All Comments (93)

Ms. Paine,
I found your book - The origin of Satan - to be excellent. The first time in my limited involvement on religion, that things were presented in an orderly ,clear fashion.
Thank you very much. :-))
Now the question : On page 129 it is related that," Would it be ominous to speak of harvesting ripe corn."
I have read that corn was brought back to the old world from the Americas some time after the 1100s! I have also read someplace that corn grown at that time could have come from present day Iraq.
I'm not a student of anything, I read for information and have a good recall faculity. Sometimes things catch my interest and I have to ask the question. Did you get that line out of a specific work?
Sincerely,
Charles A. Bailey
chubai1@comcast.net

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

Consider modern Judahism and its Talmudic directives:

For Jews the Belief That God Can Be Human Is the Ultimate Heresy … The belief that God could have been born of a human womb, or could once have walked the earth, is so foreign to Judaism that it is rejected even by the most assimilated Jews. … Christianity, however, sees in Jesus the incarnation and embodiment of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son.

— Rabbi Boteach (15)

according to the known Jewish ruling that Christians are idol worshippers.
— Maimonides, quoted by Rabbi Schneerson (63)

THe author of the above article is LUKE WARM.

THERE IS BUT ONE NAME THAT BRINGS SALVATION, and any true follower of Christ will stand up and state his belief with conviction.

Matthew 10:
17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

18And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

19But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak

Mark 8:35
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

any Christian that would rather please men then to stand firm in their faith in Jesus Christ is luke warm.

Luke warm

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

No, religion should not be taught in school, for the sake of religion. I would have no trouble seeing the bible taught as an historical document, and nothing more. And if the bible is taught, then books an articles, in addition to Darwin’s theory on evolution, should be offered,( i.e., “The God Delusion” Richerd Dawkins) .

No, religion SHOULD NOT be taught in public schools. Not everyone share the same religion and/or beliefs. Therefore, it SHOULD NOT be made a part of school curriculum for that reason alone. Everything has its place, and religion is one of them as well. As far as I'm concerned, religion, school, and politics should never be mixed! These are 3 totally separate entities! Religion is a personal choice that should be implemented in the home just as the training and discipline of your child should begin. Please people...let's be real!

Ed: ""Is a claim to a monopoly of religious truth just another expression of an absolutist world view, a mind set inalterably fixed on the beholder's view of what is true and false, right and wrong, good and bad? If so, perhaps a key question to ask before a conversation is why some people have an absolutist mind set, and others are more pluralistic?"

I think a good place to look for the answers there is in some of those human-as-primate instincts that are so taboo. It seems we've needed a combination of leadership and cohesion since the early hominids, to survive, and I think religions attempt to cope with (or exploit) this, whether conscious and accepting of them or not.

Really, that gets down, in some ways, to how peoples coped with these things in terms of *civilization* which suddenly put folks in larger social groups than could manage their hierarchies without some artifice: how this is managed often goes to something like *empire:*

When religions themselves extol a hierarchical dominant figure, either to identify with or submit to, (take your choice) they often start thinking the whole *world* is essentially an empire.

When people look at Rome, they often see things in terms of Paganism vs Christianity, when really the change was made when the Republic became an Empire: you started getting into the idea of god-kings again: Constantine just chose to *identify* himself with the Christian Emperor-god (And doesn't *that* take some kind of opinion of yourself to go ahead and decree how the universe works,) because in doing so, he'd have a ready-made support base after what was, after all, a military coup. All he had to do was become identified with the authority they already recognized.

When people are *absolutist* in mindset, it could be because they live in a world where control and often punitive control are convinced to be paramount, whether they identify with the controller or simply seek to keep 'their guy' in control. Make an Emperor sort of diety, who's supposed to be unassailable, then the controlling types can get away with about anything: and notice the concerns these types tend to have: controlling breeding, 'defending' against outsiders, property rights, and authoritarian 'law and order:' these are the concerns of 'alpha breeders' and those who want to *be* one.

If a religion is constructed to make these factors the prime or only things that are 'holy,' then we lose out on the kinds of mindsets that involve group cohesion, sustenance, self-examination, adaptation, and change. Some 'Imperial Religion' unwittingly promises *everyone* can and should be in competition for that 'alpha breeder' status, then gets very, well, confused when that's not really what everyone wants. This makes the 'betas' fit only to serve and be dictated to, in some parts of the psychology:

'Leadership' goes from being a very important part of the human world, into *the* singular divine order, ...the only things of 'value' in terms of 'judgement,' often modeling the world in a way that 'absolutists' can see themselves as really having nothing to hear from the world, and confused, angry, and bewildered that most folks in the world won't obey what they see as divine commands.

I think it's about human instincts that we'd do better to try and understand than to dictate to. I see the world polarizing into 'liberals' and 'conservatives,' as though everyone could or should be either. Maybe we should organize things a bit better, in a way that makes everyone feel like they have some dignity (and humility, ...isn't trying to control everything about humanity kind of futile and exhausting? :) ) ...and, what I think's probably vital to any human animal, ...a place. Together. I think it's about the first time in history when it's been possible to make these segregations on any kind of mass scale, and it's clearly hurting us.

It's not purely about absolutist thinking being too powerful: it's that in identifying with Divine and legalistic and even rationalistic *detachment,* it's lost it's place: this is why absolutists tend to feel persecuted even when they're in power or safe: they're trying to live up to something too big for mere mortals, and it isolates them: the only *tools* they feel to be given are those of *power.* If vicarious power. "Impose more order, ...my order...then there'll be love and community!"

Cause absolutism is rarely 'pure,' ...can't be. I think the real key, even in discussion, isn't 'You're wrong for being this way,' but, 'You do realize there's a place in the real world for you, a good one.'

It's about knowing ourselves as a species. We're not divinely-regulated breeding pairs in constant competition, any more than you could segregate wolves into packs of all alphas or all betas and really have either function. (not to oversimplify: wolves have a much more adaptive and interactive dominance structure than that, anyway.)

Some thoughts, may have wandered a bit. But I think we're still learning to live in nations and now globally. Things have changed.

Pardon if I quote almost this whole thing, but let's look at the 'reasoning.' :)

Charles: "Monopoly on truth" is an interesting way to put things. It would seem that if one adheres to a given religion then by definition he/she accepts it as valid. In Christianity to confess that Yahweh is God is to say implicitly that no one else is."

Personally, I do think that sort of definition of "God" is inherently deeply problematic, yes. That's why I don't believe it. It's not common to *all* religions, though. "Valid" in terms of a religion does *not* have to mean "The only way to see things."

"If a Christian's devotion to God is subordinate to the sensibilities of others then his/her beliefs are more cultural than religious."

But, it'd be a *big* start if certain sects of certain religions would stop telling themselves that "Not having my way over my neighbor" is synonymous with being "Subordinate."

Especially in America, we used to have this idea called *Equality.* Call it cultural, but it's not 'subordination' to have the same rights to dignity in what you believe as *anyone else is supposed to.* If you choose to believe you have some rights over others that they don't have over themselves, in these matters, ...that not having some 'supremacy' yourself is "subordination," well, sorry, you got another thing coming.

Yeah, But I heard they consider *dogs* unclean, and one has to question how someone so devout would even *want* to chain a cat to a tree.

Unless that's some kind of metaphor about authoriarian religion. :)

actually, eve was never told by god not to eat of the tree- in some translations adam told her- in others it is not mentioned( and im not real sure if they didnt add that bit about her saying to the serpent "God says..." because she was created after the conversation took place between adam and god.
necessary disclaimers

im going to present my views from the point of a muslim because i amone- but its not with the god loves me more than he loves you attitude- elitism is an exclusionary thing-
i dont mean to endorse or demean any religion(even tho im definitely muslim, well maybe endorse like this cocnut beef is excellent, cant do shrimp)

in my religion i relinquish all control because i have none- but i still have total responsibility for all my actions-

there is only a state of original grace that we are all born into in islam

people ive noticed are really hypersensitive to islam please dont attack me

i think augustine was a super conflicted guy

here is my favoritest story in islam (2)

there was this woman who said her 5 prayers on time every day and to all outward appearances was the poster child for islamic behavior
BUT
she had a cat that she kept tied to a post and didnt even let it find food or water for itself so the cat died...then the lady died...and she went to hell.

and then there was this prostitute and she saw a dog with its tongue hanging out and it was dying of thirst and ONE TIME she took her shoe and gave it some water...and she died...and she went to paradise. YAAAAYYY!!!!for compassion!

thats your islam ladies and gentlemen

also in islam if a cat drinks your water you can drink after it because they are so clean (thats true)
i would say it is a very cat friendly religion

meeeow and peace

also riveting post here

"Monopoly on truth" is an interesting way to put things. It would seem that if one adheres to a given religion then by definition he/she accepts it as valid. In Christianity to confess that Yahweh is God is to say implicitly that no one else is. If a Christian's devotion to God is subordinate to the sensibilities of others then his/her beliefs are more cultural than religious. No matter how you slice this one evangelical Christianity claims that there is some black and some white - even if there still is mostly gray.

THERE IS NO GOD

Each religion claims to have God on *their side*
If there is a God and an airliner carrying a mix of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, crashes with a few survivors, then why are there not more Christian survivors since they *really have God on their side* ?

Should there not have been more *Christian* survivors from 911 than the other religions or in all the tragedies that have ever visited the planet?

If the Bible is the word of God, then why isn't the earth just 6,000 years old? Why are there homo-sapien skeletons that are millions of years old?

If the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is merciful then why does the Bible advocate that all non-believers should be stoned to death - *You must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow putting him to death* (Deuteronomy 13:7-11)?

One cannot pick and choose which portions of the Bible that they believe are the word of God. If one does, they are acknowledging that the Bible is not the word of God and it is not infallible - which, of course, it is not.

If Christianity is tolerant then why the Crusades, the Inquisition and countless other murders and acts of violence against Jews, Muslims, and non-believers?

If Christianity is tolerant then why do Christians believe that unless you are a Christian you will *burn in hell*?

It is time to end the charade about religion. Zeus, Apollo and the Sun gods all came and went. Christianity and other religions are no different.

You do not have to be religious to have morals and ethics.

Manual….I wouldn’t label myself a secular humanist, secular most certainly, but “humanist” is a word who’s precise meaning is beyond my knowledge.

Truth is not a very good word to describe the world we perceive. We spend much time and energy seeking to find relationships among our perceptions, preferably in mathematical form, which are found to repeat themselves. We attempt to make abstract models of the behavior we perceive. The best models get to be called Laws of Nature (for a while). But they are not, as invariably someone discovers a better model. Something Einstein did to Newton. So no, the best we can claim of the secular domain is approximate truth, still close enough that we willingly fly in an airplane trusting our lives to these approximate truths.

It is true that I am limited to that which I can perceive in one way or another. I would not say however that nothing exists beyond that. I simply don’t know, and absent a means of perception, I will continue not to know. Some of you seem to have some degree of knowledge about that which is beyond our perception. I don’t pretend to understand how this is possible, but many, even most, are convinced of it. As Manual describes it, it is the religious view which makes this possible; the ability to postulate a force or being beyond our senses, which creates and guides our universe. I just don’t feel a need to postulate myself. I’m content to take the universe as I perceive it, I accept the fact that we don’t yet know precisely how it was created, and I don’t feel it is necessary that it be “guided” in some way. There is no need for me to push the river; it flows by itself.

How one derives “truth” from a postulation of what lies beyond our senses is beyond my comprehension. It is a bit hard to believe that so many individuals would independently postulate the same thing that is beyond the sensibility of any single one of them. So how is it that large groups come to believe in a common God or Force?

The Bible itself is a real puzzle. So many people have come to see it as the Word of God, some of them taking these Words absolutely and literally. But we know these were written by different people, that the New Testament is an arbitrary collection of gospels written by different people at different times. It was yet other people who established the members of the collection, including some, excluding others. How in the world do these become the Words of God? Aren’t they the words of Luke, Matthew, Paul, etc. etc., and aren’t the words of Thomas as valid? It seems to me that the Bible is an arbitrary collection of various men’s words about God. It is a puzzle how these particular words become Holy, while others on the same subject do not. I just don’t get it.

I must concede Manual, that we do indeed have the ability to postulate beyond our senses. We call this imagination. But the religious view is not content with that, it insists upon the reality of what is imagined. I suppose this is where faith derives its religious meaning, i.e. the conviction that the God we invent in our minds does in fact exist. I concede the possibility as it is not possible to prove otherwise, but I find no evidence whatsoever supporting such a conviction. I have no such faith. I never cease to be astonished by the number of people who do, and with no evident difficulty to boot.

I’m puzzled how you manage to transform the concept of evolution into a religion. In reality, the greater contribution of Darwin is the idea of “natural selection”, that the current qualities of nature itself have the effect of selecting winners and losers among the variants presented. This is the engine of evolution. Evolution is what happens when this engine runs for an extended period of time. There is nothing religious about it.

Having said that, one can recognize that there is a utility to religion and a need for it. Most, if not all, cultures have created religions of varying sorts, some with one God, others with many Gods. Holding such beliefs in common is what glues cultures together. It assuages our fears of what we don’t know, providing a readymade explanation of all sorts of maladies. It assuages our fear of death, offering the illusion of life after death, thus letting us appear brave in the face of death. So whether a religion is true or false does not necessarily make its effects good or bad. False religions are just as powerful as true religions in terms of their potential for serving mankind well.

Elaine Pagels begins her enigmatically named piece, 'questions to answer before a conversation', by noting "many religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth." A key question for her is "what we need to ask in such conversations is how, historically speaking, each tradition began, and what pressures generated such claims to monopoly."
Is the attitude, "I know Truth, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong," a product of religious traditions, or is it a more basic human tendency that has repeatedly found expression and self-justification in religious exclusivism, as well as a host of other horrors throughout human history?
Is a claim to a monopoly of religious truth just another expression of an absolutist world view, a mind set inalterably fixed on the beholder's view of what is true and false, right and wrong, good and bad? If so, perhaps a key question to ask before a conversation is why some people have an absolutist mind set, and others are more pluralistic?

Elaine Pagels begins her enigmatically named piece, 'questions to answer before a conversation', by noting "many religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth." A key question for her is "what we need to ask in such conversations is how, historically speaking, each tradition began, and what pressures generated such claims to monopoly."
Is the attitude, "I know Truth, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong," a product of religious traditions, or is it a more basic human tendency that has repeatedly found expression and self-justification in religious exclusivism, as well as a host of other horrors throughout human history?
Is a claim to a monopoly of religious truth just another expression of an absolutist world view, a mind set inalterably fixed on the beholder's view of what is true and false, right and wrong, good and bad? If so, perhaps a key question to ask before a conversation is why some people have an absolutist mind set, and others are more pluralistic?

Faith is immutable because it is belief not bound by what is tangible.
Fact changes because it comprises of progressive observations of the tangible.

Unwillingness to respect the distinction between belief (& the believer) and observation (& the observer) makes effective communications fairly hopeless. We should all thank Prof. Pagels for making a great attempt. oh, & Happy Thanksgiving!

Anonymous,

In response to your list of Koran passages, I could cite Bible passages that also call for the murder of unbelievers. David Plotz's "Blogging the Bible" series in Slate and Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" discuss some of that in detail.

But instead, I think it's valid to ask, why aren't both Muslims and Christians rising up the millions and carrying out the murderous commands in their holy books? Even though there is more Islamist terrorism than Christian terrorism (such as Eric Rudolph), the percentage of people in both religions who turn to terrorism is thankfully small. That's why I believe that violence that uses these religions as justification has more to do with cultural attitudes than with doctrine.

Due to the time that would be necessary to reply to everyone, please excuse me if I miss or skip your point.

Firstly, to Anonymous. I am not the first to say that it is the greatest story ever told. Mark Twain was known to have said that over 100 years ago...and I'd bet he wasn't the first.

Stan, the flood was made up? How do you explain the hydrological sorting of both the layers of strata, fossils, and coal and oil reserves under our feet? Besides that, there are over 250 world-wide legends relating to a GLOBAL flood.

JamesW, we've already established that evolution does not occur in the other two places I posted earlier, please stop bringing it up. Saying that God created it is not only heresy, but a definitive trangression of the 2nd Commandment.

Mark, thank you for the beautiful stories and history of your family. I am glad to hear you are a born-again believer, there are far too few coming out of any faith today, especially the Episcopalian one. Also, thank you for your Godly counsel, I will take it to heart and hopefully I will be able to improve my testamony with it.

MPK, with all due respect, when you say I believe I have the truth, please rephrase to to be I know I have the truth. Just as if someone warned you that a heater was hot, don't touch it. You'd believe it was hot, until you touched it, then you'd KNOW it was hot. The truth is seared upon my conscience and is supported by science, history, the Bible, the human condition, psychology, astronomy, and medical science, amongst others.

Jeremy, with all due respect, I have a better understanding of your religion in evolution than any believer in that theory will ever have. Unless you step back from being brainswashed and start looking at some of the facts in my faith and yours, you'll never be a truly free thinker. Please take any arguments pertaining to evolution to the other two posts.

Absolute faith in science and scientists is stupid, science is forever fallible and changes its mind daily.

John, which facts don't stand up to faith? None. The Bible is fact, so any other facts should be tested against it for their fallibility. Science once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, that was faith, today that faith has changed. The Bible remains the same. I won't follow your red herring arguments, know that science is fallible, errant, and requires quite a bit of faith...after all, science is so perfect as to know there were 9 planets for 50 years, and all the sudden there are 8 with 4 tiny plutons? How does that work for science?

In order to correct my fallible self, I would like to appologize for the impression that I said that I was the Babe Ruth of theology, but what I meant to say was that Christianity is the Grand-Slam Hitter of Religions.

Blind Faith is dangerous and stupid. Please examine every fact of science, theology, and life that is put before you before swallowing it down...true you might get some fact, but you almost might get the poison of evolution.

Tonio -
Do you really believe that it is JUST the case of Abdur Rahman where Muslims called for his DEATH because of his conversion from Islam?

You need to get better informed. This Islamic calling of death for those who leave Islam is a common view among pious Muslims. The challenge is that you do not understand Islam sufficiently, and believe this is an issue with individual countries - you need to open your eyes.

This is NOT a "cultural" problem, this is absolutely an issue with Islam itself.

Moreover:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others.

W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only" however "in traditions, there is little echo of these punishments in the next world ... and instead, we have in many traditions a new element, the death penalty." Heffening states that Shafi'is interpret verse 2:217 as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an.

The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad and claimed eyewitnesses' accounts of Muhammad's life and deeds) includes statements that Muslim scholars such as Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid see as supporting the death penalty for apostasy. [2] Only those from Sahih Bukhari, which are considered reliable by most Muslims generally are given below:

* "Allah's Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." 9:83:17

* Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" 4:52:260

* The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: — 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.

* 57. Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" 9:84:57

* 58. Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" 9:84:58

* 271. Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle." 9:89:271

Religious people cannot hold a candle to secular humanists when it comes to the belief that they hold a monopoly on the truth. While most religious individuals recognize that their beliefs are based on faith, the secular humanist cannot imagine that their view of the world is anything other than the objective “truth”. As Alex said in an earlier post, the secular humanist believes that truth is established through “evidence” and it “is there for all to witness”. Secular Humanists live in a world limited by that which we can see, touch, taste, smell or feel. Nothing for them can exist outside the boundaries of what we can experience or infer through our senses. This is, of course, an assertion that cannot be objectively proven. At its heart, it is a tautology – “the world is limited to that which we can perceive because that is all we can perceive”. It is simply a belief. It is from this belief that all other secular “truths” arise.

The religious person lives in a universe that is not bound by our senses. The religious view postulates a force or being beyond our perception that has created and continues to shape our universe. Yet, rather than accept that viewpoint as a possible truth, the secular humanist demands that the religious person justify their faith based on secular beliefs. They demand perceivable, physical evidence of God’s existence. That’s like a religious person requiring a secular person to speak with God and get God to tell the religious person not to believe. It is a requirement to first reject your own belief in order to offer proof. When they don’t receive the proof they demand, Secular Humanists ridicule religious beliefs because they fail to meet their requirements for truth.

Contrary to what secular humanists would have us believe, the real secret to communication and understanding lies within the gifts the Abrahamic religions have brought to us. One of the very first teachings in the bible is that all men and all women are created in the image of God. That means that when a Christian is looking at a Jew or a Jew at a Muslim or a Muslim at a Hindu or a Hindu at a Buddhist or a Buddhist at a Secular Humanist, they are all looking at the image of God. Religion also teaches us that everything comes from God. That means the Torah comes from God, the New Testament comes from God, the Qur’an comes from God, the Vedas come from God, even Secular Humanism comes from God. Understanding the traditions of others gives us a better understanding of God’s universe.

Religions use metaphor and ritual to explain the human condition and our culture. It offers views into our psychology and can guide us in the conduct of our life. It can make us think beyond our ordinary lives to how we are connected to the universe and each other. It is manipulated by the political structure that governs it and the authors who sometimes twisted the words of the great prophets. It pre-dates our species. The early attempts of religion to explain the natural world did not have the benefit of the scientific method. The language of religion can bring insights into the human condition and the awe of existence. Religion and science together can bring insights into existence that as of yet, neither can do alone.

Alain, you said, "It gives the impression that those vocal fundamentalists represent most of their religion. Why do you think that is?"

I think you answered your own question. The fundamentalists are very vocal, very well-financed and very intent on drowning out other voices.

I've had my commitment to my faith questioned because I do not proselytize. The reality of my faith has been questioned because I believe there are many paths to chose from. The strength of my faith has been challenged because I believe an act of kindness trumps a hell-fire and brimstone sermon, and because I believe in a loving, compassionate and merciful God.

People who, like me, quietly practice and speak about faith are not glamorous. We don't make the news because we don't raise a ruckus, and, let's face it, reporting the news is primarily about someone raising a ruckus. It doesn't make the news when I sit down with a street person and share a meal, or when I donate blood, or when millions of acts of kindness and compassion are routinely done, and I don't think it should make the news. Acts of kindness, even those done in conformance with the examples of Christ, are done for their own sake, not for self-aggrandizement.

The fundamentalists can have their vengeful, merciless, jealous, misogynist, murderous God. I won't try to change their minds about their beliefs if those beliefs comfort them. I wish they would offer as much respect to those of us who disagree with them.

"No chain of logic can induce true believers to abandon their faith in a loving god who has revealed himself in scripture."

According to YOU, that is. See, when someone starts a conversation with absolutes, the "debate" stops and all you have left is a Sermon.

Canyon Shearer: said

"John, instead of worrying about all that stuff, why don't you worry about your own soul?

Religion isn't the 'simple' answer, choosing to not think about it is, or writing it off as not existing without examining the facts..."

Canyon, I have examined facts from faith all my life and I’m sorry to tell you faith doesn’t stand up against facts. When facts hit faith dead center between the eyes, religious faith bends until it conforms with facts. This happens over and over, time after time. The faith was that the heavens revolved around the earth, until the facts were the earth revolves around the sun. Now tell me Canyon, did you flip flop or do you still believe the heavens revolve around the earth before Copernicus & Galileo give you the facts.

John

I think the key barrier to dialogue between 'believers' and the rest of us is not really dogma, but is actually a problem of language.

The languages of various religions have been used for thousands of years to describe the universe, and to explain our place in it. During the past few hundred years, with the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the technological spike of the 20th century, our species has learned a new language - the language of science and logic. This language has spread like wildfire because of its spectacular utility - enhancing astronomically our ability to explain the world and to change it.

I think that my inability to have meaningful exchange on profound questions with a religious fundamentalist is due to his inability, either wilful or otherwise, to understand my language.

This stands out most obviously in arguments about evolution. Those who deny the fact of evolution, not arguments about the details of how it happens but the fact that it happens, have simply not understood it. This is the point that scientists have tried so unsuccesfully to articulate, and I want to make it perfectly clear. If you don't believe that evolution happens, then YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD IT.

To argue about such things with a religious fundamentalist is like arguing about the meaning of great literature with someone who is illiterate.

I don't want to discount the value of the languages of religion, they are still important and useful for describing the world, but using those languages exclusively and ignoring science, the most powerful tool for human understanding that we have ever developed, is at least silly if not idiotic.

Dialog between people of different beliefs is possible, but I think the approach that Dr. Pagels suggests is unlikely to produce it. Asking "historically speaking" "what pressures generated such claims to monopoly" is an anthropological question. The answer to that question, while academically interesting, is not particularly relevant to people's belief systems.

Faced with the unknown and unknowable -- for example, is there life after death -- people either withhold judgment (agnosticism) or embrace a belief (such as theism or atheism). The belief system that they embrace may -- or may not -- be organized, have widespread adherence and a long pedigree. Ancient debates may have shaped its form. But the decision to embrace that belief system is personal, contemporary, and dynamic, not just something that happened to someone else a long time ago.

The dogmatism of many of the responses indicates, I think, that many folks of both the theistic persuasion (Canyon) or the athestic persuasion (Candide, Alex, Amatdeus) believe they have the absolute truth in their possession, and thus dialog on the subject of that truth is pointless. I don't think that attitude will be affected by an analysis of the historical antecedents of the philosophical or religious traditions they espouse!

Dialog is possible, and useful, to address the practical choices that affect our society and our world. But in a pluralistic and democratic society, the dialog can't be ended by reference to a single authoritative religious tradition.

It’s interesting reading these posts. I want to respond to each of them, in some way, but then I realize how little I know about any of the posters, and certainly how little I understand of their faith. Hey, I don’t really understand my own faith and I’ve been working on it most of my life. Here’s what little I do know about other’s faith:

My great grandfather was a Baptist missionary in China in the 19th century. From his letter and diaries I can tell he drew hard lines around his faith, as he did around all things. He wasn’t uncertain in his opinions. He thought Catholics, Buddhists, non-Believers and Anglicans (especially) were all bound for hell. That’s why he was a missionary. He was killed in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, beheaded with his wife in a public square in northern China. He believed the Lord was sovereign to the end. His four orphaned children, back in England, all grew up and pretty much stayed Atheists. My grandfather’s four years of trench warfare in WWI reinforced his doubts, and he was doubtful, if searching, to the end of his life. He couldn’t reconcile his tragedies to any systemic set of beliefs, certainly not in one based on a loving God acting in the world.

So my Dad, and my mother also, were raised without much formal faith, just some school prayer and a little popular religion. They both had a terrible time as young adults in London and the far east during WWII, and both fell hard for faith after the war. My father says that they saw so much evil in the war that they were quite able to believe they were part of a great and epic struggle between good and evil. He and my mother raised their four children as Catholics in the UK in the 60s and 70s. My Mother died relatively young, my father’s faith took a major wobble as consequence. He’s just about back now, but I guess he’d be most comfortable with the “Christian Agnostic” label. Me, I’m a born-again Episcopalian, quite possibly the only one in New England. Or anywhere. Nine days out of ten I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the grave. Every day I try to live as I believe Jesus asked his follower to live. Every day I fail to meet the standard, mostly pathetically so. And every day I try again. What a loser I am!

What’t the point of this? First, faith isn’t static, no matter what some believer or non-believer says in a web post in November 2006. They will almost certainly have changed the way they see things tomorrow, or next week, or after the next big tragedy or triumph in their lives. Truth is there, I’m sure it is. But we can only stumble after it. We can just try our best. It is actions that count. Thoughts wander and brains are weak organs. If faith is dependent on a concrete set of beliefs, constantly held, rigidly adhered to and never questioned, then we’re in trouble. Except possibly Canyon.

And Canyon: I’m sure I’d love you buddy, if I met you, but you’ve got your clanging symbol cranked up to eleven (albeit a rather fascinatingly clanging symbol). Faith, hope and love. And love is the greatest.

All the previous comments ignore the fundamental facts. God created the world. That means that He created all the laws of the world. I can't say what Genesis means regarding God creating the world. I only know He created Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and all the laws of nature. He created evolution. That means that to reject the laws of nature with Creationism is to reject God's great plan, so Canyon's comments on evolution are contrary to God's plan. Evolution is not silly, but a part of nature, of life. Not death. Jesus came and explained the Why. The Why is Faith. Believe in God. Love one another. Live like Jesus. Forgive, not condemn.

Everything else is superficial. Moses freed the Hebrews because the Pharoah refused to. Jesus freed us because we refused to do so. Reason and faith are not incompatable. Reason deals with Nature. Faith deals with the spirit. Nothing in the Bible, the Agnostic Gospels, the Koran, or other spiritual works contradict this truth.

Unfortunately, today's organized religion tries to focus on the superficial, not the essential. That is why opposing gay marriage trumps loving one another. That is why an unborn child trumps a living worman. We try to make the choices easy when the real world is not. Too bad.

"... Apart from convictions about the divine that some regard as non-negotiable, what are the issues—especially practical ones-- within each religious community on which members take different stands?"

The biggest current dichotomy is between legalists on one hand, and spiritualists on the other. And I come down on the side of the scripture that says: The letter of the law killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

"... How do such stands compare with those taken by people in different religious communities (and, for that matter, by people outside religious communities)?"

They cut across different religious communities and are also found in secular institutions (eg, governments). There is a constant dynamic tension between those who would prescribe, proscribe and circumscribe -- and those who would liberate.

"Finally, what actions inspired by religious convictions deserve our immediate attention and energy?"

We must repudiate all actions that continue to drive us apart, and embrace those that acknowledge our common humanity and show honor to every person.

In the last fifteen years, I have written numerous opinion pieces critical of religion to the two largest newspapers in north Louisiana, hive of fundamenalists and evangelicals. The pieces have elicited about 500 published responses and many private ones.

The responses confirm what veteran freethinkers have long noted: no fact, no argument, no chain of logic can induce true believers to abandon their faith in a loving god who has revealed himself in scripture. Indeed, many respondents have thanked me for questioning their beliefs because my challenges, they say, strengthen their faith.

To paraphrase William James, the will to believe trumps bad reasons for believing.

Gary Sloan
Ruston, Louisiana

Religion is nothing more than fairy tales made up by manipulating priests seeking to gain power over ignorant people. While everybody else works hard and experiences good and bad luck, the priests steadily collect their tithe and live a life of ease. High ranking priests (popes, cardinals and bishops) live in palaces with all kinds of luxuries and many servants.

What kind of conversation can you have with such people? All they want is to increase their wealth and comfort. They will propound any lies that will maintain and improve their position.

The writers of the Moses books would seem to have gotten a lot of concepts about right such as the world and its contents being put together in incremental actions, i.e., a series of actions over time, six days, were involved. But the physical evidence doesn't support the six mornings and evenings and resting on the seventh day. When you calculate the water necessary for the flood, and for it to come and go,recognizing the world as we know it today, then the account of Noah and the flood were obviously made up. But who made it up and who picked up the concepts and turned them into a system of government becomes the question. It should also be recognized that even though a lot was made up that humanity has benefited through the ages from the concepts but that with today's knowledge the concepts have to be reworked to be compatible with known truths. This applies to "evolution" as well since the concept of "natural selection without intelligence" is obviously untrue. Therefore, there needs to be recognition that both "creation in six days" and "evolution of species by natural selection" are nothing more than tools to control the people and manipulate government/political processes.
The current "religious right" is evidence that the techniques and processes are still in use today. So to get the "truth" it is necessary to understand the why of the techniques and processes.

"On how the Bible came to be, both proves its divinity, and is also the greatest story ever told."

Yes, well that would be according to YOU, Canyon, of course.

According to most of the peaceful people I know, discussion of how we treat each other and how we act as human beings towards the various cultures right here at home, the melting-pot of all free nations, is how we will get past the last 2 millenia of hatred, distrust and mistreatment of each other. We can all still believe in whatever God or Religion we please, but if wedo it privately and peacefully, as Jesus himself spoke of, our prayers, hopes and dreams will be of just as much value.

Those who preach from the street corners, are doomed to create resentment and hatred, and many times... Wars.

while the Bambino was a great hitter, he wasn't much of a chess player... checkers maybe.

I've read & greatly appreciated Prof Pagels works over the past 30 yrs (many thanks!). And she has provided a fine foundation for reasonable communications on this ineffable topic. Upon reading the responses, however, I am (generally) confirmed that "people of faith" just don't get it, and don't even wish to. Mostly, they want to blow right past dialog to dogma, with a good deal of prostelytyzing thrown in.

I expect that continued scholarship in neuro- biophysics, combined with evolutionary anthropology (aren't the Golden Rule & Survival of the Species the same?) will shed light on the roots of faith in our time. I'm afraid Theology won't. {on the other hand, I might be willing to go along with her own reasonable conclusions - on faith}

Professor Pagels makes a great point. All of our religious traditions have mixed their cultural story with the God story. In order to understand the God truth in any sarcred text it is necessary to untangle the two.

In order to to have a discussion of religion the participants have to be willing to expand their thoughts about God and each other. If your premise is that; what you know is the truth, because your particular sacred text says so; and the sacred text is the word of God because that sacred text says it is, then there is no room for discussion. Why bother?

Science, technology, physics and medecine have all evolved and expanded, yet most people's ideas about God and each other have not. Until people are willing to expand on their ideas about God, true give and take discussion is not possible.

The original questions presented at the beginning strike me as intelligent, scholarly, and a wonderful basis for conversation. Also, unfortunately, as idealistic and, as most of the posts seem to show, just...not do-able for most people's thought processes. Or faith processes. It seems unlikely to me that knowing the historical background of the various tenets of different belief systems will have much affect on any discussions among their adherents. I see no evidence, at least among these postings, that "convictions about the divine that are considered non-negotiable" can be (much or often)separated from the issues, practical or otherwise, that are important to members of religious groups. Certainly some common ground can be found between some members of different groups, but the road to understanding and common efforts at problem-solving is likely to be blocked by a mountain of convictions of the non-negotiable sort. Most true believers of my acquaintance seem quite unable to disconnect such convictions from any sort of conversation about what to do about anything.
I know many intelligent, educated religious folks, and the tendency in any discussion of worldly problems or solutions is to try to make it fit into the box containing those non-negotiable convictions; and if that fails, to "turn it over to God"...ie, stop thinking about it.

Organized systems of faith and intellectual curiosity in any but the prescribed directions seem to be generally incompatible. "Question not!" is the unwritten commandment of most Judeo-Christian types of religion. Exceptions exist in individuals, but rarely in large enough groups to exert much influence, or create much dialog.
The question "can there be common ground?" can be answered, in my opinion, by the statement; There IS, in fact, lots of common ground. The problem is getting anybody to step out on it.

Hoping for peace anyway
char

Anonymous, the case of Abdur Rahman still saddens and outrages me. It was like something out of the Dark Ages. But I agree with Friend: I think the fate that Rahman almost suffered says less about Islam than it does about the value that different cultures place on freedom of conscience.

If we believe in the oneness of everything, we become one with everything and everybody and do not need arguments or dialogues about our differences. What if spirit or whatever we may want to call divine intelligence has represented itself to different people in different ways. The purpose would be the best representaton to each culture to be best understood by that respective culture. It is only when man and his ego wants exclusive rights for his god to be the best or the only that we have bloody, hateful, political conflicts over the differences. If there is a devil, it siezes these differences to use for evil. If I am you and you are me, what can be the difference?

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." (That is an excellent quote!)

"Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know." (verse 56, Tao te Ching)

Sometimes it looks like people are more concerned about appearing right (or correct) than they are genuinely concerned for another person's well-being. And all in the name of religion.

The Iranian and Afghanistan governments don't speak for all Muslims, and they don't even speak for all Muslims in these countries. The Muslims I come in contact with are like the Christians I meet in the United States, illuminated by their faith, love their family and friends, abhor violence and respect other people's opinions. I think that is a good recipe for coexistence.

Here is a question to ask before a conversation:

-- Does a religion mandate that anyone who converts or leaves that religion be put to DEATH?

Because that is the case with Islam.

It should wake people up - that in both totalitarian enemy Iran and "democratic ally" Afghanistan both Islamic nations view that it is lawful to kill someone simply because of their RELIGION - and that is Islamist law that "apostates" who convert from Islam to another religion or atheism - must get the death penalty.

The hard questions that no one will discuss:
-- what does this say about Islam?
-- what does this say about Islam's ability to co-exist with other world views?

Question to Kathy
It is true that we hear much more from fundamentalists on all religions than from the moderates. It gives the impression that those vocal fundamentalists represent most of their religion. Why do you think that is? I often drive from Salt Lake City to Seattle to visit my daughters and I listen to some "Christian" radios along the way and it is extremely fundamentalist, very right-wing. Probably those extremists have better ratings !

I stumbled across this online conversation and was so immediately intrigued I read every comment. I must say, Canyon's remarks, like most of the vile spewed from the mouths of religious fanatics I have known or heard over the years, made me laugh. And then it made me tremble. I am given great pause by these blind following, Jim Jones Kool-aid Drinkers, as they are large in number in our nation and believe their way is the only way. These "Christianists", as DKM labeled so well, seem to know everything, yet nothing, and they will stop at nothing to shove their religiosity down other's throats.

DKM is also on point with his/her observation of the sidebar quote from Sister Anne Elizabeth--the first priority of college should be education. Education, in all its infinite possibilities, is where discovery is made, and will continue to be made as education advances. That is, if people are motivated to seek it.

Having