 5x in a small paragraph.
2. If you see more than one quote of scripture, you're pretty much doomed to talking to a wall. They're not going to listen to anything you say.

I'm also tired of the "evidence" of god being:
"Just look around at nature"

THIS ISN'T EVIDENCE!

The Old Testament says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." I indeed have and it has been the greatest experience for the last 25 years of my life. Jesus said he would give us "living waters" that would satisfy our spiritual thirst. I can gladly say that I've experienced that. We live in the day when God is giving his Spirit to all who ask in faith. I'm not going to argue with or try to force someone else to receive this experience, but I certainly will let people know that they can have it too. I respect people's right to politely disagree. It is possible to believe one is right and someone else wrong without fighting, degrading or being unkind. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" Acts 2:38. It's changing the lives of millions today, maybe you'll be next.

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

What is faith, and why do you believe, etc? As has been discussed on this board, faith comes from experience, and also from what we are taught. The Bible says, "Faith comes from hearing the word of God." But it also says, "Faith without works is dead".

So we believe because we have heard the "Word of God", which get's down into our hearts, and reveals it's truth to our minds. But it is much more than that.

God is Omnipotent, meaning "Everywhere at once", and nothing exists apart from him. God has also made himself know to mankind though his "Manifest Presence" where he has intervened in Time/Space and shown up in some form. The Prophets communications from God in Dreams/Visions etc., Moses and the burning bush, Jesus Christ life, etc.

Now you will never understand all this with just your mind. Unless the reality of God is made known to you in your heart and spirit, your mind will never understand God, or his workings in our lives.

To be Born-Again means "You have been Born of the Spirit", or God has baptized you with the Holy Spirit for your belief in Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, and our forgiveness of sins. This is the Grace of God, to say, "I know no man is without sin, so I sent my Son Jesus to pay for your sins, and restore your relationship to me a Holy God. Just believe in him, and what he did, and repent, and you are forgiven". In the eyes of God, we all deserved to be the ones on that cross to pay for our sins, for disobedience to him.

When one becomes Born-Again and is baptized with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit may give them certain gifts. To some the Gift of Healing, others Discernment, Wisdom, Prophesy, etc. (Corinthians 12), but they all work together for the good of the "Body of Christ" or the Church.

I have the Gift of Discernment. I know when something is from God, Satan, or Man, etc. I see God's work. My wife has be given the Gift of Prophesy, where the Lord speaks to her in Dream/Visions. The Lord has also spoken to me directly through her in a trance like state, sitting up from a deep sleep, usually around 5:00 AM. If I am spoken to through her in a trance, she has no memory of this, but only remembers if spoken to in a Dream/Vision.

I believe because not only of what I have read, been taught, etc. But because of having experienced "Gods Manifest Presence".

God is so real, and so powerful, it is frightening. The Bible says, "The Fear of the Lord (Or Reverence for his Awesome Power) is Wisdom". To think that an Awesome God would bother to communicate with a tiny human like myself, or any of us, is amazing.

The Bible says, "God so loved the world that he sent his Only Begotten Son as a ransom for us, and who ever believes in him will have eternal life". God is LOVE, but God is also JUSTICE. Choose his Love or Life, and not death or WRATH.

In a earlier post I said, "God told me, The Tsunami of Dec 26, 2004 was a Warning because many do not believe 'I AM WHO I AM', and have rejected me. It is just the beginning of many such things to come."

I do not know how a Loving God, can also wipe out thousands, or millions. But the bible says he will punish or reward according to "His Standards" not ours. He is GOD. He is sets the rules, not us. He is LOVE, but also WRATH.

If you seek him with your heart, you will find him. He will reveal himself to you that the bible promises.

May GOD Bless You ALL...

AJC3

Sorry for the double post. I hit the cancel button and that must have posted the first one. God or no God, please forgive me.

Sartre was an honest atheist. He knew that abolishing God also meant abolishing any ideas of ultimate morality or meaning. And he was sorry for that. Who wouldn't be?
This is what bother's me about atheists today. It's not that they don't believe in God, but they can't imagine wanting to either. And that brings up questions about conscience, not reason.
Sartre took his reasoning to it's logical conclusion. Today's atheists do not. If they did, at the birth of their children they would exclaim, " Wow! How completely meaningless!" But they can't bring themselves to do that. They go on faith and feeling that it is very meaningful indeed. Too bad it's as delusional as what the believers believe. I would happily agree that the birth was meaningful but you can show no evidence that it was.
Lastly, on atheists, isn't it odd that despite their overwhelming acceptance of Evolution (which I believe in also) they shy away from topics like Sociobiology and Determinism. Seems they don't like anything that would point to a lack of freewill. Face it, without God there is no freewill. Only Big Bang Billiards. Only an all powerful God could wrench us from the laws of cause and effect.

I myself go back and forth on what I believe. I just want to know the truth. I live the either/or of this debate and it's not pleasant. Still, I find myself drawn to the tale of a man who actually forgave the people who were in the process of killing him. How un-human, how insane, how absurd. So absurd it smacks of the truth.

Sartre was an honest atheist. He knew that abolishing God also meant abolishing any ideas of ultimate morality or meaning. And he was sorry for that. Who wouldn't be?
This is what bother's me about atheists today. It's not that they don't believe in God, but they can't imagine wanting to either. And that brings up questions about conscience, not reason.
Sartre took his reasoning to it's logical conclusion. Today's atheists do not. If they did, at the birth of their children they would exclaim, " Wow! How completely meaningless!" But they can't bring themselves to do that. They go on faith and feeling that it is very meaningful indeed. Too bad it's as delusional as what the believers believe. I would happily agree that the birth was meaningful but you can show no evidence that it was.
Lastly, on atheists, isn't it odd that despite their overwhelming acceptance of Evolution (which I believe in also) they shy away from topics like Sociobiology and Determinism. Seems they don't like anything that would point to a lack of freewill. Face it, without God there is no freewill. Only Big Bang Billiards. Only an all powerful God could wrench us from the laws of cause and effect.

I myself go back and forth on what I believe. I just want to know the truth. I live the either/or of this debate and it's not pleasant. Still, I find myself drawn to the tale of a man who actually forgave the people who were in the process of killing him. How un-human, how insane, how absurd. So absurd it smacks of the truth.

I just came across this, due to a Cal Thomas Commentary.

One thing is for sure. We are all going to have to use discernment when it comes to reading what comes across these pages.

In spite of the fact that I am going to find myself in disagreement with some ecumenists here (along with those who seem to believe that all religions are the same -- which, in truth, they're not), I am going to check back often to see if there's anything to submit for everyone's benefit.

Truth by its very nature must be exclusive and all religions maintain some form of exclusivity. Every true believer of any faith must hold to the exclusive truth of that particular faith.

Truth by its very nature must be exclusive and all religions maintain some form of exclusivity. Every true believer of any faith must hold to the exclusive truth of that particular faith.

In days of yore, well-meaning folks sacrificed people into volcanoes to appease the appropriate god. Homage was paid to Thor, Aten, Baal, et al, because Man did not understand his physical world.
Religion has served as the grand cushion, the gauzy film separating Man from connection with the physical world, because man knows he must die.
Sam Harris is right, religion is utterly pernicious, because it is a barrier between man and this tiny spark that is each little life. Hence, we do not live our lives truly, but hide from what is the basic wonder/horror of this, an existence.
Thomas Wolfe captured it quite well when he said,"And there came to him an image of Man's whole life upon the earth. It seemed to him that all Man's life was like a tiny spurt of flame that blazes out briefly in an illimitable and terrifying darkness. And that all Man's grandeur, tragic dignity and heroic glory comes from the brevity and smallness of that flame."
So, rejoice, (having to construct something about which to rejoice;) or as Baudelaire said," Be always drunken; with what? With wine, poetry, or virtue, as you will, but be always drunken."
So, Carpe Diem, live each singular moment of this exquisitely torturous sojourn, and "shoulder the sky, my lad, and drink your ale."

The only thing I dislike about this site is not having enough time to read everything that's posted...

Thanks, Washington Post/Newsweek for the opportunity to have this discussion.

linda marie

American christian faith are being lead by pastors who do not know half of time what they are talking about.Majority based there teaching on what they learn in divinity school which is contradictory.

It is sad to hear that some believed that God does not exist,but the Holy Trinity does exist.

The Holy spirit is what most christians brethen are seeking but can not received it.Read Roman 8. That same Holy Spirit is what gives the healing,signs and wonders,and miracles.

The bible states that on less man are baptized with water and spirit,forget about the kingdom of God.All men are going to see is Hell(Lake of Fire).

In order to receive the three in one(God,Jesus,and Holy Spirit)which is 100% possible
you have to be seeking for salvation(only key).

We look for light,but all is darkness;for brightness,but we walk in deep shadows.Like the blind we grope along the wall asking for direction,feeling our way like men without eyes.At midday we stumble as if it were twilight; among the strong,we are like the dead.

The doctrine of Moses' law explained everything our life should be conformed around.

I can talk to people for hours about faith or wether God exists or not. If there is no God then there is no need for people to struggle to be better humans they just need to learn the rules to survive and live a better life.

However sometimes there is descending feeling to the believers who know that their is a truth out there and that there are people who deserve to know it, and who should be allowed to take the choice to be saved and awarded the blessing of the afterlife in heaven and not in hell.

Some believers truly believe that they have the duty to deliver the word of God even though some do not believe.

I think the basic reason for the creation of all major religions of the world is for the betterment of people.

I am a Muslim and I think that a good Muslim necessarily has to be a good human being. A Muslim praying 5 times a day is not a good Muslim if he beats his wife.

If we follow that philosophy then we take into account everything that is going on in our community.

Since I am originally from Pakistan, I want the women of Pakistan to be free from all kinds of prejudice and malice that come their way. I want the children of Pakistan to have the best education. I want the people of Pakistan to be much more involved in politics to serve their communities. If Pakistan is 97% Muslim, then 97% of people there should be concerned about the state of their country and are obligated BY THEIR RELIGION to do something about the economy, healthcare and other issues pertaining to their country.

Finally, I would like to stress that people of different faiths and people who don't have faith can all work together if we understand that the purpose of all religions is to make the world a better place to live in.

I may erase this before publishing, but here goes. First I believe we in the United States are blessed (a religious term?) in that many of the first settlers came to our shores to avoid religious persecution. Their governments prescribed national religions. So as a nation we have believed from the beginning, even before 1776, that we had a right to worship as we wanted. Hence this discussion in which we are now engaged. Why do we worship? Simply because there are so many unknowns in our lives. We hope that the power that put us here on earth is still in some way associated with us. It is purely a philosophy that satisfies a personal need. When two or more of us collaborate in the way we perceive the relationship with our maker, a term that I hope is not provocative, we have a religion. It is a natural and comforting thing to want others to believe as we do so we preach our gospel and try to convince others to have a like mind. You can go on and from this build a case for the large organized religions, the election or declaration of leadership etc. But the fact always comes back to a personal desire to have assistance on all matters in which and on which we have no or little power to control. It follows then that at the top of the hierarchy, be it just one person or millions who believe the same way, we establish a supreme power(s). The different religions have grown from the answers and assistance needed by the followers. Unfortunately as time moves on the needs for assistance sometimes change, but the doctine doesn't. In fact that is when doctrine becomes dogma. Individuals can change their beliefs and ways of living much easier than the large religious groups. That is why persons in large religious groups protest and eventually break away. Well where does all this leave us? The individual still controls his own mindset when it comes to believing in the supreme being(s). If anyone out there doubts this I would like to hear from you. Your religious beliefs are very personal and you will not let anyone take them from you. That is the essence of religious freedom.

I would like to become a regular recipient of On Faith. I am a moderate evangelical (Baptist) who usually votes Democratic and strongly resent the religious right trying to speak for me. How do I sign up and become part of the discussion? I am including my email address for that purpose.

Doug, you raise some very good points. One I would like to make, one I mentioned earlier but didn't quote it. If you have not seen "Passion of the Christ", I would encourage you to see it. It is as close to the scripture as you can get. Also, check out "the Case For Christ, Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel.

I Corinthians 15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain--perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
"O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

I want to emphasize this is about a relationship with the One Who Made You, not just another religion.

The spiritual side of us is interested in the ultimate reality, that which is beyond our world and our human understanding. The ultimate is ineffable, but we humans try and try to express our feelings and beliefs. Because it is difficult and unsatisfactory to stick with only these purely abstract notions, we reduce the ultimate to words and ideas, doctrines and creeds. None of them, not God or faith or morality or righteousness or good or evil, are sufficient to deal with the concept of the ultimate. Words are what we have to work with, however, and so here are words to describe my faith:
God is an expression of the ultimate, and God has become an anthropomorphized concept. I refer the reader to Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza for an attempt to retain the term “God” while still keeping the ultimate in mind.
God is such a big concept that human understanding cannot hope to penetrate it. All of us who try are equally correct or equally incorrect in understanding God; take your pick.
To me, the major human failing is a lack of humility. There are times for action and pride, but in matters spiritual I approach with unassuming awe, as act as though I were part of a much bigger whole.
Overall, I am very encouraged by efforts like this at religious cross-understanding.
My best to all,
Lee

But Doug, it didn't work. The cruxifiction has given birth to elitism and sanctioned murder, without providence. Look, you describe god as having a mind and a son... these are human constructs. I cannot reserve my self to the belief that god is so mysterious and far greater than I, that I have to trust and resign myself to trust in god's inarticulate master plan all while believing that I have free will. Unconditional love and moral relativsm leaves vulnerability... the tree falls on the hugger.

I need to get back to work, but I just noticed Shamrockin's post and have to comment, even though this is not part of my original intentions on this site. I don't concern myself too much with the religious, but I do understand the general concept of God's divine providence. God can choose not to act or to act, because he is God. What if you allow your child to fail or face the concequences of his or her action to teach a lesson that they may not understand. Are you being cruel to do that. A better perspective on God dealing with us would be this. A dog is caught in a bear trap, you see that he is suffering so you decide to help. The dog sees you coming and because his mind is not capable of understanding, he thinks you are coming to hurt him, but you are actually coming to save him. So he is likely to fight like crazy to keep you away. The difference between Gods mind and ours is far greater than your mind vs a dog. How can a person possibly question Gods intentions. This especially true when the perspective of eternity is considered. Look at the example of the greatest wrath of God ever perpetrated on this earth, God the Father allowing God the Son to be spit on, punch, flogged until his skin was coming off, then cruxified. Do you really think that anyone watching that understood that the most horrendous act in history was also the most loving act in history. God cruxifying himself because he loved us so much that he wanted to spend eternity with us (and that was the only way to correct the original fall). So I think we need to step back and realize that we are not capable of knowing Gods intentions. Doug

Doug,

I think you misunderstand me. I was under the impression this board was for those concerned about EARTHLY significance- you know the kind that results from our direct actions here and now not in some hotly debated 'afterlife' so if you wish to talk about things that are of 'eternal importance' please do it elswhere is all I am saying. There are those of us here who actually wish to hear each other rather than ourselves.

By the way, Mike Sears is a man of love and he is not on this site to serve his ego, but to be of eternal significance to those that are currently content with entering through the wide gate. This life is of limited significance in comparison to eternity and those that have seen the ramifications of being incorrect are passionate about pointing toward God. Sometimes emails seem a little harsh, but I assure you that Mike has a loving smile and a loving heart that you can't see in his passionate email. Talk to you soon. Peace and Grace, Doug

One concept that the religious fail to question is that of divine intervention. If one believes that God can intervene in life, through prayer, miracle or what-have-you... then one has to admit that God can choose not to act. This makes god no better than man. Actually, god is worse. I as a father have to make the same decisions that god does and it is not in my obligation to live and let die with my own child. Part of this idea may come from the Satanic Bible.

My dear friend Mike has already introduced me on this site, regarding my conversion or being "born again", this past Spring. I fell like I can contribute to this discussion, since I have gone down many rabbit trails in my journey to the one and only God. I have a lengthy testimony, however, I will briefly describe it here in the event that it may help someone. This is also important, since many of you feel that preaching the Gospel is a waste of time, if you don't believe that it is in fact the inerrant word of God.

As a child, there was some church attendance and many general discussion about God and Jesus, but this was not the center of our life. I always felt like there was a God and I was taught to pray at night for my loved ones. The "now I lay me down to sleep......,etc". In college, my professors, in the Survey of the Old and New Testaments classes, made me aware of what seemed to be descrepency,inconsistencies and even contradictions. There seemed to be little concern for the fact that there was considerable support for this being the inspired word of God. All this served to do was weaken my faith in Christianity and opened the door for consideration of other religions, which I studied in other classes.

I will stop here and will continue with the other religions, philosophies, such as Buddhism, the teachings of Socraties (via Plato), Ken Wilbur, Eckhart Tolle, Allen Watts, Deepak Chopra and others. Also, realize that you will never understand the truth until you surrender your will to the one and only God and ask him to show you the way. That created the final and certain turn of events in my life. I will explain that later. To be continued. Peace and Grace, Doug

Mike & Sara

Mike if you are representing Love in your proclamation of truth why on earth would you rub it in Sara's face "It sounds as if some of what has been shared here kind of stung a little huh? " What kind of love is that? it seems to me on these posts the people who actually want to talk about issues driving those of other faiths away from each other is EXACTLY what you are doing right here. If you cannot resist the urge to preach to us then please be prepared that we are not going to believe that you are coming from a loving perspective. While you do not have to respect someone to love them- if you want them to believe a word you say it sure helps.

Let's have a forum for atheism too. We can discuss how people got over thinking that lightning is Zeus's thunderbolts crashing down on Earth, that Methuselah lived 900 years, and that the world is perched on top of a stack of umpty-ump tortoises.

We can ask what position Christ would take on the Iraq war and what Mohammed would have to say about muslims who blow up mosques. We can ask why it is that self-proclaimed holy men like Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker and Ralph Reed (and women, like Amy Semple McPherson and Tammy Bakker) behave no better on the average than the rest of us.

BTW, Sally Quinn is noted for many things she has written in The Post, including a puff piece on Jonas Savimbi that helped persuade the U.S. government to support UNITA's atrocities in the Angolan civil war for a quarter century, and a childish boast of how much she fears flying.

The philosophy professor and others want us to use our brains. Okay--my reason tells me that scientists are looking for the "seat of the soul" because our emotions are real. And physicists are looking for the origin of the universe. Maybe one day they will all discover that there are purely rational answers.
Meanwhile, can we not reason that mysteries do exist and can we not feel awe? Another part of our brains might even invoke wonder and imagination. We can reason our way to reverence for all things. This is spirituality and some might call its essence "God",
others "Transcendence."

Sara
It sounds as if some of what has been shared here kind of stung a little huh? It seems as though the one who is being "intolerant" is the one who gets upset and lashes out with comments about the lack of intelligence, rationality and such.

For the sake of "intelligent" and "rational" discussion, let's allow your thought process to be carried to it's logical conclusion. If goodness is just part of our DNA, then if I am "not good", then it's not my fault right? If I have a tendency, and get my guidance from a source that says I should molest children, or sacrifice them, then is that ok? Who defines good anyway? Is it all relative? Is truth relative as some believe? It is sad that many people today have the view that anyone who claims to have a knowledge of TRUTH is labeled as intolerant, yet those doing the labling as such are simply doing the exact same thing.

May the TRUTH be proclaimed through LOVE!!

"On Faith is an interactive conversation on religion moderated by Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is PostGlobal, a conversation on international affairs. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for On Faith to Caryle Murphy, its producer."

Then what the hell is her mailing address?

Yeah, build the internet, hide the poor and hungery, etc.

I thought the Washington Post would have an intelligent discussion board. The comments are embarrassingly written and lack historic fact and content. I know that Americans are capable of rationale thought and have the ability to deal with historic fact rather than relying on dogma. Your goodness is in your DNA. Where you get guidance is your choice. There are many great sources that share some of the tenents of the bible, but can expand the horizons of open minded people. Please don't choose to be intolerant as so many of the contributors appear in this blog. Send an image of a thinking American abroad. Thanks.

Quick question for Dustin & beachwoman, if preaching the Gospel only works for people who already believe, then how do people "come to believe"? Like me. I thank God for those who were willing to proclaim the Gospel to an unbeliever like I was.

Are you REALLY seeking for the truth or are you looking for something that does not challenge what you WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE?

From CARL.

Some basic BIBLE steps for those seeking God and his way of salvation.

*GODS EXISTENCE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH.
(He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that he is a rewarder of them that dligently seek him Hebrews 11:6).

*WHAT IS FAITH?
(Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10;17)

*WE MUST ALSO (by Faith)ACCEPT THE DIVINE TRUTH,ORIGIN AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES; (the BIBLE)
(For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1;21).

*THE BIBLE REVEALS UNTO US THE FOLLOWING;

a THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE and ALL THINGS.
(God made the world and all things therein
Acts 17;24).

b; THE ORIGIN OF MAN.
(God created man in his own image. Genesis
Genesis 1;27)

c; THE ORIGIN of SIN and DEATH.
(Wherefore through one man (ADAM) sin
entered into the world and death by sin,
and so death passed upon all men.
Romans 5;12).

d; THAT GOD WILL JUDGE and PUNISH MAN FOR HIS
SINS UNLESS HE REPENTS.
(But after thy hardness and impenitent heart
treasureth up unto thyself wrath against the
Day of Wrath and revelation of the righteous
judgement of God.Romans 2;5)

e' In SPITE OF OUR SINS GOD LOVES US and GAVE
HIS SON TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.
(For God so loved the world that He gave his
only Begotten Son, that whosover believeth
on him should not perish but have eternal
life. John 3;16)

f; SALVATON IS IN CHRIST (ALONE)
(Neither is there salvation in any other,
for neither is there any other name under
heaven, given amongst men, whereby we must
be saved. Acts 4; 12 and John 3;16)

g; SALVATION IS BY FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST.
(For by grace are ye saved through faith,and
that not of yourselves; it is the gift of
God; not of works, lest any man should boast
Ephesians 2;8,9)

h; ETERNAL LIFE IS GOD's GIFT. not a reward for
our good deeds, or personal merit.
(For the wages of sin is death, but the gift
of God is eternal life, through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Romans 6.23)

BIBLE EXAMPLE 1;
When the Philippian jailor thought all the prisoners had escaped after the earthquake and he feared for his own life, he cried out to the Apostle Paul; WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?
The Apostle Paul responded; BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. Acts 16; 30,31)

BIBLE EXAMPLE 2; (How to be justified (or
accounted righteous by God).
BUT TO HIM THAT WORKETH NOT, BUT BELIEVETH ON HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY, HIS FAITH IS ACCOUNTED (or imputed) FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Romans 4;5)
BLESSED IS THE MAN TO WHOM THE LORD WILL NOT IMPUTE SIN. (Romans 4;8)

We are not to put our trust in man, whose breath is in his nostrils(including trusting in our own wisdom and intelligence). For; "CANST THOU BY SEARCHING FIND OUT GOD, CANST THOU FIND OUT THE ALMIGHTY UNTO PERFECTION".
Job.11;7. Isaiah 2;22).

FINALLY.
GOD HAS GIVEN US (who believe)ETERNAL LIFE AND
THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON. HE THAT HATH THE SON HATH LIFE; AND HE THAT HATH NOT THE SON OF GOD HATH NOT LIFE. (1 John, 5;11,12)

Thanks to you Mike Sears Inc. However, you lost me by the second paragraph. In my personal experiences I have seen people make the same changes in their life without becoming a Born Again.

I am "up there" in years with much experience in my past years. I must admit that I know little about the Bible as it just seems much too complicated for me to understand and make any sense out of.

I live by suggestions that are much like the Ten Commandments and have seen these "suggestions" make the same differences in people as you have seem religion make in your friend Doug. I believe they made me the person you speak about in your writing. These "suggestions" have totally changed me and the way I live my life. Much like the Ten Commandments they are a guide to living and being a good person. Besides they are easy to understand and follow if one chooses to do that.

Maybe the Christian religion is just too complicated for me to understand. I don't think that makes a "stupid" person just one that needs some rules I can understand and practice.

Dustin, I agree with you. Preaching the gospel only works for people who already believe. It does nothing for me but complicate things.

I have over the years in trying to find why my mother was taken from me at a very early age looked for some explanation about life and death that made some kind of sense to me other than that I just "HAD" to believe without questioning. In that process I have come to believe that there is something out there larger than I am and that knows better for me than I know for myself. This belief also gave me principals to live by.

Maybe the fact that I am on this page says I am looking for something more right now. Who knows?
I do find peoples beliefs very interesting.

Thanks

How nice it is that that folks can describe their own mental state regarding these issues and not be attacked for them. What business is it of mine what anyone else thinks about anything? When I attended Christian churches I learned to parrot what I was taught from the pulpit because I didn't know any better and shouldn't be faulted. Therefore what would I fault anyone else?

Confuscious stated:
If there be righteousness (I read right useness) in the heart there will be beauty in the character.

If there be beauty in the character there will be harmony in the home.

If there be harmony in the home there will be order in the nation.

If there be order in the nation there will be peace in the world.

It seems that peace truly does begin with me.

I find that for me Jesus is a splendid prototype showing what a mortal man can accomplish when he appropriates a holy identity. I hear Christians declaring that Jesus will return. I declare that he never left.

Years ago I did a root word search in a concordance because the word "forgive" had such a generic meaning for me. When I discovered the word for forgive is "to understand" many things became clearer.

My favorite acronym for sin is Self Inflicted Nonsense and God understands my nonsense as an error to be corrected not an evil to be punished.

Who is better? Christians. Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and others? Woudn't it depend on the beauty of their character instead of the words coming from their mouths?

Is there a difference between the religous radicals in Iran and those in America? "God says this" and "Allah says that." There is no reason in insanity yet the Bible mentions "Come let us reason together."

Bill
Very well put!

Dustin, Sara
The reason I quote the Bible is because it is living and active. Although it is sharp, and it cuts (convicts) us at times. It is totally useful for teaching and guiding. The truth about me is that I lived for 38 years believing that the Bible was nothing more than a book of myths and stories, written by fallible men. I also grew up believing I was a Christian, (because we went to church and did Christian things.) It wasn’t until I experienced some real hardships and tragedies that really broke my heart, and I began to really seek and ask why, and what is life all about? Why am I really here? Is God really there? As I began to seek, I was blessed to have been exposed to “expository teaching” of the Bible rather than the churches I had been attending that just threw Bible quotes at problems or life issues instead of really digging in to reveal the context and deep meaning behind what has been written for us.

When I started to study and learn the Bible, coming from a broken state in my heart, rather than the self centered, “I know what’s best for me” and “I want what I want and that’s most important”, state of mind in which I had lived my entire life, God’s Word began to prove itself true in the circumstances in my life as well as in my heart and mind. I quote those passages because they reveal the truth about how God worked in my heart through His Word. I will quote only one verse in this writing, “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

My studies have revealed that the Bible is full of truths which have helped me understand human nature, healthy living practices, how to love others selflessly, (the thing that Christ did perfectly for us by giving His life for us), and how to know God in a deep and meaningful way. In short, His Word provides everything we need for life and that has rang true in my life for that past 6 years since coming to know my Savior.

You see, this “faith alone” concept is misunderstood. God still wants and expects us to live “holy lives”. Yet anyone who has ever tried it knows that we can’t do it. God does not have a set of scales on which He puts all of our good deeds on one side and our bad on the other and then if the good outweighs the bad, we’ll be ok. His standard is perfection. That is quite a problem for us. The good news is HE made the first move. He has PROVED His love for us by giving us His son. That is how it works. If we “believe” that He sent His Son to die on our behalf, and put our trust in Him as our savior by “faith alone”, then what comes afterwards is our desire to be like Him, then come the good deeds from a “right state of heart”! He doesn’t want our good deeds because we think we have earned something, which comes from a selfish heart. When our kids obey us because they are afraid they will get punished, or because they will get an allowance, is that an expression of love? No… It is when they obey because they LOVE us …. That is rightly motivated good works!!! That is LOVE!!

What happened to the Dalai Lama? He may have been the smart one to get out of town before sundown....

I know this site has good intentions, but.......

...we might as well be having a civilized discussion between people who believe in Zeus vs. Poseidon vs. Apollo.

To Mike Sears (and echoing what Sara Williams said) :

First, quoting the Bible begs the question, and is absurd and pointless, unless you're simply preaching to the converted (those who already believe in it).

The question is, what is "Faith"? And why do you have this faith in the Bible (or whatever "Holy Book") as the Word of God? Why is faith valuable -- and even if it is, is there any reason one person's faith is any more valuable than anyone else's?

I also just want to express my utter disdain for the proposition that it is "Faith alone" and not how you live your life that is important. Once again, yet another reason many people despise religion. The implication is that were Mother Teresa an atheist (or a Pagan or something) she'd be going to Hell, and as long as Hitler was a faithful "god-fearing" chap he'd be in Heaven.

I submit that if the Christian god exists, He probably cares far more about how you treat the least among us than about whether you believe in Him or how successful you are at believing in things without evidence.

Sara,

Just in case you sincerely believe what you just said, I would suggest that you pick up "The Story of Christianity" volumes one and two by Justo Gonzalez (sp?). These paperbacks are VERY easy reads and provide a good overview of Christian history, both the good and the bad.

As to your understanding, I first had to wonder if your classes were taken at Satan U. (I say this with a mixture of amusement and sadness) because absolutely nothing you have been taught is correct. In fact, Paul, who authored a substantial part of the New Testament was one of the most educated Jewish theologians of his time and wrote some of the deepest, complex and internally coherent theology to be written. Not a big surprise if you think it was inspired by God Himself, huh? Luke, writing the books of Luke and Acts, was a doctor; hardly illiterate and uneducated. The Apostles sat under religious teachers their whole lives, but after three year with Jesus showed an incredible recall of the Old Testament scriptures in their preaching.

The Council of Nicea, 325 A.D., dealt with documenting the theological foundation of Jesus as God, which had been implicitly understood until the current day heresies of gnosticism arose, and agrred upon the common understanding of the canon we call the Holy Bible today. At the time, there was a move by an individual to define his own "bible," which included only those books he found useful to his theology. How "scripture" was defined is well documented and includes internal discussions such as Peter calling Pauls writing scripture, etc.

Yes Constantine was there, having become a Christian, and put an end to the persecution of Christians during his time. Otherwise, his involvement in the church, I think, caused more problems than good because of the deference given to him more than any meddling.

If the Bible is just a book of stories that will help you be a good person, then I sincerely recommend that you read something else, such as biographies of people having lived good lives (Ghandi, Mother Tereasa, MLK, GW... ooops!), because as you can tell on these boards, reading and embracing the Bible, while calling yourself Christian, will bring you nothing but grief. Telling people you read or live by the principles expoused by the others won't. Christianity is an all encompassing world-view that will mean nothing unless you're all in, and that, by definition, begins with faith in Christ. If you don't believe that, walk into any church tomorrow and see the look on most of the people's faces. It's hard being all-in. We like being large and in charge, the antithesis of true Christianity. We are "pull yourself up by your boostraps" Americans. It is astounding also that most Christians will tell you that, "God helps those who help themselves," which is also exactly opposite of Biblical teaching. God says rely on me for everything.

I would like the discussants to present the history of the bible so that those who quote it constantly can better understand it. My understanding from biblical history classes is that the new testament consists of stories told by illiterate people most of whom were not alive in the same period as Jesus was presumed to be alive. Scribes took the stories to a meeting in Nicea in 250AD (?)convened by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. A council chose stories it liked for inclusion in the Bible and it discarded stories it didn't like. When other religions came into being, each religion took the parts of the Bible it liked, rewrote the stories and now no one truly knows what is historically true if any of it is true. That withstanding, it is a book with interesting stories that can act as a guide for
people, but they should understand that Jesus never knew of the existance of the book.

I think it would be useful for this interesting website to post the truth of the history since it doesn't seem to be included in the theological education of so many of the ministers preaching today.

In response to Beachwoman's request:
My best friend just came into a relationship with Christ after 6 years of searching diligently for the truth.

Here is an explanation to a group of his friends who were perplexed by the changes in his attitude:

Isn’t it puzzling to witness the immediate and stark change in a man with whom we have all enjoyed partying and hucking it up about those kind of crude jokes and photos to which he now seems to look down his nose. What’s up with that? All of a sudden, all this guy talks about is God and Jesus Christ. Do you think he really has found something here? I don’t know all of you, but I have known Doug since he was 14 years old. I have to tell you that to me the change is amazing.

Could it be that this, “born again” thing that some Christians claim is real? Why does Doug all of a sudden have his nose stuck in the Bible all the time and is now making claims about truth and what is good? If you will let me, I will offer an explanation that is thousands of years old. If any of you have studied the Bible to a certain extent, you will have found that what has happened to Doug is specifically described in these ancient texts. But first let me confirm where Doug is NOT coming from, which is also described in this same source.

Doug is not “born again” because of ANYTHING that he has done, he has not earned his way into God’s acceptance. No religious exercise, no formula that he followed, not by reaching a certain level of “goodness”, not by doing good things, nor praying in a certain way, etc. has allowed him to reach this point in his life or faith. On the contrary it is rather a realization of his inadequacy in all of these things that has served to convince him that he needed help. Jesus used to get in the faces of people who thought they were better than others because they did all of these religious things. He told them things like, “You fools, you think that by doing all of these things that you are holy, but you refuse to come to me to have life.” While Doug apparently does a lot of these religious things now, what is different is the source of his motivation for doing such things.

600 years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Ezekiel made this promise on behalf of God, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” Then when Christ was walking this earth with his disciples, He made the following promises, “Whoever believes in me, streams of living water will flow from within him.” “I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but have eternal life.” "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

Paul confirmed this by making the following claims in his writings: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”, and “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” and ” Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.”

Paul also made this claim, “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” Guys, what we are witnessing here is living proof of the power of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Many believe that Christians are self righteous and hypocrites. While that statement is true of many, a true “born again” Christian does not believe in their OWN righteousness at all. No we are confident that our own “good deeds” are worthless filthy rags. What this last verse I quoted from Paul means is that through our “faith alone” in Christ, that we are given “the perfect righteousness of Christ” as a gift, by grace alone. What that means is when we trust in Christ to have taken the punishment that we deserve, God looks at us and sees the perfection of Christ, not all of our sins and flaws. It is because of this truth that we desire to respond out of gratitude for this amazing grace that has been lavished upon us. Paul also says, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” True Christianity is simply a love response to the love we have received. That is what you see happening with Doug. Doug has come to know and understand magnitude of God’s grace and love. As a loving response Doug is seeking and desiring to know God more through His Word, to be obedient to God by sharing and spreading the news about the grace that his been given to him.

I see a pretty wide variety of panelists. However, there seems to be a major sect not being represented. Reformed Theologians. The likes of R.C. Sproul, Hank Hannegraff, John Piper, Erwin Lutzer, Chuck Swindoll, Greg Laurie, Chip Ingram, John McArthur, Ravi Zacharias, etc. They may be too busy focusing on what's most important... Spreading the Gospel!

I dislike being "preached to" here. I want it to be a forum for "WHY" you believe "WHAT" you believe. This means sharing your experiences and what brought you to your beliefs.

Is there anyone out there able to do that for me?

Let us try to make this website worthwhile in bringing us together No Matter What We Believe.

Help!

For those of you that say Christians are fraud, I agree that some teach false doctrine. That was prophecied by Paul and other writers of the new testament. There are antichrists among us waiting for the real Antichrist to rule. But, he will be destroyed by the true Christ, Jesus homself.

Thanks for the posting on UUs. I'm an atheist member of a UU congregation who was raised as a Quaker. My UU church brings me insight into profound questions about life and human existence. I don't believe in any diety but the 7 UU principles guide every aspect of my life. Belief in a deity may be the path some take to being deeply moral, caring and socially responsible. But it isn't the only way. As to the question whether a "religion" must include belief in a deity, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that in order to enjoy the constitutional protections of freedom of religion a person need not profess belief in Supreme Being, and a number of world religions lack such a belief.

It is interesting that given the suddeness of "religious outings" among the politicians having just run for office (Ford and others) and the broad coverage of the parties' pandering to capture the religious vote (McCain's Liberty U. coach), that this website now appears. Pandering of Newsweek and the Post? We'll see. I may enjoy reading the panelists' and learn of their positions, but the discussion threads will yield nothing due to the fringes inserting themselves with personal attacks vice cogent argumentation.

Who gave the Gettysburg Address? Prove it. We "know" due to written history by those who claim to have been there at the time. A matter of faith or history on our part? Did Jesus arise from the grave three days later? Witnesses having written about it in that time and setting say that He did. A matter of faith or history on our part?

We all form a belief system from which we view the world and events around us; a world view. Those who believe in a Creator will always view the world differently than an evolutionist, wich interestingly enough is clearly stated in the Bible and being proven on this thread. The belief however, drives our understanding of morality, which is embodied in every law ever written and is why that given the issues of today, the Christian has become drawn into the political arena. The irreligious does everything possible to put forward their humanistic morals, while the Christians put forward theirs. Shocker!

Gordon it is Before COMMON Era (BCE).

It's only a matter of time before Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest go the way of Zeus and Ennead. That is what history tells us. Jon Meacham can understand that.

I honestly can't see the harm... no one else seems to be DOING ANYTHING about this epidemic!

Thanks for giving REAL people a Voice, in an otherwise mute world... maybe, such a forum can expose some ideals worthy of considering without the tainted perspectives of those who deal us all the cards. Trust me, they know who they are. I assure you they're listening for any reasonable sense of truth, or reason to wire tap, then invade your residence... ahh, the price of freedom, call me!

A great site for anyone looking for answers is ..

www.raptureme.com

After hearing about this web page on TV tonight I decided to see what it was all about. I am not much for organized religion. I do not like the religions that try so hard to convert me to their thinking. I have looked for many years for something I could believe in that would give me some peace of mind.

I was raised in the Luthern Church by a Bapist mother and Presbyterian father. My mother gave me the idea of choice at an age when I was old enough to choose what I wanted to believe in.

A very good Jewish friend of mine told me once that people believe in GOD because "they were afraid NOT to". I believe most believe because they are afraid to die and NOT believe in something.

I am still looking and if I die in the mean time I will probably find out if I was too late in choosing.

I have a sense that there is a power out there greater than I am but I am not sure what to call this power so I use the term GOD. I respect "all" others beliefs as long as they respect my right to believe as I do or maybe according to them don't. I look forward to reading and participating in this discussion.

Regarding the question posed on MSNBC Hardball this evening: "What has changed between 1960 and the present (as to the perception of a president's religious beliefs)?"

In 1960, the southern Protestant religious were concerned that Kennedy's Catholicism would interfere with his performance as president. Kennedy assured them that he believed in the separation of church and state.

Now, evangelical Protestants want an assurance that a presidential candidate will bring his religious beliefs to the office.

Answer: Nothing has changed. As I see it, the same population wants their religious beliefs to inform political life, but fear and disrespect the differing beliefs of other religions (including secular and atheist).

The majority believes that they are entitled to force their ideas and beliefs on the rest of us and select the most advantageous postion at each time.

Explicit expression of religion and faith do not belong in the political realm.

I must say religions, by peddling obvious untruths, have shown themselves to be fraudulent.

I think believers have a deficiency in the part of the brain that checks for logical consistency, reason and reality.

Indeed, studies of the brain showing that some people are "hardwired" to believe in a God, only reinforces my thesis about the non-functioning of an area of the brain in believers. Of course other parts of the brain fucntion well. That is why one sees many otheriwse intelligent people who are believers.

What the world needs today is the purging of religions from public life and shaming of believers into thinking about reason. As a start, schools and universities must be purged of believers, both students and faculty--there is no place for people who cannot exercise proper reasoning in a university. The same is true of the government and public institutions where decisions of enromous import are made by people who cannot reason.

I am sooooo tired of our national political dialog being dominated by the private moral concerns of religious extremists. We can't address our vulnerability on energy because of the hoopla about gay marriage. Can't deal with political corruption endemic to our campaign finance practices because abortion hysteria. Can't come up with effective educational systems because we're arguing about whether creationism should be taught as science in our high schools.

On and on, emotional religious issues are used to distract attention from the difficult and complex issues that will determine whether we prosper as a nation. Personally, I have reached a point where I automatically oppose any public figure who makes a point of publicly defining themselves as Christian, whatever their policy positions.

Nice to see ads for AMEX and Newsweek's Money Guide Tip Sheet following A Message From the Dalai Lama
Keep up the good work!

It was Nietzsche that explaned, "[W]e have no right to isolated acts of any kind: we may not make isolated errors or hit upon isolated truths. Rather do our ideas, our values, our yeas and nays, our ifs and buts, grow out of us with the necessity with which a tree bears fruit--related and each with an affinity to each, and evidence of one will, one health, one soil, one sun.--" (On the Genealogy of Morals, pg 16)
One is not entitled to an opinion, a belief, or a value. One is, however, entitld to an educated opinion, a verifiable belief, and a set of reasoned values. Why is it so difficult to see that actions cannot be removed from the thoughts that have inspired them?
A Disney character once said that if you cant say anything nice, then dont say anything at all. Perhaps we could all learn a lesson from this little hare--if you cant think rationally, then there is no point in thinking at all...
J.Fisher
Kent State Univeristy
Philosophy Department

Perhaps instead of preaching their religious philosophy to us poor non-believers people should make use of what the board was intended for and actually discuss similarities and diferences between religions so that we can all learn to live together without murdering each other in the name of "GOD" whoever that is- it is different for every person you ask. As a Pagan I personally believe in love and humanity. We ourselves have the ability to shape the world into a place where no one is persecuted no one wants for basic rights or needs. Waiting for 'GOD' to show up and fix things is a pretty pathetic excuse to do whatever YOU feel like doing without regards for others who share this planet with you and even future generations to come. Religion doesn't fix the global problems we have today- only people can do that by showing respect for one another and working together. I realize my approach may seem idealistic to some but ask yourself how hard it is to come up with passing respect for someone? for their life and their right to live it the way they see is best so long as they hold the same respect for you? well there is the catch isn't it? Many people do NOT have this same respect for others and why you ask? Simply because of religious views. Until we can learn to see past or work WITH our diferences we can continue to expect deaths in the name of religion not only in isolated groups but everywhere. I wish people would address the fact that we don't come to these boards to hear zealots preaching to us but others of like mind who wish for peace and are willing to establish the mutual respect it takes to attain it.

Mr. Cruse has made a magnificent point for both sides of the debate. neither creationists nor evolutionists know the whole truth. they just think they do and instead of being willing to work together to find the real truth(if it's possible) they butt heads. one difference, i believe, though. creationists don't want to find a common ground where science and religion came meet. they want to push an agenda that proves the Bible and with it Christianity is the "truth" and therefore they should have the sole right to dictate to the entire world. i don't believe science does that. although painstakingly and begrudgingly, science changing as new evidence is presented. i read an article in Discovery magazine some time about how even though the universe should be chaotic, it isn't . there is a logic to the workings of the universe that we don't understand. the people cited in the article didn't actually come out and say that this proves there is a God. they said that He just couldn't be counted out.
maybe someone here has read the story by Issac Asimov about a computer created by men that, over the millennia became so intelligent that it evolved into a sensient being. eventually at the end of existence in the universe with all life and matter dying, the last human, now just a form of energy asks the computer how to keep from dying, but the computer doesn't know and soon the human blinks out of existence. the computer is alone in an empty universe trying desperately to find a way to stay alive as it gets smaller and smaller and suddenly it also blinks out. but! at jus that same instant the voice carries across the empty universe that says "let there be light!" and suddenly the universe swirls to life. so what as it? did the computer find the answer and become God or was God just waiting for the computer to die? the question isn't answered. and i think that is the heart of the matter. we don't know and we will never know. but, if you believe in God, specifically in the Christian manner, you have to accept certain things. God created the universe and if, as so many right wing radicals like to remind us, with God all things are possible, then evolution as far as we now understand it is also His creation.
but, the debate over whether creationism or evolution is the "truth" shouldn't be the discussion. but rather, what does it matter in the long run except for one side to bring the other to its proverbial knees? i believe that there is no quarrel between God and evolution except the one we create.

God gave man a choice to accept and love him. If he didn't, we would be robots. He created hell for the Devil and his followers. if you believe in Jesus that he died for you and rose again, you will be saved into life everlasting in heaven.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by Me."
The will of God is for you to have etarnal life. He predestined us for this purpose. It is a choice we have to make on our own. God will not force you to believe but he will turn you over to the enemy if you chose to disobey him.

You can't see the wind, but you feel it. That's the way of God. if you accept him, he is present. You may not sense his presence all the time but he is there. If you don't make Jesus Lord over your life, Satan is Lord over you. That is why there is so much evil. If jesus didn't die and rose again, our faith is foolishness, but since we know this, we have hope, which is the confident expectation that we will someday worship him eternally. If you don't accept him, you will still bow before him before he sends you to the lake of fire. I plead with you to repent and ask Jesus to save you. Tomorrow is promised to no one.

Most of the comments offered on this message board provide a continuing example why it's near impossible to have a limited prejudicial discussion on religion when the majority of the posts are centered on ones own "feelings".

How can we get past most of our prejudices when we weigh each other down by our pontificating and preaching.

Why does the tiresome obvious need to repeated over and over about our individual beliefs when the discussion should be on how religion became to be what it is and why the human family is so divided because of it.

Having personal beliefs and deep feelings about those beliefs is the given for most of us. What good does it do to keep preaching to one another, in this kind forum.

I tried earlier to find a way to open the pages of the past in determining why the Bible and other religious documents have influenced people in such different ways. This discussion should not be about the faith you and I adopted but why and how we adopted it and what is the justification for it in light of what those criteria reveal.

I think making an effort to disect the subject is vitally important especially considering the reality that the human family has been at each others throats since the beginning of recorded history over or because of these documents. Our insistance in shoving our individual beliefs and religions in each others face is totally non productive. If we can define the subject we can begin to understand what it means more clearly.

One other observation:

Why have there been so few people coming to this discussion with their ideas which was advertised on national television and one of its most popular morning shows? Does anyone really tune in to that show or has religion in this country become unimportant to most people?

Faith is the belief and trust in something. We can say concerning a friend for instance who made us a promise, and because we know their character, that we "Trust them to be honest, etc." or we have "Faith in them".

In the biblical sense, faith is "Putting our trust in God", because we know his character, etc. based upon what we have read in his word, and also because of what we have seen of his "Hand in our personal lives". Now I understand that not everyone is perceptive enough, or has without a doubt experience the "Manifest Presence" of God in there lives, but some of us have. I have experienced this, and that is why I speak so forcefully that "God is real, and exists".

I must point out this is not about Religion, but about Relationship. God originally created human beings and gave them free will, to have a relationship. But through sin (Disobedience to God) that relationship has been broken. Jesus Christ has restored that relationship to God (The Father) for us, all we need to do is believe in him, and trust him. That is faith.

I was raised Catholic, and taught about God, but never really ever studied the bible. When I became an adult and saw the evil and injustice in the world, I thought to myself, "Where is God, and how can he exist and let this happen?", so I got to the place where I believed, "I don't think all this universe and wonders happened by themselves because it's too intricate and leads to a design, perhaps God started this, but he must be no more."

I am a black belt in the martial arts since I was 22 yrs old. I have had a student that went on and became a Navy Seal. There is nothing I could not work through (Myself) with mental and physical discipline. But a series of events in my life changed that, and broke me.

That's when I turned to God, and prayed, "God if you are real, please help me, because if you can't, than nobody can". Shortly after that a series of events happened and "God showed up!!!". He made himself know to me, and I became a Born-Again Christian.

I was baptized shortly after that by the "Holy Spirit" (The spirit came over me), I was totally elated with joy at that moment and felt like my body was on fire, tingly from head to toe. and after that knew I had "Spiritual Eyes. Meaning, I know when God is giving me a sign, or working, etc.

I have been given the "Spiritual Gift of Discernment", where I know what is from God, Man, Satan, etc. I have been walking with God for over 20 years now (Although I do mess up and disobey sometimes, or sin, and repent, etc.)

My wife (Before we got married) was also raised catholic, but never even owned a bible, or read one. Shortly after she became Born-Again she started to see Jesus Christ in Dreams/Visions. I thought she was just imagining things until he started speaking to her!!! She has been given the "Spiritual Gift of Prophecy" where God communicates through her.

The thing is, he spoke to he about me, and quoted scripture passages for her or me to read, on some matter, that was not only correct, but exact. (Remember my wife at this point doesn't know scripture, and has barely even opened a bible.)

The Lord Jesus Christ has spoken directly to me through my wife in a trance many times (She has no memory that this happens when spoken trough in a trance) I have also seen Supernaturally the Lord (Wearing a white robe, reddish brown hear and beard), and shown his eyes are he hung of the cross (Aqua greening eyes, sorrowful, and bloodshot).

I am not making this up or am I crazy.

The Lord has told me:

1) My time to return is sooner than many believe, but believe it my son.

2) The tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004 was a "Warning because many do not believe 'I AM WHO I AM' and have rejected me. It is just the beginning on many such things to come.

3) In Jan. 2005 I was told, "In a few years the oceans are going to start to rise. Not all at once but gradually. The water will come in further than anyone would believe. I is better to be 'In The Land' than on the coasts."

4) I was not to take any job (I was in-between jobs at that time) on the West Coast of USA, or West Coast of Florida."

You will never know God by just your mind, unless you perceive him with your spirit first. That's why the bible says "Seek God with All Your Heart" and you will find him.

Stop philosophizing so much, or being religious. Seek God with your heart, and you will find him.

God Bless You All, :)

AJC3

Most religions believe in Love, Peace, and Harmony besides other principles; also believe in judgment at the end of life to assign reward or punishment for all eternity. People CONFORM to religious, societal, cultural, and economic existence never examining their life fully; to a certain extent never questioning why they think or behave as they do. In fact, the majority of people never reach total autonomy, never searching for their own path or breaking new ground other than the life introduce so long ago. Yet, to be punished or rewarded for all eternity, to what end?

After only one life-time, does this seem fair? Think about it, sometimes it takes a whole life-time as the learning curve and possibly most never give this structure any thought. How is it possible that people really believe this crap? Can we all accept the fact we all came into this world not knowing a whole lot and your parents and everyone else before you found themselves in a similar circumstance and yes even your religious leaders? All generations quickly fell into place fulfilling this machine we call society and civilization with all its mechanisms such as education, productivity, monetary systems and ideologies; all to acquire status, caste, and security; again, to what end?

It begs the question, what kind of Creator would set a system like that?

Well, I think its man’s structure and not the creator’s; I mean religions must have been imagined and designed to control the masses. I have never met anyone professing of being a Christian to be “Christ-like” and this is including the entire priests and ministers I have known; of course they always say, we’re only human and not perfect. Plus they also add that “The Devil” made me do this or that; never having to be accountable for their own actions. In addition, if you try to raise the fact that they might be a bit off on their logic, they quickly scream “persecution”.

I see a need for a global paradigm shift and what could help is taking and living by the lyrics from the song “Imagine” by John Lennon. I know it sounds a bit of stretch to have such hope for this world.

But I have to ask, why does it take so long for evolution to take the next step is it a child? Can we the World give it strength to hold it self up so it can start marching right along even run; isn’t the World getting a little tired of this human disjointed stage? I’m concern that if something like a cathartic event doesn’t awake the human race we are doom to fail its Creator. Yes, all of us would be responsible and we would have no one to blame but ourselves. Could it be that religion is holding us back?

This looks like an interesting and worthwhile project. I read many faith-related blogs daily including:

Get Religion
First Things
Mere Comments
Titusonenine
Pontifications
Al Mohler

So I am excited about the potential this blog has to open up discussion about faith among a large readership.

That said, a few comments and criticisms.

1. There are very few panelists who would represent a conservative / traditionalist / "orthodox" point of view from a liturgical or catholic (small c) (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox) perspective. Would you consider inviting additional panelists? Some names that come to mind include (in no particular order):

NT Wright,
Alvin Kimel,
Richard Neuhaus,
Peggy Noonan,
Frederica Matthewes-Green,
Amy Welborn,
Miroslav Volf,
Os Guinness,
JI Packer,
Kendall Harmon

And some other Reformed Christian authors I'd love to see included include:

John Piper,
RC Sproul,
Mark D. Roberts,
Charles Colson

It's ludicrous that you have THREE liberal Episcopal bishops (+Sisk, +Chane, +Dixon) given ECUSA's serious decline. One of those three would suffice (especially since you also include Borg, Crossan, etc. who generally represent the same theological viewpoint) This list of panelists is not even close to being representative of the majority of the world's religious believers. What about inviting leaders from the Global South to participate. Anglican Archbishops like Henry Orombi in Uganda come to mind, as do Catholic Cardinals like Nigeria's Arinze.

2. The amount of material is overwhelming. If the first question is any indication, you have too many panelists replying to each question. It is impossible to read all the panelists' replies and reader comments. Perhaps better to choose five or six panelists who are representatives of various traditions and have them answer. That would hopefully allow for more dialogue.

I hope these issues can be addressed. Thanks very much for this initiative however, it certainly promises to be interesting reading.

Most of the "Great and Important" questions about our existence on this big ball floating around the sun, in the vastness of space cannot be answered. Why are people feel so fearful of making a statement such as "I don't know, but I'm open to discussion"
Because of our intelligence as human beings we have a fundamental need to think about where we came from and where we might be going. To me, the question itself is interesting and exciting. I have no problem with this question remaining unanswered. In fact, my problem is with people who think they have an answer. I guess you can either call me a "Unitarian Universalist"... or maybe even a "Wicken"..or whatever. I am a spiritual person, and I think there is a manifestation of a "central theme" or "God" or whatever word you care to use, in all things. I prefer to look at the majesty of life around me on this big ball. I prefer to look at it in awe, and not expect an answer. Maybe, in another dimension, or another life......but not in this one.

Dustin - what you say is true. "We" believe in nothing, apart from fundamental respect, justice, and honesty. But we - individually - do believe in a lot of things.

On the other hand, it isn't true that we believe in everything. We object strongly to racism, for instance.

You're right in that it doesn't seem much like a "religion"... it is the church - the community - that matters to us, far more than the "religion".

We are often thought of, by members and non-members alike, as a haven for people whose beliefs are not compatible with the religious communities available to them, but who see a need to contribute to and to benefit by such a community. I feel that a religious community is well suited to help answer the needs of the larger community. In order to contribute and benefit in the same way as I do through the UU church, I would have to join dozens of secular communities, and probably wouldn't have time for a job & family, thus negating many of the potential contributions and benefits - and that is assuming I could find dozens of secular communities, each serving a worthwhile purpose, where I would be accepted and would be comfortable.

Why do people say they have “faith?” I think some people seek to learn more about experiences of transcendence that connect them to something (God, ultimate reality, etc.) larger than themselves. At the same time many experience the immanence of something deeply sacred in the world and within themselves. These felt experiences of both transcendence and immanence seem to reflect what quantum physics teaches us intellectually -- that we are all connected to each other and to ultimate reality. While these are specific experiences, they are not easily described or explained by our intellect - although, with theology, we try.

Whether we say we have “faith” or not, these experiences of sacredness, in the world and in other persons, have real concrete consequences. They can make a real difference in how we treat others. They can affect our life’s work, how we choose to treat immigrants or whether we think people have a basic right to clean water, healthcare, etc. Basically, these experiences can change the way we are in the world.

I have posted comments on Sam Harris' post "On Faith," and on the question of whether there can be fruitful conversations among people who believe to have a monopoly on truth. I need to make an argument regarding the almost universal call to "respect other people's religions." My argument is this: 1) We should respect people of good will who are humble and honest enough to seek God through reasoned argumentation 2) Because "faith" camouflages "belief" (usually "extraordinary belief") as "knowledge," we SHOULD NOT RESPECT statements of faith, because doing so translates to "not questioning" such assertions. On the contrary, we should do everything on our power to debunk them or to demand (since one cannot prove a negative)that the extraordinary claims of religions require extraordinary PROOF, something none of them provide us. To learn my complete philosophy (ERCIAN PHILOSOPHY), go to www.ercian.org, where I publish FREE my book "ERCIAN TESTAMENT."

No hell below us, above us only sky. I guess John was on to something.

Interesting.

I confess I know nothing about "Unitarian Universalism."

My initial reaction is, I agree with most of the tenets listed above.

But I don't exactly see why it has to be a "religion." (Are there any theological/supernatural beliefs involved?) And in a sense it seems like by emphasizing everything, it emphasizes nothing.

I would prefer it if all religions could just "get along" -- on the other hand, there are truths and logical fallacies/inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled. Either God exists or He does not. (Or there are many gods, etc.) Either Jesus was the Son of God, or he was not. Either there is an afterlife, or there is not. Etc.

What God is like, what the afterlife is like, what the "soul" is, etc., can be defined/understood in different ways.

But this is sort of like saying "We Believe In Everything!" (Which is analagous to saying "Everything Is True!")

Appreciate thoughtful comment above.
We need to define "vertical" ( with Higher Power) and "circular"( All is One) theologies and keep those differencies in mind. "Circular" theologies are much more acceptable to a scientific
community. Will Rabbi Rami Shapiro be involved as a panelist? He addresses those issues beautifully.
Also check Bill Moyers "On Faith and Reason" on PBS for great insights

ScottK, Good questions. The Unitarian Universalists are a rather small denomination, mainly in the United States. The UUA represents the merger of the Unitarian Church in America and American Universalists, both of which share a background in American protestantism, and a history dating to the original colonies. The basic tenets of Unitarian Universalism are the seven principles:

1 The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2 Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3 Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4 A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5 The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6 The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
7 Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Of these, I personally believe that 1, 2 & 4 are of overarching importance, though others stress the different principles differently than I.

We are a non-creedal church, meaning that we do not share a common ecclesiastical belief, or even necessarily a common epistemology. Billing ourselves as one church, many faiths, membership includes believing Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, and others, as well as freethinkers/atheists/agnostics and secular and religious humanists. In short, when we come together to worship in community, we give share a reverent attitude, but may hold that which is worthy of reference to be a variety of different things.

There are a number of Unitarian Universalists who are quite qualified to serve on a panel such as this one, including author Robert Fulghum, of Everything I Really Needed To Know, I Learned in Kindergarden, and William F. Schultz, twelve-year executive director of Amnesty International.

Well known Unitarians of the past have included such luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and William Ellery Channing.

Our churches have consistently championed human rights, including campaigns for abolition, suffrage, civil rights, marriage rights for same-sex partners, and in opposition of torture and support of the Geneva Conventions.

Not to say that any other religious community is any less deserving of a place at the table, but I can see no compelling reason to exclude UUs. Or Quakers/Friends for that matter... & I don't remember seeing any of them listed as panelists...

The problem with most people is that people don't know or see anything other than John 3:16. They should choose to read the scriptures that follow it. Listen, if I didn't believe in something why do I have to defend my position, or make others feel like what they believe is stupid. The last thing we ought to do is conversate with someone who disrespect others and try to tear them down because of their belief. If you don't believe in God that's your choice. That's what I love about free will. Its my choice. You chose what you believe and I choose what I believe...Or do people want to argue about that too? What I believe is that salvation is offered to all but all will not receive it. It's their choice.

S. L. Scheff said :

"It is clear from the comments that the question of whether there is a God or if the bible is literally true cannot be resolved in the present terms of the debate. What needs to be done is to determine if Christians are more honest, kind or ethical than say aetheists or Buddhists. This is a socialogical inquirey whose results will prove or disprove the benefits of Christianity......"

I disagree for this reason:

What people do in God's name doesn't have that much bearing on whether or not God actually exists or doesn't.

And while it's great that Jesus preached love and compassion, etc. (and I have always thought so), this does not change the fact that choosing how to live based on faith, based on absolute belief that a book is the "Word Of God," is very, very, very dangerous -- and anyone who believes in critical thinking should condemn this practice.

What if Jesus had said "burn all non-believers alive"? Guess we'd have to do it. Or "adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children must be stoned to death in the public square"? ("No, that wasn't Me -- you're thinking of my Dad...")

It's not strictly a question of "how many Christians/Jews/Muslims/Atheists do how many bad things," and comparing them. There are evil atheists, evil Jews, evil Chrisitans, evil Muslims, etc. It's a question of thinking for yourself, rather than blindly obeying the dictates of a 2000 year old book.

(Incidentally, Christians LOVE to bring up Stalin, as though his atheism proved something about how atheists are bound to behave -- when in fact his extreme radical ideology, like any, was almost exactly like a religion.)

But: on the topic of whether or not God exists, we should all be able to agree that if the God of the Old Testament exists, this is very terrible indeed. And, if He does exist, I do NOT think we should obey Him or even listen to Him, let alone worship Him.

It is clear from the comments that the question of whether there is a God or if the bible is literally true cannot be resolved in the present terms of the debate. What needs to be done is to determine if Christians are more honest, kind or ethical than say aetheists or Buddhists. This is a socialogical inquirey whose results will prove or disprove the benefits of Christianity.

Someone needs to explain how there are scams in the name of religion--vials of holy water--the fall of the Arizona Baptist Foundation, (a ponzi scheme with retirees' money, the hypocrisy of Ted Haggart and all of his predecessors. How can the rest of us tell which of the professed true believers are the real thing without examining the effect of belief on ethics?

As for those who insist that they are religious because they need to be spiritual people, they should consider Joseph Campbell's definition of spirituality--"Spirituality is an appreciation of the universe." Or the Dalai Lama's "My religion is kindness." This can be done without calling the universe, "God's handiwork."

Why did God have to send his son to save us from hell - the same hell he created? Wouldn't it have been a lot easier and less painful to just not have created hell in the first place?

We're unicorns banned from the ark because "they'd poke someone's eye out"?

"The bible says, "If you seek God with all your heart, you will find him." Seek him and you will find him. He is always there, and loves you so much that he sacrificed his Son Jesus, so he being Holy could have a relationship with you and me imperfect humans."

So, wait, God decided to sacrifice himself to himself so he could save us?

How much sleep do you lose over that kind of stuff?

Food for thought
According to the Catholic Catechism on the 6th commandment,"thou shalt not commit adultery", any thought word or deed in matters of grace immportance or matters of less importance is a mortal sin. Let's relate this to celebacy, we know all Catholic priests truly ordained are obliged to follow the rule of celibacy; that is any thought word or deed contrary to the 6th commandment is always a serious sin. According to this definition who else is oblidged to follow celibacy? According to this every man and woman who had reached the age of reason is oblidged to follow celibacy until they are married. Every divorced person is oblidged to lead a celibate life until the death of their spouse or an annulment. All homosexuals are also oblidged to follow celibacy all of their life. Does anyone have any idea how many millions or billions of people this involves?

Reading about all the diversity of faiths out there in the world makes me realize how stupid people really are... grow up people! Stop being like children who believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy! Are you really that afraid of dying?

It's too bad you can't take the time to read something other than your Bible and maybe try to understand the history of Christianity and how it all began. There are mounds of evidence that contradict everything you believe in, despite the early Church's best effort to destroy anything that shed light on the truth about the Christ and his real, esoteric meaning.

Christians need to wake up and realize they have been the victims of mass brain-washing. It begins in infancy (I think baptism actually symbolizes the beginning of the brain-washing - only kidding), and continues throughout life with weekly trips to the brain-washing house where it is punctuated with a good dose of fear. I was raised a Christian, but as soon as I was able to think for myself, and when I read the Bible and realized how insane it was, I came to see religion for what it is - nothing but ancient myths going all the way back to Egypt and beyond.

I would gladly believe in God if I was given just one shred of evidence that he exists. But until that time I'll stay where I am.

God is real, he created everything, including us. He has given us his laws through Moses on how to live, and have a relationship with him. Because of disobedience to his laws we have fallen out of relationship with God, which is called sin. God calls all sin death, because it breaks our relationship with a Holy God. All mankind sins.

So God sent his Son Jesus Christ to stand in our place and pay the price to restore our relationship to a Holy God. The bible says, "The life of the body is in the blood, and only the shedding of blood (Life) can redeem us from sin (Death)."

In the Old Testament they sacrificed animals (Shedding of blood, or life for sin (death), until God sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ to shed his blood (He was sinless) for us sinners. That is why he is called, "The Lamb of God".

This is Grace, where by we can have a relationship with God through his Son Jesus Christ, who atoned for our sins. We just need to believe he did what he did, and is who he is, and trust in him.

That is called faith, or to be "Born Again" where we put out trust in Jesus as Our Personal Savior.

How do I know this is true? It's because I have not only come to know God is "Omni Present", that is "Everywhere at once, and nothing exists outside of his presence", but I have also experienced the "Manifest Presence of God", where he made himself know to me and revealed himself in the present. I experienced his direct presence in my life, communication, supernatural presence.

The bible says, "If you seek God with all your heart, you will find him." Seek him and you will find him. He is always there, and loves you so much that he sacrificed his Son Jesus, so he being Holy could have a relationship with you and me imperfect humans.

God is more real than what you can perceive with your limited senses, and he loves you as a Father loves his children. :)

May God Bless You...

AJC3

If God wasn't even able to keep track of Adam and Eve when they were the only two people on Earth, why should I be concerned that he's picking me out of billions of people today and paying any attention to me?

Why would a loving God create man, and then just sit idly by in the clouds while we mutilate and destroy each other? Does he enjoy seeing people suffer? That's like raising puppies just so you can torture them. Why would a loving, omnipotent god allow any of this to happen? Ask yourself if any of it makes sense? If God was the ruler of a country he'd be arrested, tried for crimes against humanity, and executed.

"God is real, and God demands righteousness above all else."

Book of Morality

It is hard for me to take someone who beleives in magic seriously on any subject; especially a teacher or political leader. Is creationism actually taught in school in the US? Perhaps in some states? Would a supreme being actually "bless" a country (whatever that means)?

I live in Quebec, we have taken religion out of schools and government some time back. I wish religion WAS taught in school again, but as a study of all religions, not as a single view doctrine (catholic, in our case). Religion is historically socially defining, but magic should not be taught to children as a beleivable alternative to science and the (provable) truth.

Peace!

Some years Before the Christian Era [BCE} the well known ancient Library of Alexandria in northern Eygpt burned to the ground and all of its contents. It was purported to contain much of the history and science of many of the ancient civilizations up to that time. If we had those writings today think of the additional knowledge and understanding we would have of the ancient world and the origins of our Judeo-Christian traditions not to mention other important and interesting things.

But what, I believe is at least as curious, is the many ancient writings which have been uncovered throughout the world over the last 150 years or so which because of their numerous and sheer numbers are also sitting in various libraries and buildings around the world waiting for someone to decipher and translate them. Many of the ancient writings have been published into books but because of so few people with the translating skills where these ancient texts are concerned, these vast resourses of human knowledge remain unknown.

Not just in religion but in everything else, we base our understanding of things on present and historical evidence. Why is there so much misunderstanding in the religious community? I believe that it is because evidence or facts or truth are at varience.

Its obvious to me, at least, that we don't have all the facts and we make presumptions on half truths and lost information which for some societies was previously known. Maybe we should be more actively engaged in finding truth then declaring it.

ETHICAL CONUNDRUM

Ethics represent a consensus on values that should govern behavior of individuals as they relate to other individuals in the society, or the culture, or the clan of which they are a part, so as to preserve and enhance the welfare, and dignity, and quality of life of all concerned, insofar as possible.

We confront a conundrum, posed by the difficulty of establishing, in positive terms, a consensus to which almost everybody can adhere.
That is because ethical principles are very often expressed as “do not” strictures. For example, doctors swear by the Socratic Oath to “do no harm,” and the Ten Commandments repeat “thou shall not” many times. This poses hurdles to translation and incorporation of such golden rules as part of one’s own behavioral repertoire. A crucial question: How do you integrate an ethical code -- make it part of your own way of life --not just as conformity to rules others have laid down and enforce.

I have been reading the commentary about UU not being represented. I don't know the tenents of the faith well, but the panel is very interested in inter-faith ideas.

What makes UU different?

What are the tenents of UU?

How well is it represented globally?

Those are all questions that must be asked. I don't think it would be fair to have just anyone on the panel.

Faith is the belief that certain propositions for which there is no evidence are correct. Such propositions may well be correct but their proponents have absolutely no reason to believe in them. An infinite number of such possible propositions exists, but most of these, such as the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, etc, are not believed in by most sane people. On the other hand, if one has been indoctrinated as a child into a particular religion, it is difficult to see that belief in that religion is no more likely to be correct that belief in The Tooth Fairy. Critical examination of even a few religions (there are thousands of them) shows that that they are mutually incompatible and contradictory. Because a particular belief is attractive, it doesn't mean it has any validity. Apparently about 40% of the people in this country believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, and that a story about a talking snake should be taken literally. All this and more when there is abundent evidence to the contrary. This is where faith leads many people! If there is to be any hope for the future of humans, we must base our actions on evidence and not on faith.

I just watched the Today show this morning and really was aghast. For all the lip service done there was still the statement of the "Old Testament" for the writings that are more properly referred to as the Hebrew Scriptures. These writings are not superceded and that is how the word "old" refers to them as. we do not call the New Testament, the kinda-new scriptures, the Koran, the newer-than-that scriptures, or the Bahai writings the newer-than those-other-guys writings. When we show respect for people, we should also not invoke some sort of triumphalism into our language. Another statement on the show was that we know very little of Islam. The books are there and one could start with the admirable Huston Smith works which used to be a standard in universities. However, through, mostly laziness I believe, we, our educational professionals nd institutions do not take any religion seriously and believe that the smattering we learned, perhaps, in Sunday School is sufficient throughout life. How else can we explain that few educational institutions include diatarily correct choices in their food service options? How else can we justify elementary school teachers particularizing the child who follows a "non-norm" religion and depends upon that child to explain him or herself to the class community?

I believe that it is realistic if not imperative to ask the question, "are there any evidences for the existence of God, and for Christians, what evidences can be listed in support of the various writings or witnesses, from what ever source which lend plausible weight to the proposition?"

In the Judeo-Christian tradition evidences generally followed faith but not always. Sometimes evidences were given to demonstrate Gods power or at least his presence.

In any discussion of religion I believe that evidence is at least as important as faith, no matter what the religion.

An atheist can practice all of the do's and dont's of any religion while rejecting the idea of deity and be considered by his "neighbor" as a "nice guy" and following pretty much the same precepts he is. It doesn't take a belief in God to live a moral life.

So if living a moral life is the primary goal offered by some what need do we have for religion and specifically one which demands an existence for God. It seems to me there needs to be evidentiary reasons why God is important if not vital to any declaration of Gods existence in a religious context.

In my view, faith by itself does not provide enough plausibility for a realistic explanation for God. There needs to be more.

So my question is, " what are some realistic evidences?"

All we have to work with are uncommon pieces of the common whole.

all uncommon pieces added up equal the common whole.

I prefer to have the whole relative picture rather than one or a few uncommon pieces that add up to the part of the picture that is relative to those pieces.

The mind that gives this psychic power is the creative mind. The feminine mind. We are imbalanced right now toward the ego masculine
intellectual mind. A return to inclusion of the feminine creative will solve this problem.

I thank God that we live in a country where we can freely discuss and practice religion. I am a Christian who believes in the Bible as the word of God. According to the Bible, faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". I cannot prove the existence of God to anyone. I can only testify of what the power of God has done in my life and in the lives of others. I live my life based on faith that God loves me and wants what's best for me. He created me, He died for me, He guides and protects me, He forgives me and soon He will return for me so that I can live with him forever. To believe in this takes faith. If I'm wrong, then I've lived a life where I try be a kind, loving, helpful person and that's the kind of life that brings the most reward in the end.

All I know is the mind is a very powerful tool. It has been used for good and eval and without one we cannot know another. How many of us understand that if it were not for a very precarious balance of chemicals we or this planet would not even exsist? Cool discussion, keep it going!

This is a wonderful idea. Sincere wishes that it succeeds are forwarded. If the first few days are an indication, it will be difficult to keep up. BTW, your panel is very impressive. My hopes are that all can participate.

Hi,
I caught the conversation on the Today Show this morning. I seem at least compelled to say this; I do believe in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the true Word of God passed down to us through God's chosen spokesman and woman. Hebrews Chapter 11 gives us a "Hall of Fame" of believers who "In faith, believed God" and examples of why it should work in our lives if applied. My understanding is that faith and belief are much the same as aligning with the truth and therefore work very well together. One does have evidence all around them of God at work if they take time to look at the miracles of nature; the rebirth of all things made new. After saying what I believe, I also agree with what you are doing. We should understand each others beliefs and the different cultures involved. Communication in a civil manner is a wonderful tool. In my case, I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I have experienced God's earthly mercy and grace so I am a true believer. It is through this faith in the power of Jesus and His sacrifice that will give me everlasting life.

The efforts are good but no matter how much talking or reasoning one does there will always be two groups...one that believes we have a creator or a higher power and then there are ones who dont believe in any creator or higher power. How does one unite the two groups? Both these groups, no matter what the beliefe, would like to see peace and happieness throughout the world. But then again there are those in both groups who couldn't care less about others but are completely selfish.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this movement.

CREATIONISM — What is in its Explanatory Tool Chest?

From the viewpoint of science, of disciplined causal enquiry and the acquisition of reliable knowledge, Christian creationism in its most basic manifestation does not have a great deal to offer. Its criticism of Darwinism can often be quite sophisticated (much of it being taken from the ongoing debate within scientific community itself — see ), but it has little to offer in its place, based as it mainly is upon faith in the literal truth of the book of Genesis, often combined with a belief in miracles, which are an anathema to science.

When creationism takes on a more scientific stance, as it does in Darwin’s Black Box’ the insightful work of the American biologist Michael Behe; it then becomes a very sophisticated critical argument in favour of ‘intelligent design.’ I.D. as it is now widely called, is not yet a developed theory, although it could be the beginnings of one, and it also, focuses its critique upon the many shortcomings of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, but does not have much to put in its place. Until it does, it is not likely to be very successful, beyond the level of intellectual protest. Many of I.D.’s fiercest critics are themselves Christians, but they prefer Darwin’s theory, however inadequate, to the lack of any convincing answers arising out of creationist thought. The ‘faith’ based approach to science is, moreover, permanently saddled with the Cartesian dichotomy, a world view in which natural law is seen to work only from the bottom up, and ‘miracles’ alone are seen to work in the other direction, but miracles are not the stuff of science and relying on them would put an end to science.

The only real hope, therefore, is for science to avail itself of a philosophical worldview in which natural law itself is seen to work in the opposite direction, i.e. from the top down and not from the bottom up. This is far from being impossible, especially since science knows almost nothing about the origins of natural law, but even the possibility that this might be true must raise questions that will put the science of epistemology back onto the front burner where all of human knowledge is concerned. Where may we look then, for a convincing theory of knowledge that shows this reversal to be in fact the case, i.e. one that replaces the Cartesian dichotomy, and monist materialism, with a monism of Mind or spirit?

Anthroposophy
The work of the Austrian seer/scientist Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) appears to offer a solution to this quandary. It is strongly developmental in character and so often makes demands that are not easy for us to live up to, and it does have some interesting internal inconsistencies of its own, although these are not insurmountable. Because of the need to end a futile debate, however, a solution to which otherwise seems to be out of reach either for science or for religion, it is well worth taking a critical look at what Steiner has to offer. If he is right, then humanity stands at the threshold of a new scientific revolution, one in which knowledge of spiritual realities comes, theoretically at least, within the reach of science, and so within reach of us all.

Steiner’s thought is largely based upon the scientific work of the great German poet/dramatist Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), but also, and more directly, upon his own experiences of spiritual realities that began for him in early childhood and continued throughout his life — and which he had himself made the subject of an intense and ongoing critical enquiry. The youthful phase of this enquiry terminated with the publication, in 1892, of his doctorial thesis Warheit und Wissenschaft (Truth and Science) given at the University of Rostock. It bears the sub-title Vorspeil einer Philosophie der Freiheit (Introduction to a Philosophy of Freedom). Freedom of thought and enquiry then becomes the ‘leitmotiv’ of anthroposophy, today a vast body of work, including some fifty written volumes and the texts of six thousand lectures, that is centred at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland. Steiner himself was always open-minded, and despite his own ceaseless productivity he refused to promote a dogma of any kind. What then do Steiner’s works have to offer that have a direct bearing on the riddle of origins, on the inner realities surrounding the creation of the universe?

Christianity transformed
In his youth Steiner became Catholic (his parents were not religious), and his later work is deeply imbued with the influence of Christianity (see his Christianity as a Mystical Fact There is also a very interesting connection between anthroposophy and the thought of Thomas Aquinas (see The Redemption of Thinking). Yet there is much in anthroposophy that departs from Christian orthodoxy, both Catholic and Protestant. Reincarnation, for example, is a tenant of Steiner’s teaching upon which he lays a strong emphasis, and his insistence that human consciousness is itself evolving, and that knowledge of the spirit is essential to humanity’s future development, all of which places his thought outside of any non-evolutionary faith based form of Christian orthodoxy. It in point of fact it represents a return, but in a much more disciplined manner, to the views that were held by the early Christian Gnostics. It is perhaps not an accident; therefore, that Gnosticism has resurfaced so strongly at this time in history, due to the discoveries at Nag Hammadi in Egypt (see Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels). Anthroposophy, therefore, may well be thought of as representing a New Gnosis, one that is better suited to this age of science; and this transition, from the old to the new, is one that begins in the realm of epistemology with the development of what Steiner called a ‘monism of thought,’ i.e. a critical worldview that overcomes both the Cartesian dichotomy and scientific materialism at one stroke, and replaces them with a critical ‘monism of Mind or spirit’. Before Descartes this was the dominant worldview, but one held on the basis of faith not of critical understanding. Steiner’s epistemological thesis is anti-Kantian, to the degree that where Kant tells us “I had to limit knowledge to leave room for faith,” Steiner tells us the exact opposite. In short, and though still not widely recognized, he has given science the potential for a completely new cognitive foundation, one that does not deny empiricism but makes it secondary to critical thinking. This is why he always insisted that anthroposophy is not a religion, but “a path of knowledge to connect the spirit in man to the spiritual in the universe.”

What bearing does all this have on evolution?
The central thesis of Goethean science (and of anthroposophy), is that archetypes (Ideas) are a part of nature, its spiritual part, and that human thought itself derives directly from nature’s inner being, so that given sufficient discipline it is possible for us as knowers, to distinguish between that which is objective in the realm of ideas and that which is subjective, or the product of our own thinking. Nearly a thousand years ago this was the thesis pursued by the scholastic realists in their centuries-long debate with scholastic nominalism The nominalists won that debate, at least temporarily, which helped to lay the foundation for what later became natural science. The nominalist contention was that there are no Ideas in nature herself (i.e. that nature has no internal spiritual reality), and that ideas were simply human creations, ‘names’ that we gave to things. This quickly translated into the view that ideas are merely the outcome of sensory stimulation, which premise has become the bedrock of modern materialism, subject to what Barfield called ‘the great tabu’.

Darwinism, therefore, as a materialistic (nominalist) theory, insists that there are NO ideas in nature, but science has been unable to prove the truth of this claim, because it has been impossible to show by means of epistemological argument that consciousness can arise out of matter (see The Undiscovered Mind, by John Horgan). The alternative, of course, is that matter arises out of Consciousness, and here, as Rudolf Steiner was the first to clearly show, epistemological argument can be both rational and very persuasive.

If nature is the creation of the Ideas that work within her, then Darwinism, which maintains the opposite, is quite simply untrue (see my article ‘Darwin’s Devious Metaphors’). But it is futile to try to combat this untruth by means of faith — a knowledge claim can only be combated with an alternative knowledge claim, and in this case accompanied by a growing understanding of the way in which spiritual Ideas have in the past, and still do, work to create and sustain the natural world. This understanding is there in the work of Rudolf Steiner, though it requires further development, which takes us to the developmental task with which Rudolf Steiner’s work confronts us, because spiritual knowledge, like any other form of knowledge, can only arise out of intense human striving, and in this case a much greater inner or meditative dimension is added to what hitherto has been only an outwardly directed striving. It is the activity of ‘thinking about thought,’ that when conducted in a disciplined manner can lead, Steiner tells us, to a level of objectivity that can justify the use of the word ‘science’ just as surely as can the activity of ‘thinking about the world.’ In both cases it is the quality and disciplined character of thinking that ensures a truthful outcome. Where knowledge is concerned, any kind of knowledge, thought (mind) must come before biology, meaning that the mind is an entity separate from and prior to the brain, and the assumption that matters work the other way around is only that, a groundless assumption. For cognition, therefore, mind must necessarily come before matter, which raises the legitimate question — might this not also be true for biological evolution? Steiner’s book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How it is Attained, provides us with the key to the kind of disciplined inner development that we shall need in order to tackle this as the central problem of knowledge, and anyone who reads it is likely to come away with the conviction that Steiner is not writing metaphysically, but from direct experience.

What creationism needs in its tool chest, therefore, is a growing commitment to the Goethean and anthroposophical approach to science, because without it the current struggle between science and religion over Darwin’s theory will continue indefinitely and with no end in sight. If science is genuinely concerned with truth, then it can demonstrate that concern today by looking very seriously at Steiner’s approach to the epistemological question, and the same may also be said for religion. We need increasingly to move beyond faith to a renewed interest in and concern about the problem of knowledge. What better place to start perhaps, than with the article ‘Rudolf Steiner’s Concept of Mind’ written by Owen Barfield, ‘first and last of the inklings,’ who was a lifelong close friend of C.S. Lewis.
.
During the dark ages, religion considered knowledge to be the enemy of faith, and it was this attitude that lead to much persecution, including that of Galileo. Then the Christian church began to fragment, and numerous sects arose each requiring its members to believe that it alone offered a path to salvation. Now, in this age of science, knowledge must take on the task of healing a fractured faith, a problem that has only been made more acute by modern multiculturalism, and by the growing presence in the west of other faith-based religions.

Healthy human development now requires that science be extended into the realm of the spirit. It was Steiner’s great accomplishment to begin to make this possible, which is why Owen Barfield, in his many works, so strongly supported Steiner, and sought to show how crucial is his contribution is to modern thought. Surely we have sufficiently scrapped the bottom of the Cartesian barrel, to justify our now looking farther a-field? If Darwinian materialism, which unavoidably leads to a socially destructive denial of any spiritual worth to humanity, is ever to be overcome, it will be because we have begun gradually to understand that faith alone cannot accomplish this. And that what the creationist worldview desperately needs in its tool chest, is an approach to science that derives no longer from the scholastic nominalism inspired by Aristotle, but from the more Platonically oriented scholastic realism. This thousand-year-old-unfinished debate needs to be begun anew, and in a modern setting, so that our best philosophical and scientific minds can again become involved in a search, but deeper this time, for the real truth about human cognition.

Windwatcher, there is a panelist named "Starhawk" who posts from the pagan perspective. I still don't find a UU, though.

God is real

The Bible is true

and Jesus is coming back -----------HE wants to take you back to heaven with Him.

If you want to go.........let Him know and find out what to do.

You have addressed all the Jeddah Christian religions and Budism. What about Peganism / Wicca?

The conversation should start with this question:

"Do you believe in things without any evidence?"

The panelists need to answer this question, and they don't, with the exception of Sam Harris.

Once you believe in things for which you have no evidence, you can believe in anything. All bets are off: flying spaghetti monster, purple teacups, easter bunnies, tooth fairies, god, etc. They can all exist in the gray matter between your ears.

The fact that terms like "faith," "religion" and "God" have so many different meanings suggests that simple judgments about them--God is dead, or is not dead; faith is, or is not bunk"--are not very useful. It would be more helpful to say what we mean by a term when we offer positive or negative judgments about it. That's even true of a supposedly more clear term such as "First Cause." The idea that there must have been a God to start off the world has been roundly criticized, and rightly so. After all, what if there has always been a world or worlds of some kind? But the classical argument for God as the First Cause is different. It begins with the question: even if the world in some form has always existed, what accounts for that fact? Why is there some world (even an eternal one) and not no world at all? I don't think one has to ask that question. Those who find it boring or irrelevant cannot be faulted for doing so. But neither do I find fault with those who simply are impressed by the utter mysteriousness of the world to the point of feeling some reverence about its very existence. Religions probably arise from a variety of causes and serve a variety of functions. But one persistent strain in religions is a sense of the mystery of existence, that sense of cosmic mystery that is rekindled in the experience of smaller mysteries--erotic love, the exploring mind of a child, a painting, a piece of music, a vast cathedral, a sunset, the magnitude of space. It is hard for me to think it is "delusional" to take take that sense of mystery seriously, perhaps even to the point of integrating it affectively into one's daily life.

I just finished watching the Today show where your two moderators spoke and referenced this web site. This is exactly the kind of discussion I am looking for. I am with you for the ride.

Thank you.

I think this dialogue is important and long over-due. I've been looking for something like this, and am looking forward to reading and participating.

I agree with "RHM" that the first step is to define some terms -- especially the word "faith" itself. This doesn't necessarily have to be defined beforehand by the moderators, but that question ("what does faith mean?") needs to be the starting point for any further discussion.

To me (an atheist), all faith is blind faith, by definition. Either you have reasons for believing what you believe (in which case we can discuss those reasons, and faith does not enter into it), or you don't (in which case a discussion is futile and absurd, and your beliefs can simply be dismissed immediately).

So I would like, first off, people of faith to please explain what that means, why it is valuable, and why anyone should respect it or take is seriously.

Thanks.

"I Beleive In Intelligent Design, GOD,JESUS, HOLY SPIRIT. No big Bang. LLOYD J."

you may believe in it but you can't

1) prove it
nor
2) provide any evidence.

that's faith for you.

History tells us religion has been harmful, and very divisive in every century. We are currently in a war against humanity, under the cover off a religion. The eastern religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism who teach a non-violent path, are being discounted. These peaceful religions, and their philosophy is not discussed, nor understood. Your panel does not have a Hindu philosopher, WHY?
The Hindu holy book, "Bhagawat Gita" written over millenniums ago, and adapted thru the centuries, has many answers to living a disciplined life.

The difficulty with religion is that it is supposed to be about the philosophy of Good against Evil, but instead the leaders of it preach nonsense. So Eve gave Adam an apple from the tree of knowledge, and his eyes opened and he saw the difference between Good and Evil. This story has the moral philosophy of telling us that humans are different from other creatures in that they can discern the difference between Good and Evil. Instead of conveying that philosophy, the preachers tell us that the story is true. Knowledge of the world tells us that it is nonsense. When will people open up their eyes and see the bible as a book of philosphy and not a series of illogical stories?

I just want to thank the Washington Post and everyone involved in the creation of this site.

The Internet can be the great mixing pot of the world and the WP is using this opportunity to mankind's advantage.

Thanks again and as usual, good work.

I Beleive In Intelligent Design, GOD,JESUS, HOLY SPIRIT. No big Bang. LLOYD J.

Max Swanson writes: "No one can deny that there is a God. I am not religious, but it is clear that no one can question a First Cause." This argument has been debunked long ago. If everything has a first cause, then the creator of this universe must, too. And then so must his creator. And so on. We are led to an infinite regress.

How come the universe, along with many others, couldn't always exist? You say you are not religious? Why? Could it be that there is absolutely no evidence that a supernatural being has ever interacted with the natural world? That the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious obviously grew out of tribal myths and early mystery religions? If there is a God, yet this God started things off with the Big Bang and has since been silent, then what does it matter? This creator clearly does not care about suffering of innocent humans, and it is preposterous to believe that one can achieve an afterlife by, say, drinking wine that supposedly turns into the Son-of-God's blood.

It's not just that people of faith assert that God exists. They assert much more, most of it ludicrous, without any evidence whatsoever. And these views impinge on public policy and real lifes on a routine basis. For example, if we didn't have a president who thinks that a small collection of cells already is endowed with a soul, stem cell research would already be much further along than it is.

This is a very interesting site and much needed today! Wish it all success!

Sam Harris' religion is science. He must realize that many people want to have a spiritual connection in their lives. No one can deny that there is a God. I am not religious, but it is clear that no one can question a First Cause. Who created the universe? Did it always exist? Where did it come from? No one knows the essence of existence.
There is nothing wrong with religion. It provides a spiritual outlet, a purpose to life, and a moral framework. Looking to our political leaders for a moral base is a fruitless task.
The problem with religion is its leaders, who often use religion to promote their desire for power, wealth, sexual domination, and emotional control. All religions were invented by man, and began as cults, led by charismatic men. Sometimes these cults evolved into real religions, but usually they ended in corruption and a often suicidal Armageddon. The chief enemies of religion are three basic human flaws - lust for power, inflexibility (in regard to religious dogma) and fanaticism. They can be partially overcome by universal religious education, better communication among religions and more democratization of religions

The idea of people sharing their experiences and thoughts on faith is a good one. However, it would be helpful to clarify terms such as "faith," "belief" and "religion." These terms mean different things to different people. For example, some theologians would define "faith" as one's relationship with God/existence/reality that occurs within one's heart and "belief" as our attempt to understand that relationship intellectually. For purposes of this conversation how would we define "religion" for example? Finally, as a life long seeker, I would like to suggest that the question is more important than the answer. Perhaps the question between believers and non-believers is not "Does God exist?" But rather starting with common ground by asking, "What do we know about this existence or reality we live in, that some of us name as God?"

Any possibility of a direct dialogue between Sam Harris and more liberal members of the panel who still believe that religion can make a positive contribution to mankind? If not a direct dialogue, Can various panel members respond the arguments that Mr. Harris makes?

Faith is horse manure, but profitable horse manure.

I see no panelist from the Unitarian Universalist Association. Could that, possibly, be rectified?

god is dead. grow up.

Sam Harris sent me this. I do not find a way to sign up to receive it in the future.
Please advise,
MB