All Comments (49)

wow, am i first? hmmm. nothing to controversial here. I doubt if this article attracts too much hear

Of course there are no easy answers. However, inter religious dialog is a smart start if we want to pursue these answers. One important reason why people worldwide are at their learning stages is because learning is a life long effort, role, job and obligation; learning doesn't end with a university degree. Even if I would live to be over one million years old, I would still learn something inspiring. The more we learn about each other's sensory and interpretation abilities and the driving force behind their decisions on how they interpret information. The greater empathy skills we'll bee able to develop, preserve and master.
The best way to appreciate our multilateral efforts is to think about how our world would be like if no effort for constructive dialog ever took place? How the world would be like if Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other individuals of other religions never made any form of common consensus with another cultures? The best answer to that question is that it would not be pleasant, pleasing or appealing to say the least.
A past colleague of mine from Berkeley College asked me what enlightenment is and how someone or a population can achieve enlightenment? After pondering these questions for a long time, the best answer I could give as of right now would be is that for as long as we continue to learn from each other on a permanent basis and discover the full variation of people, then we've reached enlightenment, which could only get better and better.

GK,

Ahh, you keep excellent records.

The comment was an updated version of Diderot's famous quote.

"Man will never be free until the Last King is strangled with the entrails of the Last Priest."

We don't want to slight other leaders and other religions.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GK,

"No, not spiteful, only realistic based on the facts."

Past Post of Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

"Humankind will never be free until the Last King, The Last Queen and the Last Dictator are strangled with the entrails of the Last Priest, the Last Minister, the Last Evangelist, the Last Caliph, The Last Imam, The Last Ayatollah, The Last Mawlana and/or the Last Mullah."

No, I think "spiteful" is the appropriate word.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GK,

"No, not spiteful, only realistic based on the facts.

Do you dispute the facts in Daniel Jennings' book:"

I only dispute your conclusion of Wesley having a nervous system disorder. So inacurate and irresponsible to state such a thing.

GK,

No, not spiteful, only realistic based on the facts.

Do you dispute the facts in Daniel Jennings' book:

i.e.

"The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley is a non-fiction book written by American author Daniel R. Jennings and published in 2005 by Sean Multimedia. Relying heavily upon actual quotations from the writings of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, Jennings presents various types of supernatural phenomena as they were recorded by Wesley. These phenomena included visions, dreams, miraculous healings, instances of persons passing out during Wesley’s sermons, supernatural answers to prayer, the unusual fates of some of Wesley’s critics, and cases of demon possession."

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GK,

"Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders/foundations of said rules of life."

It's really not that hard, Concerned. Especially if one isn't so biased and spiteful against the historic Christian faith to begin with.

GK,

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders/foundations of said rules of life.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
GK,

"Are you sure he did these things? And who paid for said charitable activities? What was his cut if there was any?"

Funny you should ask those hidden agenda type of questions, Concerned.

Over time, Wesley became pretty wealthy (for that time period) due to his religious publications, but interestingly enough (sine you brought it up) he chose to not increase his living expenses and he gave his wealth to the ministries I mentioned in my previous post. His motto was, "Earn all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can."

His Methodist societies (small groups of Christians spread out all over England) also contributed toward said causes.

To this day, UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief)is recognize globally right up there with the Red Cross in terms of being immediately present to help people during times of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami, etc.

Wesley's unique blending of faith and social justice lives on today (not just in the United Methodist Church) but through a variety of Wesleyan movements, not the least of which is the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Wesleyan Church.

Being the open minded person you are, I'm sure you'll be more careful before labeling people as hallucinators simply because they are living out the historic Christian faith.

At least you backed down from the "entrails" reference and are now using "pink slip" language.

You're moving in the right direction!

GK,

Are you sure he did these things? And who paid for said charitable activities? What was his cut if there was any?

Concerned States:

"Sorry about that. John W. did so many strange things..."

Like helping widows, orphans, feeding the hungry, starting schools for childen, and caring for the sick.

GK,

Sorry about that. John W. did so many strange things that I lost track of what he imagined aka hallucinated about but he was in the good company of Luther, Calvin, Smith, and Henry VIII, also founders of Christian-based religions who also suffered from the belief in "pretty wingy thingie" visits which in the case of Smith was an hallucination since he actually thought he talked to an angel named Moroni.

Lets go with as the official description:

"The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley is a non-fiction book written by American author Daniel R. Jennings and published in 2005 by Sean Multimedia. Relying heavily upon actual quotations from the writings of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, Jennings presents various types of supernatural phenomena as they were recorded by Wesley. These phenomena included visions, dreams, miraculous healings, instances of persons passing out during Wesley’s sermons, supernatural answers to prayer, the unusual fates of some of Wesley’s critics, and cases of demon possession."

as a good summary.

Curious,

Hmmm, did your guardian angel fluff his/her/its wings today??

History shows that superstitions were rife in the times of the formation of religions. The general populations believed in most anything even up to the time of Joe Smith. This has changed as the illiterate general populations became educated and are now seeing that "angels" were/are nothing more than fictional "pretty wingie thingies" and prophets were/are nothing more than fortune tellers.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You made these two statements. Which one is true?

"And note I said the founders suffered from a belief in/had hallucinations. I did not say the preachers of these religions suffered from hallucinations."

"Apparently he (John Wesley) did (hallucinate)since he was a NT preacher."

So which is it Concerned? Founders or preachers?

Curious,

Hmmm, did your guardian angel fluff his/her/its wings today??

History shows that superstitions were rife in the times of the formation of religions. The general populations believed in most anything even up to the time of Joe Smith. This has changed as the illiterate general populations became educated and are now seeing that "angels" were/are nothing more than fictional "pretty wingie thingies" and prophets were/are nothing more than fortune tellers.

CCNL:

All of what you say is simply alternative explanations, certainly not proof of anything. They are someone's opinions, based on what other people did in the past. You can't say "just because the greeks did it with their gods, then the Christians and Jews must have done it too."

As for angels, if they are real, then they are creations of God, and can therefore look and sound however He would like them to.

Curious,

The "Jesus" deity problem:

It was the norm in BCE's and early CE's to ascribe "godliness"/descendency to the great men of the times. The authors of the NT followed the norm as noted in the reference. The Greeks were quite good at making gods out of just about anything. The authors needed to keep pace to impress the locals.

Many Catholic theology professors have come to agree with Aquinas and JP II with respect to Heaven being a Spirit (Physical body free, there fore no bodies of Jesus or Mary) State. See
http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM for added details.

Angels:

If angels did exist they would also be spirits, no physical appearance, no wings, no voice etc) being residents of Heaven. But what we see in the ancient religions via texts and archeological findings are depictions of winged "beauties"/birds? protecting whatever. Again the OT ,NT, Koran, and Mormon scribes simply carried on the traditions/superstitions.

With respect to the historical Jesus, see the review published at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

What these NT scholars have concluded about the historical Jesus:

:Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

I recommend reading a number of the books listed on the referenced net site to get a "flavor" for how these scholars made their conclusions.

ccnl wrote:

"With respect to the deity of Jesus:

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity.""

I have no idea what this supposedly proves about Jesus at all.

You also gave all kinds of examples of references to angels way back in time. Sounds to me like you are giving even more evidence FOR angels, not against them. Looks like lots of people saw them all through the ages.

Also, your statements about what is being taught at "many large Catholic universities" about the bible is misleading. While there may very well be a professor here or there mentioning these things in his classes, these beliefs are in no way being promoted by the universities or the church as the Catholic belief.

You give the same tired, old arguments made by the same tired, old men; and it's really getting tired and old. JD Crossan is not a revered expert on the life of Jesus or the Old Testament; neither are the majority of the members of the jesus seminar. He, and others like him, have not spent their lives seeking the truth. He has, however, spent the past twenty years trying to disprove the Bible, and that is very different.

G K,

Hmmm, lets review this again:

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supernatural_Occurrences_of_John_Wesley

"The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley is a non-fiction book written by American author Daniel R. Jennings and published in 2005 by Sean Multimedia. Relying heavily upon actual quotations from the writings of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, Jennings presents various types of supernatural phenomena as they were recorded by Wesley. These phenomena included visions, dreams, miraculous healings, instances of persons passing out during Wesley’s sermons, supernatural answers to prayer, the unusual fates of some of Wesley’s critics, and cases of demon possession."

John W saw visions, performed "miraculous healings, had parishoners swooning, had supernatural answers (whatever they are), strange deletions of opponents and cases of demons of the demented possession but he was free from any mental disorders??????

And note I said the founders suffered from a belief in/had hallucinations. I did not say the preachers of these religions suffered from hallucinations. They do however suffer from being brainwashed in said religion.

Anyway it is time to "pink slip" all these priests, preachers, ministers, clerics, imams and rabbis for all the mumbo jumbo they have been feeding us these past millenia.

Concerned:

You are irresponsibly stating that John Wesley had a nervous system disorder (hallucinations) and I reject your categorization of him in this way.

I also find it incredulous that you have stated that all NT preachers suffer from hallucinations.

Debunk historic Christianity all you want, but please don't be so patronizing. Some of my best friends are atheists, you know.

Jililah

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

Thank-you for the humility and wisdom of your question and observations.

"We may not be where you wish us to be" must be more inclusive. We none of us is where we wish to be!

Whatever our rational and religious convictions, the temptation to boo and hiss bespeaks a violence inherent in our fallen human natures that is suffered by all humans and requires healing.

Sharing the living vision of reform and renewal is the road to truth and freedom. Let's travel together in peace without rancour.

GK Chesterton,

Did not John Wesley believe in the NT angel visitations?? i.e.

The visit of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, Gabriel's revelation to Mary about her conception, the angel talking to the shepherds in the field, the multitudes of many angels filling the field's sky, Joseph's "do not be concerned" talk about Mary's pregnancy and the Herod dream warnings, the angels serving Jesus after the temptation and of course the "fellow" at the site of the resurrection????

Apparently he did since he was a NT preacher.

That said, he then believed in the hallucinations either by the "visitee" or the hallucinations of the NT authors since angels are fictional characters borrowed from the myths of the religions of the ancients e.g. the Hittites.

Then there is this information:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supernatural_Occurrences_of_John_Wesley

"The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley is a non-fiction book written by American author Daniel R. Jennings and published in 2005 by Sean Multimedia. Relying heavily upon actual quotations from the writings of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, Jennings presents various types of supernatural phenomena as they were recorded by Wesley. These phenomena included visions, dreams, miraculous healings, instances of persons passing out during Wesley’s sermons, supernatural answers to prayer, the unusual fates of some of Wesley’s critics, and cases of demon possession."

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated states:

G K Chesterton,

"The bottom line which you have seen many times:

There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations (e.g. seeing and talking to "angels" and being tempted by the demons of the demented in person)/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

What happens if you don't recognize the flaws in the foundations of contemporary religion???

This for example: The book of death aka the koran bases its authenicity on Mo's communications with that "pretty wingie flying talking thingie" fictional character called Gabriel who was borrowed from the Christians who borrowed "him" from the Hittites and other ancient religions.

Ironic how a peaceful fictional character ended up giving credence to a violent religious movement!!!!!"

As long as you keep posting that John Wesley 'suffered from the belief in/hallucinations' I will hold you accountable for such rubbish.

QK,

See the authors, list of books, biographies listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

It is also amazing how the attestation/stratum analyses used by the Jesus Seminarians, e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, agree with what is currently being taught in graduate theology classes at many large Catholic universities (e.g. Catholic U, Notre Dame).

i.e.
Major agreements achieved but by different methods:

1. There was and will be no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

As per J.D. Crossan,
From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus????
“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Recognizing the flaws in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity by the "kneelers" and "pew peasants" will eventually converge these religions into some simple rules of life. No clerics, imams, rabbis and priests needed or desired. It will be called the great "Pink Slipping" of religious leaders.

And as per James Somerville, Philosophy professor emeritus from Xavier University, Cincinnati,
"The faith of the vast majority of believers (and non-believers) depends upon where they were born and when."

It is disturbing that such violence and hatred continues unabated due to radomness of birth.

And as per Somerville, "There is no religion in Heaven. Religion is only the vehicle (but not the only way) to get there. It is left at the Gate."

First, LDS and other religions are of little consequence to me in this discussion. My interest lies in Christianity. Don't muddle the discussion with other religions at this moment.

Second, because other religions (cults) said they had angels or a certain person was claimed to be divine, how does that negate other claims?

Third, taking away God's omniscience (you're not taking it away really, you're redefining it. It happens in evangelical circles ie. open theism) does not mean prophesies are bunk all of a sudden. The logic doesn't follow. Could Isaiah not receive a prophesy from God about some detail concerning Jesus considering Jesus is God?

And really, Crossan and Borg should be read, but not uncritically and not without looking to the other side of scholarship. They by no means represent the majority of evangelical scholarship.

First, LDS and other religions are of little consequence to me in this discussion. My interest lies in Christianity. Don't muddle the discussion with other religions at this moment.

Second, because other religions (cults) said they had angels or a certain person was claimed to be divine, how does that negate other claims?

Third, taking away God's omniscience (you're not taking it away really, you're redefining it. It happens in evangelical circles ie. open theism) does not mean prophesies are bunk all of a sudden. The logic doesn't follow. Could Isaiah not receive a prophesy from God about some detail concerning Jesus considering Jesus is God?

QK,

My comment was about angels aka "thingies" but since you asked about the wide range of OT/NT references:

With respect to the deity of Jesus:

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

With respect to prophecies:

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given gifts of Free Will and Future.

With respect to angels:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family/scribes had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile (See the books written by Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, members of the On Faith panel). We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Did Islam was mostly spread by sword?

Can someone explin: Mongols invaded and conquered then Muslim kingdoms. However, the sword carrying conquerers chose to convert to Islam. Why did the Mongol swords with all their power convert to Islam when Muslims had no power or sword under Mongols?

According to Bernard Lewis, the Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University,:

“In the early centuries of Islamic rule, there was little or no attempt at forcible conversion.”

[REF: “The Jews of Islam” by Bernard Lewis. Page.17].

The Columbia History of the World states:

“European Christians claimed that Muslims gave unbelievers, mainly Christians and Jews, the choice of conversion to Islam or death by sword, but this was not the case."

[Ref: “The Columbia History of the World.” Edited by John A. Garraty and Peter Gay. Page 264.

"This for example: The book of death aka the koran bases its authenicity on Mo's communications with that "pretty wingie flying talking thingie" fictional character called Gabriel who was borrowed from the Christians who borrowed "him" from the Hittites and other ancient religions."

I suppose I would like to see your sources saying that the Bible/OT/Jewish stories were taken from the Hittites and other ancient religions. This seems to be a safe haven for Bible critics to run to, but where is the real backing for this claim?

G K Chesterton,

The bottom line which you have seen many times:

There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations (e.g. seeing and talking to "angels" and being tempted by the demons of the demented in person)/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

What happens if you don't recognize the flaws in the foundations of contemporary religion???

This for example: The book of death aka the koran bases its authenicity on Mo's communications with that "pretty wingie flying talking thingie" fictional character called Gabriel who was borrowed from the Christians who borrowed "him" from the Hittites and other ancient religions.

Ironic how a peaceful fictional character ended up giving credence to a violent religious movement!!!!!

Dear Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

I see you're still drinking deep from the hallucination well theory. Is that the well in which hallucinations led the 18th century Methodists to care for the orphans and widows?

Why does your hallucination theory not include the adherents of the secular/enlightenment religion?

Of course you know that your irresponsible comment about The Rev. Mr. John Wesley will create such a response.

Mr. Wilberforce who ended the English slave trade is being remembered today on the Anglican Episcopal calendar. He spent 18 years of his life pushing that legislation through parliament. Do you have a clue as to what led him to do such a thing at great cost to his health and reputation? Not hallucinations. God's concern for all people.

Incidentally, John Wesley's last letter before he died was written to Mr. Wilberforce, encouraging him to not give up in his work toward ending the slave trade.

Even if I was brainwashed, I would think that this would clear a few things up for me.

Tim,

Did Jesus really die for our sins? Not according to many contemporary NT scholars.
Here is what Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith Panelist, has to say about atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts).

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

And Muhammed was a model citizen??? Give me a break!!!

Muhammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab who had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics where most of this misery is sponsored by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

This is a central authority for Islam: It is the Quran. There is a central authority for Christianity: it is the NT. We are both people of the book. The literal mean of the book(s) is our guide. The true believers will always take the book literally so forget about interpretations because that is an excuse by a liar. Do you see any difference in the world view of the NT vs. the that expressed in the Quran? That will not change because the books will not change. Both books are held by their believers as the unchangeable revelations from God. Who is right because the image of God in each is totally different. Therefore, the God of each is not the same God. One God is a loving, triune God the other a stern, authoritarian God who demands submission above all else.

There is an model person for Islam: it is Mohamed. There is a model person for Christianity: it is Jesus Christ. Who would you like to rule your life, Jesus or Mohamed? Did one not die for you but the other waged war, ruled and is also said to have been a pedophile. The other was without sin and refused to become king. Do you see that following one model leads to oppression while the other leads to freedom? One give us the story of the good Samaritan which is about tolerance for our neighbors while to the other says to kill those who are not like you, which is all about intolerance. You will become like who you try to follow.

This are countries based on Islamic values: Iran & Saudi Arabia, for example. There are countries based on Christian values: Britain and America, for example.

So there is a central authority (the book), there is a model person, and there are countries that demonstrate the ultimate results. Things are really not all that confusing, just look to the book, the model, and the manifestations.

I read somewhere that Mohammed invented Allah,
because he envied Christianity's God and credo,which he then copied,and tried to outdo.
Makes sense to me.

Hello Concerned:)

So, the Muslim of the week for you is Jililah? Had fun taunting her as a born, bred and brainwashed Muslim here and there? :)

Well, I an illogical, irrational and delusional Muslim, but you know that already. However, I will not give you on what is needed to be done to reform Islam here. That will cost you money. I got paid to do that, but mostly for free in fact. Also, after all, in On Faith threads, whatever I post becomes the rights of WaPo and is sort of in the public domain.

You know how westerners like to steal ideas and patent or copyright it as their own, or to write books on them. Some even come to our region and engage in biopiracy and even tried to patent jasmine or fragrant rice. So, my two cents here instead of a whole dollar's worth as always. Only for Muslims governments and interstate Muslim organisations do I give my whole dollar's worth. They can make something of it.

As you always ask, why should you trust me? And I have the same question in mind with regard to you all the time, judging by you hostile generalisations of Muslims in your posts and apparent promotion of Crossanized Christianity uber alle.

Generalisations of Muslims = generalisations of Christians. That is fact of life then and now.

Best regards as always mate. Be well.:)
J

For Jililah only,

Whereas I was Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Catholicism/Christianity, you were "Triple B'd" in Islam. The way to address the issues with both religions is to come to grips with the flawed foundations of said religions. Below is a short synopsis of these flaws. Please present references refuting these conclusions if you have them.

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his 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/Pagan sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate (as per Karen Armstrong), hallucinating Arab (seeing and talking to "pretty wingie flying talking thingies", also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics with most of this misery being funded by the third Axis of Evil aka Iran.
ref.: the front pages of every daily newspaper.

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

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Carr:
"A bit of luck for the Bishop of Durham that the religion his parents had, the religion he was brought up in and the religion he has studied turned out to be the true religion.

While religions he has not studied in detail are all false.

If he had been born in Lahore, he would probably never have studied Christianity.

How narrow is the path between damnation and salvation!"

This sounds like the tired old argument (and false argument) that every path up the mountain leads to the top.

Yes, Stephen, you have hit the achilles heel of Christianity - that it dares to be exclusive because it tells a particular story of how God created the world and sought (and is seeking) to redeem it. When you read a novel, does that novel need to include every other novel ever written?

And no, it's not luck. It's called "grace." Grace that extends beyond the church walls into the greater world, beckoning people to respond and enter into a covenant relationship with God. This is also known as "prevenient (Latin for, "to go before our awareness") grace."

In other words, God's grace is not confined to just those who fell out of the cradle an Anglican.

A bit of luck for the Bishop of Durham that the religion his parents had, the religion he was brought up in and the religion he has studied turned out to be the true religion.

While religions he has not studied in detail are all false.

If he had been born in Lahore, he would probably never have studied Christianity.

How narrow is the path between damnation and salvation!

Asim:

Please do not refute history. India was plundered and looted by Muslim invaders. Hindus were certainly forced to convert. I am an Indian and a Hindu and there are instances in my family tree where forcible conversions both at the hands of Christians and Muslims have occurred. I think the reason why India is still predominantly Hindu is 1] We held on to our philosophy 2] India was not completely under Babur's rule (hence you have more Muslims in North India than the South) 3] We have also had fantastic Muslim leaders like Akbar the Great who promoted communal harmony (to balance Ghazni and Aurangzeb and Babur)
4] The very essence of Hinduism is assimilation. I doubt if we have managed to do that completely since there still are virulent strains of both Islam and Christianity in India, but they are in a minority.

Sounds like a good study, Tom, and I think you'll find that it would prove quite the opposite of what you think. But first you'll need to expand your scholars outside of North Africa and the middle east, which accounts for much less than 1/3rd of the Muslim world. The most populated Muslim-majority country in the world is Indonesia, number two is Pakistan, there are actually more Muslims in India than Arabs in the entire world. Islam is much bigger, and richer, and more diverse than your selection of "experts" would have us believe.

(If this is a repeat, my apologies, but there is no indication that my previous try was successful).

I find the idea that there is some “debate” going on in the Muslim world between hardliners and moderates to be ridiculous. There may be no hierarchy overseeing all Muslims, but neither is there one among Protestants, and we know pretty well the basic doctrines of Protestantism. There are differences among Protestants, but let’s say you looked at what is considered orthodox by the following: the heads of the Southern Baptist Convention ,the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church; the Archbishop of Canterbury; Pat Robertson; James Dobson; and Jim Wallace. Whatever those six people agreed on would surely constitute Protestant orthodoxy.

Similarly, let’s look at what is considered orthodox Islam by the following: the top three Islamic scholars at Al Azhar University in Cairo; and the Grand Muftis of the following countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco. I’d say whatever those people agree on would constitute orthodox Islam.

Now, I would like to pose five questions to those Muslims:
1. Does Islam allow for the separation of church and state?
2. Does Islam allow for the full legal equality of women?
3. Does Islam allow for religious pluralism? For example, if a Muslim male married a Christian female, would the husband and wife be able to say to their children, “We will attend the mosque on Friday and the church on Sunday and consider ourselves a bi-religious family. When each of you is 18 years old, you will be free to choose. You can continue of bilateral approach; or, you can choose one religion over the other; or, you can choose another religion altogether.”
4. What does Islam say (according to the above authoritative voices) say should be the fate of heretics? For example, if a member of the Egyptian soccer team got up tomorrow morning and announced he was converting from Islam to Christianity and changing his name from Mohammad Ali to Cassius Clay, what do the authoritative voices of Islam say should be his fate?
5. Does Islam allow for the publication of a scholarly book alleging that Mohammad was a fraud?
(Instead of posing the questions to the authoritative voices of Islam, imagine the question was, “What would Islamic textbooks used in the teaching of Muslim students in America say in answer to the following questions?”)

Anytime you are in a debate or discussion with a Muslim, ask him/her what he/she believes the most authoritative voices of Islam would answer in reply to those five questions. Or what answers you would find in an Islamic textbook.
The answers to those questions would put an end to any idea that there is some debate among Muslims over the future of their religion. Or whether even orthodox Islam can be accommodated to a Western liberal, pluralistic society.

I find the idea that there is some “debate” going on in the Muslim world between hardliners and moderates to be ridiculous. There may be no hierarchy overseeing all Muslims, but neither is there one among Protestants, and we know pretty well the basic doctrines of Protestantism. There are differences among Protestants, but let’s say you looked at what is considered orthodox by the following: the heads of the Southern Baptist Convention ,the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church; the Archbishop of Canterbury; Pat Robertson; James Dobson; and Jim Wallace. Whatever those six people agreed on would surely constitute Protestant orthodoxy.

Similarly, let’s look at what is considered orthodox Islam by the following: the top three Islamic scholars at Al Azhar University in Cairo; and the Grand Muftis of the following countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco. I’d say whatever those people agree on would constitute orthodox Islam.

Now, I would like to pose five questions to those Muslims:
1. Does Islam allow for the separation of church and state?
2. Does Islam allow for the full legal equality of women?
3. Does Islam allow for religious pluralism? For example, if a Muslim male married a Christian female, would the husband and wife be able to say to their children, “We will attend the mosque on Friday and the church on Sunday and consider ourselves a bi-religious family. When each of you is 18 years old, you will be free to choose. You can continue of bilateral approach; or, you can choose one religion over the other; or, you can choose another religion altogether.”
4. What does Islam say (according to the above authoritative voices) say should be the fate of heretics? For example, if a member of the Egyptian soccer team got up tomorrow morning and announced he was converting from Islam to Christianity and changing his name from Mohammad Ali to Cassius Clay, what do the authoritative voices of Islam say should be his fate?
5. Does Islam allow for the publication of a scholarly book alleging that Mohammad was a fraud?
(Instead of posing the questions to the authoritative voices of Islam, imagine the question was, “What would Islamic textbooks used in the teaching of Muslim students in America say in answer to the following questions?”)

Anytime you are in a debate or discussion with a Muslim, ask him/her what he/she believes the most authoritative voices of Islam would answer in reply to those five questions. Or what answers you would find in an Islamic textbook.
The answers to those questions would put an end to any idea that there is some debate among Muslims over the future of their religion. Or whether even orthodox Islam can be accommodated to a Western liberal, pluralistic society.

Secular wrote:

"How do you explain a religion born in the hinter lands of arabia expand from Spain to Indonesia, in a few short years. Don't tell me all this spreading was done by simple proselytizing.... Unless you so called moderates start to face up to the historical facts and debate the Salafis in the historical context you are not going to win anything. All you are doing is you are not confronting the flawed adherents."

Christopher Responds:

Actually, there has been a great deal of research in the past few years on the early spread of Islam. While some aspects involved violent confrontations with Zoroastrians, Christian, Manicheans, and Jews (such as in Persia) most of Islam was spread by trade along merchant routes, especially into Europe, Central Asia and the Meditteranean--numismatic evidence and economic evidence from scholars like Devin Deweese bears this out. Islam alone among the monotheistic traditions is the most portable and exportable--since it has no clergy and all that is needed to practice is a sense of time and proper knowledge of the directions. Another reason that Islam was successful in its campaigns is that it adopted Alexander's perspective of "Hellenization"--local areas kept their own individual sociocultural and political traditions. This often made Islam appealing to those living with local despotic rulers. As for "so-called" moderates debating Salafis, some respectful language will go a long way in having your voice heard in this discussion, and if you are suggesting Muslim voices such as Dr. Gomaa and Tariq Ramadan don't know the history of Islam better than you do, you'd better provide some evidence to that effect, lest you look very foolish.

I would contend that your "facts" aren't. They're observations, and observations are dependent upon the view point.

1) From my perspective itt certainly was not a new religion, but the final message of a religion that dates back to be beginning of time. Of course there are no actual facts that can prove or disprove my view point, though both of us will likely think that they are without a doubt spot on. Therefore it's academic and pointless to debate. As for your position that Islam spread by the sword, I would disagree whole heartedly. Certainly nation building and empire building have been involved with expansion of the Muslim masses since the time of the prophet Muhammad, but that was a different world than now, and from what I read of the time of the prophet through the first few caliphs, that expansion was mostly to protect the rights of people to worship as they saw fit. At that time there were few, if any, rulers that saw fit to allow their subjects to worship that besides what they did, and Islam spread to these areas due to it's tolerance not the opposite as some orientalist writers would have us believe.

2) Don't confuse the religion with it's adherents. People since the beginning of time have used religions for their own selfish gains, but the common thread there is not religion but people.

3) Certainly not, it was done in various political, military, out reach, and through the sharing of ideas. I would still contend that the spreading that was done to enhance and enlarge a particular sultan's empire was not proper, and only he an