All Comments (33)

Okay you wanna discuss religion and beliefs. I am sick and tired of hearing the retoric. There is zero historic record of jesus's life. If there was a man who walked on water in the early documented years of the world; don't you think there would be a ton of legitimate records. All historic evidence found was debunked when the time dating method was evented. Fact is religion is a series of stories created to explain the movement of the heavens (aka solar system). Fact is it was further used to scare children and believers into having good morals. Or, to quote Napolean Bonaparte "if it were not for religion the poor would kill the rich". In other words religion is a story intended to establish control masses and explain the heaveny universe that is the solar system. See this movie it explains it much better than I could. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Okay you wanna discuss religion and beliefs. I am sick and tired of hearing the retoric. There is zero historic record of jesus's life. If there was a man who walked on water in the early documented years of the world; don't you think there would be a ton of legitimate records. All historic evidence found was debunked when the time dating method was evented. Fact is religion is a series of stories created to explain the movement of the heavens (aka solar system). Fact is it was further used to scare children and believers into having good morals. Or, to quote Napolean Bonaparte "if it were not for religion the poor would kill the rich". In other words religion is a story intended to establish control masses and explain the heaveny universe that is the solar system. See this movie it explains it much better than I could. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Okay you wanna discuss religion and beliefs. I am sick and tired of hearing the retoric. There is zero historic record of jesus's life. If there was a man who walked on water in the early documented years of the world; don't you think there would be a ton of legitimate records. All historic evidence found was debunked when the time dating method was evented. Fact is religion is a series of stories created to explain the movement of the heavens (aka solar system). Fact is it was further used to scare children and believers into having good morals. Or, to quote Napolean Bonaparte "if it were not for religion the poor would kill the rich". In other words religion is a story intended to establish control masses and explain the heaveny universe that is the solar system. See this movie it explains it much better than I could. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Okay you wanna discuss religion and beliefs. I am sick and tired of hearing the retoric. There is zero historic record of jesus's life. If there was a man who walked on water in the early documented years of the world; don't you think there would be a ton of legitimate records. All historic evidence found was debunked when the time dating method was evented. Fact is religion is a series of stories created to explain the movement of the heavens (aka solar system). Fact is it was further used to scare children and believers into having good morals. Or, to quote Napolean Bonaparte "if it were not for religion the poor would kill the rich". In other words religion is a story intended to establish control masses and explain the heaveny universe that is the solar system. See this movie it explains it much better than I could. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

RE: 3. Yes, cherry-picking the Bible is illegitimate.
STUART GORDON

So illegitimate is the cherry-picking of Qur'an, and any other holy book.

One thing that always baffles me about scholars is their branding of term "infidel." I have read Qur'an many times with translation, and nowhere did I find Christians and Jewish referred to as "Infidels."

Qur'an distinctly mentions four classes of people, namely Muslims, Infidels, Hypocrites, and the People of the Book. Latter term refers to the Christians and Jews. I always wonder, if Qur'an is so against Christian and Jews that "one should cut there fingers from the tips," then why Muslim men are allowed to marry women of Christian and Jewish faith? Surely, there is a sense of unity in permitting such actions.

What Prof. Ahmed mentioned, "America as a Christian nation," should be taken in spatial context, and not literally. We all know, "In God We Trust," is not a Christian brand, but a representation of all religions in the United States. Centuries old wisdom of our Founding Fathers still outlasts today’s intellect. Perhaps, its time to look back, and to find context out of the text.

Akbar Ahmed:
The ultimate test of a Christian nation is to be an accepting and compassionate one and to be able to define itself in clear moral terms. The world could certainly do with more compassion and understanding which would take in its embrace Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs—and Atheists.

Big Bang:
I would rather say, your (Akbar Ahmend's) criteria on compassion should be applied as an ultimate test for Muslims themselves, and ultimately to Akbar Ahmed himself. Just because Muhammad, your prophet, keeps repeating the word compassion in your holy book, al-Quran, does not automatically mean that Muslims are compassionate, especially because the word “compassion” is never defined in clear moral terms, neither by Muhammad, in al-Quran, nor by Akbar Ahmed. The real truth is, the word has been widely misused by Muslims as a psycho-trick to create false impression in lay persons who are not apt to deep philosophical and/or moral thoughts. Under your obscure definition, you can keep demanding non-Muslems to be compassionate, while assuming yourself, and Muslims in general, to have already fulfilled the criteria, which is here NOT at all the case, but rather, just the opposite.

Let us take an easy example: In the secular culture, one of the manifestations of compassion is music. Through music can we directly and intensively experience the pain and sorrow felt by other person (e.g., music performer). That is the correct definition of “compassion” (=to share the feelings of others). It is well known that many opera watchers shed tears perpetuated by their intense compassion for the opera hero(in) conveyed by the beautiful combination of poetic and musical virtues. However, music is forbidden in Islam! (It must be based on prophet Muhammad’s jealousy to prevent his followers from loving music, more than they should love Qur’an cantation!) Thus, Muslims seem to live in a fully different emotional condition, which seems to be also the main motor for their un-understandable JIHAD, which -in secular term-, is the same as going berserk or amok, but far away from “compassion”.

Another example: One of the highest moral values in the secular culture (not only in the Judeo-Christian culture) is “Thou shalt not kill”, under whatever circumstances. However, Islam is the only religion in the world which allows killing, and even promise a reward for those who kill under the name of your God, Allah. In today's practice, it is even much worse: Killing the innocents is considered a virtue! How could you demand other people "to define itself in clear moral terms" but condone your own people committing immoral acts without criticism? I think, you should better impose the demand to your own people (Moslims).

From these two examples alone, we may firmly conclude that Islam is an immoral religion, or even, an evil religion, as recently quoted by Pope Benedict XVIth, and that there is no compassion in Islam, since Islam does not understand compassion, or deliberately misinterprets, what compassion is.

In conclusion, it would be more appropriate to say, your demand on non-Muslims “to be an accepting and compassionate one and to be able to define itself in clear moral terms” is nothing else but a deceptive maneuver to cover up the total lack of compassion and the immoral ethical standard of the Islamic teaching.

JR and Jeremy:

I’m sorry for the delay. I didn’t check this site over the weekend.

1. Yes, the Christian belief is that Jesus is fully God and fully human. He is God incarnate(something, I believe, that proves to be offensive to some of our fellow monotheists).

2. Yes, Jesus says clearly that he came not to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). As you read on in that chapter, you will notice that Jesus commences to modify, intensify, overturn, and refine the law. “You have heard that it was said . . . but I say to you . . .” The religious authorities criticize him for allowing his disciples to “break the tradition of the elders” (Mt. 15:2). Jesus declares the authorities to be hypocrites. So, yes, Jesus sets himself up as an authority on the law and its interpretation, even against the traditions.

3. Yes, cherry-picking the Bible is illegitimate.

4. “Add these things together and you have to conclude that either something in the Bible isn’t true, or that Jesus was in favour of killing non-believers.” This question comes from the realm of how people read the Scriptures - as literal fact in every regard of religion, history, and science? As “perfect book” that God practically wrote through the hands of inspired authors? As inspired book, gathered by communities of faith as a testimony to God’s faithfulness? As “flawed book” with which God has little to do? You seem to be reading it in the first way, which is not unlike that of fundamentalists. There are plenty of Christians who do not read it that way. They have been affected by a century and a half of biblical scholarship; they have come to accept the Bible for what it is; they understand it to point to Jesus, who is the central interpretive key to the whole thing.

Christians do not paste over the violence in the Bible. In fact, that honesty is one of the things that is so refreshing about the Bible. It is not made-up; it does not gloss over the reality of human failings, especially those of God’s people. It testifies to the kindness and faithfulness of God to very flawed human beings. I think that all of us can acknowledge people in our lives who remain faithful to us despite our failings, and we count those people as the most authentic. (If we cannot acknowledge our own flaws, and our need for the faithfulness of others to us despite our flaws, then we are fooling ourselves.)

5. Jesus did not call anyone to kill in God’s name. Rather, he commanded the opposite (Mt. 5:1-11; 26:47-56; Mk. 8:31-39). He died in God’s name for all us flawed people.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson

Dear Professor Ahmed

In response to your message about what India might have to teach the most powerful nation on earth, the US, I wish to bring to your notice, a Christian who lived his Christianity in a way that embraced all religions, and taught through the example of his simple and holy life how Christianity as a religion could serve to unite all. Today, 17 December 2006, is his 100th birth anniversary - Dom Bede Griffiths OSB (17.12.1906 – 13.05.1993), an English Benedictine monk, who lived in India from 1955 until his death in 1993. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have known him for nine years and realised as a result of knowing him that it was not necessary to be a religious scholar to understand the truth of any religion. In the Christian Ashram, ‘Shantivanam’, reading scripture from other religions during the day at various times during prayer, was a regular part of Christian worship.

You pointed out rightly that keeping politics ‘secular’ is part of the success of Indian democracy with all its limitations. Jesus did not preach that religion and politics should be mixed up. The sayings of Jesus, ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God; my kingdom is not of this world’; etc goes to prove that worldly politics and the spiritual realm march to different drummers. The Hindu Brahmin priest was not meant to rule the country, that was the duty of the Kshatriya caste. Having said that, it is to be emphasised, that it not Jesus Christ or Christian principles per se that is the problem, and as you alluded to, but only the way Christianity is practised and abused as a political instrument by SOME. Gandhi wrote that his politics was a fruit of his religion, and his wasn’t bad politics by any means. King David of the Old Testament was, with all his human failings, a king who was known as a man after God’s own heart; King Solomon the wisest one. So if the founding fathers of the American constitution based politics on Christian principles, there is nothing wrong with that. Real Christian principles demand that we love our neighbour as we love ourselves, and Jesus gave the Christians quite a tough rule to live by: ‘What you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto Me.’ Jesus came to heal all the sick and all the sinners, and many Christians over the centuries have lived exemplary lives loving and giving unconditionally. So it is not Jesus Christ, Christianity or any Constitution based on Christian principles that are fault, but the way it is interpreted and practised and abused by SOME. But fortunately all democracies, including the American, have self-correcting mechanisms in place which can be accessed by the people and the politicians alike to steer the politics of their country in the way they aspire.

Since you mentioned India, as an Indian-Australian with dual citizenship, I wish to provide number crunchers with some interesting figures about India in this context. At census in 2001, the population of India was one billion, twenty eight million plus. Of that one billion plus, 96.2% belong to one of the three major religions – Hindu (80.5%), Muslim (13.4%), and Christian (2.3%). The three other religions that make up the remaining 3.8% are: Sikhs (1.8%), Buddhist (0.8%) and Jains (0.4%). The rest belong either to other religions or not specified. The national literacy rate is 54% (male 63% and female 45%). In India, the state of Kerala (of which I’m a native from Thrissur, but moved out for more living space at the age of eight) has surprisingly different figures: Of a total population of 31.8+ million packed densely at 819 (yes, eight hundred and nineteen only!) persons per square kilometre, 99.7% belong to one of the three main religions: Hindus (Kerala 56%, Thrissur 59%), Muslims (Kerala 24.7%, Thrissur 16.4%) and Christians (Kerala 19%, Thrissur 24.2%), and of the remaining 36656, there are only a couple of thousand Sikhs (2762), Buddhists (2027) and Jains (4528)spread out over the whole state. There is a significant difference in the literacy rate too, which is 90.9% (males 94.2% and females 87.7%). Kerala is proud to have a history of Christianity going back to Apostle Thomas in 52AD, and Islam going back to the 7th century. Kerala is proud to have considered religious diversity as a natural part of its identity and history.

One of the books Dom Bede Griffiths wrote is called ‘The Marriage of East and West’. We all need to learn from each other, and every nation has something valuable to teach the rest of the world.

Soja John Thaikattil,
Sydney, Australia

Allah claims that he does not beget, that doesn't sound like God the Father. Allah claims that Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the central act of Jesus' ministry.

Claiming something over and over, and even fervently believing it, does not make it the truth. The Words of God are in the Tanakh/Old Testament and in the New Testament only.

This nation was built by imperfect men who worshipped a perfect God. It was also built by imperfect men who didn't worship God or worshipped false gods. We've got a long way to go still...

Allah claims that he does not beget, that doesn't sound like God the Father. Allah claims that Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the central act of Jesus' ministry.

Claiming something over and over, and even fervently believing it, does not make it the truth. The Words of God are in the Tanakh/Old Testament and in the New Testament only.

This nation was built by imperfect men who worshipped a perfect God. It was also built by imperfect men who didn't worship God or worshipped false gods. We've got a long way to go still...

stuart gordon:
jeremy responded adequately to your question. I'd like to get your response after reading that passage as well as looking for others to answer your question. I think you will find sufficient evidence of intolerance of apostates (including severe violence against non-believers). Re-read the bible and underline every passage advocating and calling for violence and intolerance, I think you might be surprised. God really wasnt a moral person by our standards. He supported (and jesus didnt contradict him): slavery, murder of apostates, murder of adulterers, murder of homosexuals, etc.

Those who cherry pick the bible cherry pick it according to their own moral intuitions predicated on our enlightenment as a society.

To Jeremy,

Yes, God(Jesus) will ultimately "kill" non-believers, when they choose permanent separation(hell), "the second death", from God for eternity. Jesus, however, forbids vigilantism on behalf of God -- "those of you who are without sin, cast the first stone". The only authorized yielder of the sword by God is the government, for the keeping of public peace. God did decree state "jihad" in Old Testament times(which was punishment for Canaanite idolotry, NOT a reward for good behavior or excellence of Israelites), but that was by specific, direct command recorded in scripture. Israelites had their woolens pressed by God when they did not obey. Strictly according to the scripture, the time of biblical "jihad" is past. Jesus referred to the Kingdom "within you", and "I am not of this world." That is why I have problems with using religious arguments to harness Christian support for the state of Israel. "Heavenly Jerusalem" is what matters to Christians. The "Holy Land" is no more holy to us than Cairo, Illinois. So, Christians have a direct biblical mandate to forgive, love their enemies and pray for them. I would not hesitate to forgive Osama is he were to repent of his behavior and ask the world's forgiveness, for instance--though government authority may mandate his physical punishment. Threatening unruly teenagers with a prospect of capital punishment might go a long way towards model behavior, although even in OT times it was not well enforced -- witness prophet Samuel's and King David's children.

I agree with you all for what you are trying to say; we Christians need to act more like the Nickle Mines Amish brothers. I ask pardon from non-Christians for this lengthy post.

Though this is not a forum for one on one debates on comparative religions I must respond to JRC. No, there is not a difference. First of all if YOU had read the Qur'an you would know that it is spelled as I spelled it and NOT KORAN.

Secondly, you would see that we. monothesitics, are called people of the book, the same book, that the Prophets, (yes Jesus, who is mentioned 25 times by name to Muhammads 4), are all relatives of each other and are the SAME Prophets mentioned in the BIBLE.

If we can believe that Jesus is the continuation of the previous Prophets, why can't we believe that Muhammad is the succussor to Jesus? Isn't that the same argument that the Christians use against the Jewish?

The Qur'an says that we should recognize the ONE GOD, worship HIM and treat MANKIND with compassion. Does that sound any different than the Bible JRC?

Let's begin to live what we proffess, all of us. How can we say that we are a Christian people, but a Secular goverment. Isn't the government the people?

Jesus said:"Love your enemies, do good to them who hate you.." Luke 6:27
Sadly, we all know these words but very few even try to carry them out.As G.K. Chesterton said of Christianity, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." from What's Wrong with the World (1910)

"Christians and Jews believe in God, Muslims believe in Allah. There is a difference. Look at what the Koran says."

Allah actually means God, AL mean The and lah means God in arabic. just for your information its the same God as one Abraham worshiped. And by the way jews don't believe in trinity. I was talking about the roots only.

To those who have asked where it is that Jesus advocates killing non-believers:

There are a great many places where God advocates, indeed commands, the killing of infidels, generally as a punishment for crimes ranging from homosexuality, to idolatry, to being a rebellious teenager.

Granted most of these passages appear in the Old Testament, but Jesus does say in Matthew 5:17-20 that the Old Testament law still applies. My understanding of God is that he is supposed to be perfect and unchanging, so he is hardly likely to have changed his mind about such things.

And my understanding of the Christian belief is that despite Jesus fairly ambiguous statements on the matter, he is, in fact, God.

Add these things together and you have to conlcuded that either something in the Bible isn't true, or that Jesus was in favour of killing non-believers.

Perhaps an outside view: Can we find out more about the US by looking at little Belgium?

I live in Belgium: a European democracy that is a home to 66% of Christians, 28% of agnostics or atheists, 4% Muslims and 1% is Jewish. Only about one tenth of all Belgians go to church/mosque/synagogue and we allow abortion, euthanesia, gay marriage and gay adoption.

Is Belgium a Christian nation? We Belgians sure have grown up in a Christian tradition.

BUT religion does not (often) interfere with politics because our constitution does NOT claim that God is the source of our individual rights. The US Declaration of Independence DOES!! It was its sublime strength to keep a nation together in the 1700s/1800s, but could its devine references become a weakness in the future?

How can documents that set up a separation of Church and State start by saying that God is the source of our rights!! Quite a pickle.

Who can show me a way out of this problem?

Jennifer (and Kareem),

Christians and Jews believe in God, Muslims believe in Allah. There is a difference. Look at what the Koran says.

yes, compassion. just like the compassion shown to the american indian as they helped us when we arrived to this country and we slaughtered them and their families and took their land. Then those same "christians" inslave the blacks and burn "witches" with their compassion. i have yet to see much compassion. now, we have a christian president that believes it is ok to torture and invade a country that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. yes, it takes compassion. the number one supporters of bush, are still the compassionate christian. no, i don't think we should be a christian nation and i think it is time we remove this myth from our life and then we can truly have compassion and acceptance of others and we can learn talerance for all humans, no matter their color or economic status..blah..blah. just look through history, see the death caused by religions. look at the actual history of the bible, what was actually printed and what is actually printed today..why are they so different? time to be honest, expose the lies and start to show true compassion for others. just because they are different, doesn't mean we have the right to invade and kill or take their land from them or ship them to our newly aquired land and inslave them. give me a break. christianity allowed all this to happen and continues to allow it happen. just ask bush, god told him to invade....wow

religion a force for good. Pleeeease.

Sure America is a Christian nation. I as a Muslim feel more at ease with believers, whether Christians or Jews than non believers. I think basis of all three monotheistic religions is morality. Now are there things in them which are bothersome, sure, but overall religion is a force of good.

I am an evangelical Christian. Does the U.S. have one of the highest proportion of Christian citizenry in the world(South Korea and Lebanon could possibly compete for the title depending on regular church attendance)? Yes. Was it founded by predominantly fundamentalist Christians based on Judeo-Christian principles? Certainly. I agree with Jennifer though. That is all we can say for certain. The fact that the U.S. is comparatively conservative socially and otherwise compared to EU nations is simply a reflection of its people; we are a pluralistic democracy with lots of Christians. If you celebrate Zarmuk in honor of Marduk, instead of X-mas, that is certainly your pleasure. Happy Holidays, Hanuka, Kwanza, and Merry Christmas!

This is always a confusing subject. I suggest a distinction has to be drawn between the idea of "nation" (a collection of people, a demographic) and "government" or "state" (as defined by the U.S. Constitution). Technically the U.S. is a "christian nation" in that the majority of its citizens say they are "christian" when polled.

Of course the Constitution intentionally and clearly draws a distinction between any and all religions and the government, separates the two entities and by law prohibits the recognition of any religion above any other religion.

So, while most Americans say they are Christian, The United States of America is not a christian state. It is no more complicated than that in my view.

Have a warm and peaceful holiday!

I don't believe that America can call itself a "Christian Nation." How can it, when non of its laws or mores are based upon Christianity? Biblical wisdom is barred from public thought. How can you seperate church and state? When they seperated the church from the state look at the state of the church. The results speak for themselves.

Further how can America resolve ALL of its differences with violence and then allign itself
with a man known for non-violence?

The most notable attribute of God in Islam is AR-Rachman, the compassionate, how compassionate is a country with no tolerance for the homeless.

Maybe as we become more Christ-like we can call ourselves a "Christian Nation."

May the Kingdome come.

If one wishes to look at the Bible, one would notice that the first few books of Genesis is actually a history of man.

The book was "kidnapped" by radical believers who rewrote what was there imposing their own beliefs and ideas. For that reason I have always felt that the Bible as such today was written by illiterates, translated by bigots, preached by fanatics and believed by fools.

One last thought: Where and when did Jesus say to kill nombelievers? Sounds more like the Koran to me.

Jr.

Where exactly does Jesus advocate killing non-believers?

They say somewhere around 86% of Americans believe in God - BUT a belief in God, does not necessarily make you a Christian - Jews and Muslims also believe in God, other people believe in Gods or Gods and Goddesses. If you want to say we are a country with a large Christian population, that's fine. Or even if you want to say we're a country that was founded by Christians, I don't care. But don't say our laws should be interpreted to coincide with one religion's set of beliefs or scriptures - because yes, that would make us a theocracy. And isn't it theocracy style governance in the Middle East that we see as so "evil"????

I like this post, except for one caveat: Jesus Christ provides us with no better moral example than do Ghandi, MLK Jr., and others. In fact, he advocated killing non-believers -- is that a good example for us? A lot of people think so (Falwell, Robertson, Haggerd, etc.) -- even though they wouldnt explicitly say so. Why are we using a book written 2000 years ago for a substantial portion of our moral and ethical base? Dont we have more knowledge than a basically tribal civilization (of Israel)? We have moved past tribalism, kind of--some of us havent (the names mentioned above and anyone who believes anything like what they believe) and some whole countries havent -- pretty much the whole middle east, as well as many central and south american countries (they arent as bad, but for example el salvador just banned ALL abortions, even rape and incest -- tell me thats not tribal).

Good Post in comparison to the other believers posting; its rational and practical certainly.

As an American of the Jewish faith, I am offended by those who refer to my country as a Christian country. While the majority of Americans may be of the various Christian faiths, the fact remains that our country is a democracy, not a theocracy.

Burton:

There isn't a lot of difference between proving that Jesus existed and proving that any of the Roman emperors existed. History being what it is, we get the testimonies of people who knew them. You can't really prove to me that Abraham Lincoln existed, other than the testimony of a lot of witnesses. There are books about him, pictures of him, records of his words, etc. Reasonable people don't doubt that Lincoln existed. Any person who lived before photographs is "proved" by records left behind. When it comes to Jesus, there are the biblical witnesses and there are, in fact, a (precious) few references to him in non-biblical sources. Your judgment that he is a fiction - that those who testified to his life and work were either liars or loons - is certainly admissable. But please don't imagine that your judgment is impeccable, while millions of people throughout history have been absolute idiots.

Hey Burt, have a little respect man. You can express your views, but please respect others in the process and maybe they will do the same to you in return.

In other words, what you are saying is that the majority of the U.S. population identifies with a fiction, since there never was any "Jesus Christ" and none of the purported events described in the New Testament actually occurred. If you or anybody else can provide even so much as the tiniest scrap of evidence that "Jesus Christ" (Joshua the Messiah) actually existed, I will transfer my entire bank account to you and never say another word against "Christian" religion -"Christian" in quotation marks because even the name is a fraud.