All Comments (61)

Excellent postings by the Bostonian and Anon 11.
Very thought provoking.

But here's your problem. You must understand that
Islam unlike Christianity came in full light of History and Arabic is still a living language.

Mohammad is the only other person I know who came from outside the known centers of civilization and power.

What he accomplished is unrivaled in the history of Mankind.

Give me a name.

REV FAIRCLOTH- personal accountability!
what an excellent concept- we'd all do well to spend more time removing the plank from our own eyes-
and returning insult with graciousness-
you are practicing what you preach, sir
peace

Regarding the Muslim scholars open letter:
What if everyone on the planet came from a place of "love thy neighbor?!" As a Christian, I recognize and accept that not all believe in a higher power, or God, as I believe Him/Her to be.
So, I ask again, what if everyone came from this powerful conversation, "Love Thy Neighbor?" I believe it is possible. I believe that world peace is possible, and from there, a sharing of faith, intellect, earth's natural resources, and everything we need to live in a world that is not only free of hunger and strife, but one where the gift that each person is, has an open, free place to be. I believe that each and every person on the planet has the potential to "fit together" perfectly. I believe that you live in me, and I in you. I believe that "if it is to be, it is up to me."

Regarding the Muslim scholars open letter:
What if everyone on the planet came from a place of "love thy neighbor?!" As a Christian, I recognize and accept that not all believe in a higher power, or God, as I believe Him/Her to be.
So, I ask again, what if everyone came from this powerful conversation, "Love Thy Neighbor?" I believe it is possible. I believe that world peace is possible, and from there, a sharing of faith, intellect, earth's natural resources, and everything we need to live in a world that is not only free of hunger and strife, but one where the gift that each person is, has an open, free place to be. I believe that each and every person on the planet has the potential to "fit together" perfectly. I believe that you live in me, and I in you. I believe that "if it is to be, it is up to me."

Regarding the Muslim scholars open letter:
What if everyone on the planet came from a place of "love thy neighbor?!" As a Christian, I recognize and accept that not all believe in a higher power, or God, as I believe Him/Her to be.
So, I ask again, what if everyone came from this powerful conversation, "Love Thy Neighbor?" I believe it is possible. I believe that world peace is possible, and from there, a sharing of faith, intellect, earth's natural resources, and everything we need to live in a world that is not only free of hunger and strife, but one where the gift that each person is, has an open, free place to be. I believe that each and every person on the planet has the potential to "fit together" perfectly. I believe that you live in me, and I in you. I believe that "if it is to be, it is up to me."

Catholicism and Islam are both communitarian religions (as is biblical Judaism). They seek to make the laws of society conform to their beliefs. As minority religions in America, they have no choice but to act as private faiths. But the Pope told the Cardinals yesterday that they might resist the urge to see faith treated as a private matter.

Jesus's version of Christianity was preached among people with no governmental power and was designed as an apolitical religion. That is its best feature.

Mr. Patel,

You wrote, "Can we commit to educational programs which humanize “the other” instead of denigrating them?"

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "humanize" as: to represent as human : attribute human qualities to b: to adapt to human nature or use.

So, it seems what you're saying is the "other" isn't quite human but let's try to think of them as human or attribute human qualities to them too!

Beyond that I've a more fundamental question for you:

Doesn't the very fact of creating and belonging to a group, whether it's a religious one called Christianity or Islam or a sports team like Yankees create an "other" and therefore rivalry?

The basic promise of most, if not all, religions is "join us, we're the best way to get to god or salvation or whatever." By implication that means the "other" is denigrated. If the "other" too can get to god, or salvation or whatever without belonging to the group, religion's basic promise is undercut.

Having accepted membership in these groups and having helped create the "other," your call to "humanize" the "other" is too little, too late. Ever since man created organized religion, the "other" has been tortured and killed. Not being able to see that reality is the failure of all god-men.

So, why not call for an abolition of all religion? Then there would be no "other!" And we'd all, once again be just human, without having to go to school to learn how to "humanize" the "other."

I think the leaders of all sects must first agree that there are misinterpretations of their faith and some of their followers are not following their faith to true spirit which the scholars portray or think should be. The scholars bring to the public forum what the correct interpretations of their faith is. Most of these interpretations are not understood by the common followers of the their faith. In fact when the scholars have to implement it in their lives they have two standards. One for preaching and other for continuing to preach their faith. This duality has some fine lines and once they cross these lines they find themselves in a big public debate.

If the scholars understanding of their scriptures and as brought out in public forums is not followed by their own members then the first responsibility of these scholars becomes that they re in force their scholarly understanding to each one of their members as GandhiJi professed and practiced in India. Once they are convinced that every member is following to the true spirit then they can compare the faiths and the results of their faith. Otherwise it adds to the confusion and creates more chaos than help purify a mind body and actions of followers. The society in general will get divided and will not add to the peace and prosperity of the peoples of the planet but will head in a destructive mode.

Josh:

Would you care to explain the shortcomings of my perspective? You need to back up your criticism with some perspective of your own. Don't just throw rocks... help us understand!

Hey Minister Rick Faircloth!

Your racist comparison of the black community to the Arab Muslim world is a poor attempt at intellectual criticism. You'd do well to trash this sermon. What a bunch of nonsense.

You do not have enough knowledge and experience, let alone background to talk about Muslim-Catholic relationships, or problems in other parts of the world, that have a very complex history. You would do yourself (and European and Middle Eastern Muslims) a favour to stop your pathetic talks in public about things that are beyond your comprehension.

P.S. And, yes, we noticed that YOU were there.

Not a big fan of organized religion but Pope's comments earlier on Islam were not wrong:

Yesterday 51 blown up at a funeral in Iraq, 24 killed in Mosque in Afghan....

Islam has to have whole nation named after the religion. In fact, more than 50. Intolerant.

Many prominent Muslim clerics have openly called for mass murder and violence against infidels.

If pope's Religion is song of love, then,"keep on singing, keep on singing".Patel you are doing a great work of bringing people of different faiths to listen and talk, togather and so is "POPE."

Hi, Eboo...

Thanks for your thoughts.

As a long-time Christian and ordained minister,
I'd like to offer this perspective.

As the black community will never completely be respected
by the white community in America until it is willing to
"police" its own, so too, the Muslim community will never
be respected by the rest of the world until it is willing to
"police" its own, and insist that its own members value
truth, justice, and righteousness above its value of simply
being called a "muslim."

The black community has the same problem. Many of that community
value their "blackness" above the values of fairness, appropriate tolerance,
and justice for all.

The black community, as well as the Muslim community, must be willing
to discipline its members who do wrong, such as with terrorist acts, and
stop the behavior before respect and acceptance can follow.

The basic concept is this: any community, white, black, Muslim, Christian must be willing to hold its members accountable for their actions and when members of that community do wrong, punish and stop them "from within the community." In other words, the community must take responsibility for its own members. Members of various communities cannot always be defended in their actions simply because they are "my brothers."

May it be so.

Rick

Rick Faircloth,
Hinesville, GA, USA

When we offer "gentle clarifications" and discuss openly without agenda, try to understand, and share similarities, that is when we are most productive. The world will change with this attitude. What an exciting thought. We all can then share the JOY of spirituality.

The Catholic church is one of the worlds most corrupt organization and most brutal religions. It is on par with Islam when it comes to blood thirsty religions. They encourage poor people to breed like rabbits when they realize many will starve or die of disease at an early age but as long as there will be more Catholics to support their corrupt dogma is worth their suffering. Any one with an Brain and looks at the history of the Catholic church would realize the world would be better off without this corrupt bloody religion!

Dear Mr, Patel. I listened to your interview with Sally Quinn (I found her questions to be baiting and shallow, not intended to encourage information or foster understanding).

I was very impressed by your thoughtful, complete and insightful answers from a seemingly ill-informed interviewer looking to create pretend controversy.

I hope we hear much more from you in the future.

"I welcome that conversation."

That conversation and dialogue you want and that you enjoy only takes place in a Western, Christian civilization. In the Islamic world, where Islam dominates, there is no conversation because there is no religious freedom; there is no separation of church and state. You live in a fantasy world where Islam is what you think it should be while the reality of the true expression of Islam is all around you. The reality is in the acts of terror, the religious police, the forced dress code, the religious intolerance. The reality is that a conversation, a dialogue, like this one that takes place in the WAPO is not allowed in the Islamic dominated society. You only have the conversation because of the fact that it is happening in a Christian nation that allows for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Yet you only see and promote what you think Islam should be or perhaps what you have created in your mind. The self delusion is staggering.

You are not a real Muslim so your words mean nothing. The truth is you could not be a Muslim and say what you are saying unless you are lying to get an upper hand on your enemies. I do not think that is the case with you however, I think you really think you are a Muslim but the truth is you are not.

thank you for a wonderful example of ecumenical respect and acceptance. here's hoping americans of every faith (or of no faith) embrace and emulate your example.

If someone were to come to you today and say, "I am God!", what would you do? Yes, you would immediately ask for proof. Of course you would. And you would not want goofy proof.You would want real, solid, tangible proof.

No normal person, and I mean no one, would accept anything less than rock solid proof from a person who claims to be God.

Why should it be any different with Jesus? Jesus was a man who claims to be God. If he is God, then he ought to be able to prove it in a real, inimitable way. If he cannot prove it then, quite clearly, he is not God.

A Christian would say, "But Jesus HAS proven it! Just look at all of the miracles he did in the Bible! He healed the sick! He changed water into wine! That PROVES that Jesus is the Lord!" Does that make sense to you? Imagine that someone, today, were to come up to you and say, "I am God, and I will prove that I am God by healing the sick and turning water into wine!" What would you say? Be honest. You would not believe this person because:

Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick. And we all know that this sort of "healing" is quackery. If it were true, then we would not need doctors, hospitals or prescription medicines.

Turning water into wine... Doesn't that sound like something that a B-grade David-Copperfield-wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act? There are a dozen ways that you could stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine. There is no reason why a normal person would accept a magic trick as proof that someone is God.

Neither of these miracles can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study.
It is as simple as that. If someone claimed to be God today, you would never believe it if the evidence consisted of faith healing and magic tricks. Never. Yet billions of people claim that Jesus' faith healing and magic tricks prove that he is God.
Let's imagine that Jesus truly is God. What might he have done to prove it? He could have started by taking one of his most famous quotes from the Bible and acting on it. In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says quite clearly:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
To prove that he is God, Jesus would have moved a mountain. Especially since it is so easy. And Jesus would have written something down to explain himself. Here's what the first page of Jesus' book might have looked like:
My name is Jesus, and I am God. I know there are a lot of people out there who will doubt that I am God, so let me start off by proving it to you. Take a look at Mount Sinai. Everyone knows that, until today, Mount Sinai stood near here. It is the mountain where God, my father, gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
Mount Sinai vanished this morning, and what was left in its place was a perfectly smooth, polished stone base measuring four miles square. Hundreds of years from now, people will find that Mount Sinai landed near a place that will be called Newark, New Jersey. When scientists dig into the mountain, they will find that the bottom of the mountain is also completely smooth and polished, and that the bottom of the mountain in New Jersey perfectly matches the polished plain nearby. Scientists will be able to align the mountain and the plain, looking at it rock crystal by rock crystal at a microscopic level. I have said many times that, if you have faith, you can move mountains. I moved Mount Sinai to show how easy it is, and to prove that I am God.

I know that that may not be enough, so let me offer a second proof. If you draw a circle, you know that there is distance across the circle. Let us call it the diameter of the circle. There is also a distance around the outside of the circle. Let us call it the circumference. If you divide the circumference by the diameter, you get another number. Let us call it Pi, and its first 6 digits are 3.14159. Pi is an irrational number. It is a number that is made up of an infinite number of non-repeating digits.

There will come a day when machines called computers will calculate billions of digits of Pi. If you calculate Pi out to the millionth trillionth digit, here is what you will find:

9823456451237823492278583495083498745....

Now, having proven that I am God to any rational being, through my documentable movement of a mountain and through my foreknowledge of Pi at the millionth trillionth position, here is what I want to say to the human race as your creator, and as the creator of the universe...

Wouldn't that be awesome and amazing? If we had such a book, and if Mount Sinai had actually moved, then there would be no questions about Jesus. We would all believe that he is God. How could we not? Imagine what such a book would say on the following pages. A book like that, I am sure, would leave all of us in awe.
Why would Jesus not do that? God, supposedly, has already written a book called the Bible. And God, supposedly, has already done all sorts of things according to that book. God, supposedly, parted the Red Sea, carved the Ten Commandments into stone, went to the trouble to incarnate himself, etc. So why not have Jesus write a book, and leave behind real, tangible evidence for all of us to see?

Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate Jesus's position on slavery:

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.
In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.
Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Not only does God condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32:

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.
Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:

No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept.
Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Here God states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down.
Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2:

Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.
Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner.
Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard. This sentiment is repeated in Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Once again God shows that he is quite enamored of slavery.
God loves slavery

If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.

As you can see, these slavery passages present us with an immense contradiction:

On the one hand, we all know that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. As a result, slavery is now completely illegal throughout the developed world.

On the other hand, most Christians claim that the Bible came from God. In God's Word, the "creator of the universe" states that slavery is perfectly acceptable. Beating your slaves is fine. Enslaving children is fine. Separating slave families is fine. According to the Bible, we should all be practicing slavery today.
The intensity of this contradiction is remarkable. It shows us quite clearly that God is imaginary.

If God were to exist, and if he were playing any role whatsoever on our planet, he would eliminate this connection between himself and slavery. There is no way that a loving God would allow himself to be perceived as condoning and encouraging slavery like this.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: You, as a rational human being, know that slavery is wrong. You know it. That is why every single developed nation in the world has made slavery completely illegal. Human beings make slavery illegal, in direct defiance of God's word, because we all know with complete certainty that slavery is an abomination.

What does your common sense now tell you about a Bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments? Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, your common sense should be telling you that God is imaginary.

Have you ever thought about the offering plate in church? If God is real, why do they have to pass it? If you read these verses in the Bible, you can see that God claims to be extremely powerful and willing to answer any prayer:

Matthew 7:7
Matthew 17:20
Matthew 21:21
Mark 11:24
John 14:12-14
Matthew 18:19
Mark 9:23
Luke 1:37
Now consider this: Why don't the ministers and deacons of the church gather together every Sunday morning and pray to Jesus for the money they need? Why doesn't Jesus answer their prayers? Why do churches have to beg for money from mere mortals when there is an immortal, all-powerful God who should provide anything they ask for? Here is what "God" is saying:
Pray to me for anything and I will hear and answer your prayers. I say it in dozens of places in the Bible, but I like the way I say it in Mark 11:24 the best: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." Anything you need -- money, love, happiness, you name it -- I am here to provide it for you.
Now, there is just one thing I need in return. I need your money. I need lots of your money. The Bible specifies that you tithe ten percent of your income to me, but think of that as a starting point. Feel free to give more!

Because even though I created the universe and everything in it, and even though I will give you everything you ask for in prayer, I can't give a cent to any church, ever. When they pass the offering plate at church, be sure to give generously!

This, of course, is ridiculous.
The reason why they pass the offering plate at church is because God is imaginary.

We know, for example, that the ancient Egyptians believed in their gods so fervently that they built massive structures like the Great Pyramid -- still today one of the largest and most enduring human constructions ever created. Despite that fervor, however, we know with complete certainty today that the Egyptian gods were imaginary. We don't build pyramids anymore and we do not mummify our leaders.

More recently we know that tens of millions of Romans worshiped Jupiter and his friends, and to them they built magnificent temples. The ruins of these temples are popular tourist attractions even today. Yet we know with complete certainty that these gods were imaginary because no one worships Zeus any more.

Much more recently, we know that the Aztec civilization believed in their gods so intensely that they constructed huge temples and pyramids. In addition, Aztecs were so zealous that they were sacrificing hundreds of human beings to their gods as recently as the 16th century. Despite the intensity, however, we know today that these gods were completely imaginary. The Aztecs were insane to be murdering people for their gods. Killing a person has no effect on rainfall or anything else. We all know that. If the Aztec gods were real, we would still be offering sacrifices to them.

Today's "Jesus" is just as imaginary as were these historical gods. The fact that billion+ people worship Jesus is meaningless.

The "God" and the "Jesus" that Christians worship today are actually amalgams formed out of ancient pagan gods. The idea of a "virgin birth", "burial in a rock tomb", "resurrection after 3 days" and "eating of body and drinking of blood" had nothing to do with Jesus. All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions. As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts. You can find accounts like these in popular literature:

"The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions."

"Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."
It is extremely hard for a Christian believer to process this data, but nonetheless it is true. All of the "sacred rituals" of Christianity, and all of Christianity's core beliefs (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) come straight from pagan religions that were popular around the time of Jesus. Articles like this and this can help you learn more. Once you understand the fundamental truth of Christianity's origins, the silliness of this whole thing becomes apparent.

Without doubt the Catholic Church is wallowing in the muck of sinful priests but Islam shares an equal wallowing in the muck. As a reminder, the flaws/muck of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Male Islamics to include imams and clerics having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

I am confused when I read the posted comments and the article...are we all reading the same work?

I think the commentary was a wonderful reflection on common issues facing all people of the world irregarless of religion, but it seems others thought it was a discussion of the Pope's clothes and anti-Jesus statements.

If we were to look closely at all of the teachings of all religions without imparting our own cultural biases we might see how they premise they are all based on is making things better and caring for one another.

I would ask all people who are spewing hate on this board to consider that when writing their next posting on how more spiritual and valid their positions are than others.

Please think -- the mean of this was to add hope to the talks of Muslim and Judeo/Christian relations and look at broader issues as a place for a growing committee to the world community as a whole.

How can any of that be bad????

Wow, you truly are a windbag. I'm sure you've swayed every Christian from their foolish beliefs. Please give yourself a huge pat on the back as you've done such a great service for society. The problem with the world today is there are not enough people who believe in a higher power. I think the world would be a safer and friendlier place if everyone believed in God in whatever faith they so choose. Not like yours though, your god is your oversized ego. Your intellect keeps showing you the "proof" you so desperately need. You need something; I'm not so sure you've found it yet. Maybe you should trying looking in a church. Doesn't have to be Catholic, you have the freedom to choose.

Finally an essay by Eboo that even I can relate to. I agree that we, in this society, are too materialistic, and that there are more important things in this life than what kind of car you drive or how many bedrooms you have in your mansion. Things like love, caring for our fellow human being, compassion, empathy, and treating people with respect and dignity even when viewpoints and cultures differ. But, I suppose what is still unsettling for me is the need to wrap these concepts in faith or a religion. Because everything I mention can be practiced and experienced without any faith or belief in a deity. The concept of an "interfaith meeting" seems to necessarily leave out those who do not practice any organized religion. I truly believe we need to open the doors to everyone, even those the faithful have historically banished and demonized.

BruceRealtor,

Summarizing 200 years of historic Jesus studies:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations, and who has also been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html (a great review of all the contemporary NT exegetes and a listing of their books)

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

I have noted with some interest at least one response advocating thru 'channels of reason' that Jesus is [was] a fictional character.

I guess that after the early Christian church got finished with 'redacting' the Gospels and the New Testament Letters, that to many Jesus must surely appear to have been a fictional character. The only miracle that he apparently does not perform is that of levitation [unless one considers walking on water to be the same thing.]

Nevertheless, the last 50 years of scholarship addressing the "Historical Jesus," has CLEARLY drawn a distinction between Jesus as a Fictional [or composite] character, WHICH HE ISN'T and Jesus as an EMBELLISHED character, which he certainly seems to be, especially if one makes the mistake of LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the New Testament.

It is important to realize that in the 1st thru 3rd centuries, A.D., that the writings that comprise the New Testament were NEVER intended to be taken either literally, or even more so as an accurate 'history' of the events of which they speak. That was simply not the writing style of the time and period from which they come, thus if they are examined from a CRITICAL perspective, one can find NUMEROUS subsequent variations and redaction's for almost any section or verse of the New Testament. SEE: Bart D. Ehrman, MISQUOTING JESUS -- The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, (2005), HarperSanFrancisco.

With regard to current critical studies on The Historical Jesus, SEE: John P. Meier, A MARGINAL JEW -- Rethinking the Historical Jesus (1991), Doubleday/Anchor Bible Reference Library [and multiple subsequent volumes] AND John Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS -- The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, (1991), HarperSanFrancisco [and multiple subsequent volumes.]

With regard to the 'original teachings' of Jesus, as opposed to the redacted teachings SEE: John Davidson, THE GOSPEL OF JESUS -- In Search of His Original Teachings, (1995), Element [Press}, Rockport, Ma.

Enjoy your reading !!!

Interfaith Dialogue : Go for it
Interfaith dialogue is a necessity in a world increasingly integrated economically and politically. If religion is viewed as means of betterment of the inside universe of the human beings, then all the strife and bloodletting in the name of religion will vanish.

Eboo,
Thanks but no thanks for being caught in the hysteria.

Benedict is guilty of sowing seeds of divisiveness which may be befitting an illeterate laborer, when he is ranting against his adversaries. As the representative of his group and especially a spiritual leader/ascetic, a higher level of ethical behavior is expected from him.

Also my tax dollars are being used for unnecessary pomp and ceremonies. Someone needs to notify the star-struck W of separation of chuch and state. Why not throw a lavish party for the head wiccan next?

By the way, one last question, since you used the word holy to describe the aura you are feeling around Benedict:
How many holes do you need to have in order to be considered holy?

Someone from the Wash. Post is supposed to be vetting comments. Let's have an experiment: shuuut...shuuut: POOOWWWWW!!! This nonesense is now on your screen!!!

Great, but this Pope's problems are not those of faith.

I just watched some of the mass (on the local DC news channel) that Ratzinger held at the new DC stadium.

I ask: Would Jesus wear garments worth at least $50k+? The gaudy display of wealth (golden crosses etc) is pure hypocrisy...

Shame on you Ratzinger, you disgusting old fool...

thanks for the link to 'a common word between us"

here is an excerpt from that letter-

Come to a Common Word!
In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High tells Muslims to issue the following call to
Christians and Jews—(the People of the Scripture):

****************************
"Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a COMMON WORD between us and
you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no
partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside
God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who
have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)"

***********************
The Prophet
Muhammad(PBUH) said: “None of you has faith until you love for your brother what you love
for yourself.”And: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you
love for yourself.”
***********************
God says in
the Holy Qur’an:
*************************
"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West;
but righteous is he who believeth in God and the Last Day and the angels
and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to
kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who
ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the
poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the
patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who
are sincere. Such are the pious. (Al-Baqarah 2:177)
And also:
Ye will not attain unto righteousness until ye expend of that which ye love.
And whatsoever ye expend, God is Aware thereof. (Aal ‘Imran, 3:92)"
***********************************

AND ENDS WITH---

Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict
between more than half of the world’s inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake.
The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.
And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake
or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal
souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and
come together in harmony. God says in the Holy Qur’an:

***********************
" Lo! God enjoineth justice and
kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbiddeth lewdness and abomination and
wickedness. He exhorteth you in order that ye may take heed (Al Nahl, 16:90).
*****************
Jesus Christ (BLESSINGS UPON HIM) said: Blessed are the peacemakers ….(Matthew 5:9), and also:
"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?"(Matthew 16:26).
**************
So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each
other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and
kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill. God says in the
Holy Qur’an:
******************
"And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming
whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between
them by that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires away
from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a
law and a way. Had God willed He could have made you one community.
But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made
you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will
all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ." (Al-
Ma’idah, 5:48)
Wal-Salaamu ‘Alaykum,
Pax Vobiscum.
© 2007 C.E., 1428 A.H.,

i welcome any to read the letter and learn more about the religion of islam , as it is, from it's scholars and adherents-

absorb some of the beauty of the message-
which is enough-

as always, peace

CCNL:

Here is Publishers Weekly on one of your favorite sources, Bruce Chilton. As matters stand, there is no certaintly that Jesus existed, literate, illeterate, or otherwise.

Chilton's book is a good, relatively fast read. That's about it. He's done better.

From Publishers Weekly
Chilton claims to have produced "the first comprehensive, critical biography of Jesus" in an effort to "find the core" from which Christian faith arose. Unfortunately, he falls short of these noble goals. According to Chilton (Anglican priest and Bard College's Bell Professor of Religion), the hurt Jesus experienced as a social outcast and spiritual misfitAon account of his uncertain paternityAwas the crucible in which his religious development was fostered. Chilton writes that Jesus' enduring legacy, as witnessed in his long-suffering life and agonizing death, is precisely that which "pain teaches": that a shattered sense of self can blossom into a mystical, visionary awareness of the image of God within. For Chilton, Jesus' central religious insight is an exemplary one, as it may be for many readers. As a historical work, however, this is often irresponsible; Chilton engages in dubious biblical exegesis and otherwise eschews the rigors of research and documentation. At times, this biography reads like a work of psycho-historical fiction, which imagines those years of Jesus' life for which evidence is lacking. ("All he [Jesus] knew was that he wanted to stay near the Temple.... He couldn't face going back to Nazareth, to the look of judgment and distaste... in the eyes of the village elders.") Such tactics will likely both strain the credulity and tax the goodwill of Chilton's readers. (Oct.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

CCNL write:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man suffered from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Would that be Jesus, the water skier, of "New Teatament" fame?

I am tired of Ad nauseam Muslim refrain ““no compulsion in religion”. Actions and history speak louder than the words.

Mr. Patel, problem is not Koran or Islam. Koran is like any other religious text. It has messages of tolerance and message of hate.
The problem is unwillingness of Muslims to re-interpret Koran. It was written for nomad, bloodthirsty and primitive desert tribes who were never part of great civilizations such as Persians, Europeans, Chinese or Indian. As long Muslim do not challenge the Koran’s prohibition of criticizing the Prophet and punishments of death for Apostasy, it will be always in conflict with Eastern and Western traditions of liberty and freedom to change religions without fear of death.

One way Muslims could try to promote the dialog is not just to point out but also focus on the shared areas common to the 3 Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), instead of constantly bringing in the differences. Major differences do exist between the two branches of Islam itself, cause of much of indiscriminate killings in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Share the Islamic message of peace with other faiths. Muslims always complain that the West doesn't understand their faith: take the responsibility for trying to make them understand what Islam is and is NOT, rather than blaming the West. Show us where are the moderates lie; not just denounce the fringe element if it has 'highjacked', instead of doing nothing to curb it or complaining about it.

It's not just the Pope, but explain to the Media, people in general the interfaith commonalities, address the prevailing misunderstandings. America, more than any country in the world, is the melting pot with guaranteed freedom of religion, assembly and expression. One can remain isolated from the rest of society and still function well, but you can not complain about being defined by others from what they assume the religious practices and behavior in the name of the religion from what they see in the media.

Since there are lots of concerns, a much greater and more concerted effort is required from Islamic moderates to ease the tension, reduce the misunderstanding and promote trust and friendship.

I know the trust is a two-way street. But in pluralistic societies trust can be built, ever so slowly perhaps, by tolerance of and respect for those unlike you.

Good luck...

It's Not the Messenger. "IT" is about via The-Message!

This pope (if not a muslim hater) is probably a hate-monger. He will take a cheap shot at anyone weak where he can to for self-aggrandisement like the George W Bush. A method to divert attention from their own smirks and short comings. Now Pope John Paul, a Polish handsome man did not need these gimmicks needed by Darth Wader. He did not approve the war on Iraq. It is interesting, how this theory explains the buddy-buddy of the W. and the Ratzinger. Cheney was criticized by Pope John Paul even as he tried to flatter and fool him (actually insult him) by presenting him a glass dove. Every single leader of the world, including the Catholic Hugo Chavez knows about 911 inside job and many condemn it. But this Ratzinger does not open his mouth on such a necessary truth. That tells me a lot about him.

I too welcome this visit of Pope Benedict! As an American, I bellieve we should recall what a high priority President George Washington placed upon religion. He said, "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society". We forget or trivialize this at our peril.

A friend sent me this article today.

It came on the heels of another friend's observation that this Pope is directing some of his focus on Muslims - his discussions of rationality and reason coupled with the idea that Christ is the true answer.

I wrote to another friend about this saying I couldn't quite resolve the discordant note: faith negates reason and rationality because you either believe or you don't, whereas if you look to reason, then much of the mumbjo jumbo can't be explained.

My friend wrote back that faith and reason inform each the other. I will need to hear more.

However, the article approaches with reason, what for others is faith ... impossible to understand.

Mr. Patel, I think you have a lot of words too and very little substance but then you've made a nice living with this interfaith stuff.

The myth of moderate Islam

Tavleen Singh

Posted online: Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 2316 hrs IST

This is not a column that discusses cinema, but this week I make an exception because of a film I have just seen, which inadvertently exposes the myth of 'moderate' Islam. I went to see Khuda Kay Liye not just because it is the first Pakistani film to be released in Indian cinemas since anyone can remember, but because I gathered from reviews that it was a reflection of moderate Islam. This is a commodity in short supply in the subcontinent as well as across the Islamic world, where supposedly moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Malaysia have transformed in recent times into places where women have exchanged mini-skirts and western influence for the hijab and a return to medieval Arabia.

Khuda Kay Liye is the story of a modern Pakistani family that is destroyed when one musician son ends up in the clutches of a bad mullah and the other ends up in an American prison cell, where he is tortured till he loses his mind. The Islamist son, under the influence of the evil maulana, coerces his London-bred cousin into a marriage she does not want and forces her to live in a primitive Afghan village so she cannot escape. He rapes her because the maulana instructs him to and gives up his musical career because the maulana tells him that the Prophet of Islam did not like music. And he becomes an involuntary mujahid after 9/11, fighting on the side of the Taliban government. This is a simple story of a young man misled in the name of Islam.

The other musician son's story is more revealing of the flaws of what we like to call 'moderate' Islam. He goes to study music in a college in Chicago, falls in love with a white girl, and generally has a good time living the American dream until 9/11 happens. Then he is arrested, locked up in a secret prison in the United States and kept naked in a filthy cell until he goes mad. The message of the film, in its essence, is that Islam is a great religion that has been misunderstood and that the United States is a bad, bad country and all talk of freedom and democracy is nonsense. Alas, this is not how we infidels see things.

What interested me most about the film was that in seeking to show Islam in a good light, it accidentally exposes the prejudices that make moderate Muslims the ideological partners of jihadis. In painting America as the villain of our times, the prejudices against the West that get exposed are no different from what Mohammad Siddique, one of London's tube bombers, said in the suicide video he made before blowing himself up. In the video, that surfaced during the trial now on in London, he describes himself as a soldier in the war against the West: 'I'm doing what I am for Islam, not, you know, for materialistic or worldly benefits.'

In Khuda Kay Liye, the prejudices against India come through as well. The hero, when he lands in Chicago, finds that his future wife does not know that Pakistan is a country. When he tries to explain where it is geographically, he mentions Iran, Afghanistan and China before coming to India. It happens that India is the only country she knows and Taj Mahal the only Indian monument she has heard of. 'We built it,' says our hero, 'we ruled India for a thousand years and Spain for 800.' As an Indian, my question is: who is we? Those who left for Pakistan or the 180 million Muslims who still live in India? If we pursue this 'we' nonsense, we must urge the Indian Government to bring back Harappa and Mohenjo-daro and Taxila. And that is only the short list.

Let us not pretend that Muslims in India do not face hostility and prejudice. They do. But some of it comes from this idea that Muslims have of themselves as being superior because they 'ruled India' for a thousand years. The problem becomes more complex if you remember that Hindu fanatics also see Muslims as foreigners and use it to fuel their hatred.

If 'moderate' Muslims believe that the West is the real enemy of Islam and that the free societies of modern times compare poorly with the greatness of Muslim rule in earlier times, then there is little difference between them and the jihadis. As we infidels see it, the problem is that Islam refuses to accept that in the 21st century there is no room for religion—any religion—in the public square. Other religions have accepted this and retreated to a more private space. Islam has not.

It was distressing a few months ago to watch the McCann family grieving their daughter's disappearance, and visiting with the pope as if there was anything he could possibly do.
In fact, like God Himself, he appears totally unable to do anything about anything.

If there was a God, and if the pope was his earthly representative, surely they could have magically intervened and brought the little McCann child back from whatever misfortune has befallen her.
If just ONE TIME God could let the pope pull off something like that...it would be wonderful. And then the pope could swagger around in his pointy hat knowing that (maybe) there really is a God, and he has His ear. But its never going to happen because God is something the priests made up,and sold like their lives depended on it.

Time to wave goodbye to absurd superstition. Time to get real.

It's as if on these threads we are always trying to have the same debate on whether there is a God, and whether religion has outlived its usefulness.

We discuss it down here because they don't ever seem to discuss it up there, in the mainstream media.
When was the last time Larry King had atheists debating religious superstitionists on his talk show? I keep waiting.

Why don't we get to see real match ups, Sam Harris and Dawkins (say) against Pat Robertson and Billy Graham? Let them thrash it out. Let it become the main debate. Or the Archbishop of Canterbury versus Christopher Hitchins on "Why should we believe God exists?" And "What use is Religion, if there is no God?"

It's ignored on mainstream television where the assumption is everybody's religious - or should be.
Despite the great surge of books on Doubt, and Atheism, it's still not 'nice' to be an unbeliever, and the subject is avoided like the subject of death is avoided.