Questions To Answer Before A Conversation

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 been born and reared in a family of strong protestant faith, I accepted and firmly believed in their interpretation of Bible scripture as the truth for more than 50 years. BUT, at the age of 52, through an intense Bible study (of Moses, no less), I suddenly began to question certain aspects and this so-called truth. Questioning my life-long beliefs rocked my foundation to the core. I thought I would go to Hell for sure! The sheer idea that indeed there may not be a God plagued my thoughts 24/7. I began to bury myself more and more in deliberate research and investigation. The more I studied, the more I questioned, until finally I could not deny it any longer. And so for me, like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Easter Bunny, I discovered there is no 'wizard behind the curtain' either.

Once I came to grips with this monumental turn in my life, that when I die, I am just that--DEAD, then I was able to move forward in life with true freedom. This personal enlightenment lifted all the burden of fear and guilt I had carried around with me all my life from religious convictions; it freed up my time, energy, and a helluva lot of money I had been giving to church, Bible study, and faith based activities. Now, I direct those qualities to doing more real good for the real world in the here and now. And that, for me, is where real truth lies--not in some religion, but simply in being.

I have a theory about Canyon aka Babe Ruth.
He is actually a moderator, trying to emulate the discussion through provocative, devil's advocate type, ideas. I might be too candid, but I just have a difficult time to believe that such people exist. Because, as said AMA, why would Babe Ruth play a game with amateurs like us ?

As a Disciple of the Trinitarian Jesus, I early-on had to ask myself that Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ) question, "But what if he lied?"

As a believer and Disciple and Evangelist, I must also be prepared to "give an account" and to address that Strobel question; along with a raft of others - always pointing to the Bible as the basis for my beliefs.

Yes, a binary system may not be sophisticated, maybe it does not pick up on nuanced shades...but it works for juries and judges and journalists like Strobel.

With Strobel's question and Ms. Pagel's use of the term "pluralistic," as well as Jesus' instructions not to judge, lest we be judged, I have borrowed the mataphor of the bicycle wheel having a single hub, and many spokes. In this metaphor, the hub would be like God and each spoke would be like a path for reaching God. This metaphor provides a vehicle for the website, Pagel's pluralism as well as Jesus' view that only one "spoke" will lead to the "Hub." (John 14:5-7 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.")

So a follower of the Trinitarian Jesus, who believes Jesus' claims regarding His mission and redemptive power, is really left with only one conclusion when examining all of the other "spokes/paths" purporting to lead to the "hub"...the bridge is out!

Fellow members of Bible studies have labelled the quoting of Jesus' exclusive passages as being judgmental. Their pluralism does not square-up with what they are reading as Jesus is quoted in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation. The tug of their societal inclinations towards pluralism almost forces them to question the claims of the Trinitarian Jesus. Many times, they do, and they try to carve out an enormous grey space square in the middle of a rectangle that previously contained only the binary black and white. As they employ "situational ethics" and "I'm ok, you're ok" rationalles from the 1960's their rectangles emerge as grey boxes having narrow bands of black and white forced out to the margins on the left and right sides of their box. The Trinitarian Jesus addressed that conflict by quoting the First and Greatest Commandment.

By quoting the Trinitarian Jesus to anyone advancing down a different path (spoke on the bicycle wheel) , if the Trinitarian Jesus does not lie, I am grace-fully loving my neighbor as myself in advising that the "bridge is out."

If the Trinitarian Jesus lied, all of what I have written can be rejected and maybe every spoke can lead to the hub.

If He told the truth, then he has told us that there are no other paths and our neighbors need to be advised that the path they are on has a "bridge that is out."

Canyon said, "...Christians see Evolution as a silly religion and are still waiting for evidence of its occurrence."

That one statement alone is enough to debunk the entirety of his lecture. I am a Christian, and I do not agree with his specific statement with regard to evolution, nor do I agree with the general dogma he presents as the absolute truth. Canyon does not speak for this follower of Christ, nor does he speak for millions of others.

Canyon's lectures to those of us who disagree with him demonstrate the arrogance and egoism of religious fundamentalism; his just happens to be wrapped in the Christian label.

I see little of the love and spirit of Christ in his sort of Christian fundamentalism. If it makes Canyon happy to choose these beliefs, good for him. I have chosen a different path to understand the life and teachings of Christ, and I think my choice is no less valid than his.

In reading this forum and others, and in my life-long pursuit in understanding our origins, it is sometimes difficult with fundamentalists to find common ground in the very basic and logical questions that Ms. Pagel's presents. Their evidence to support their argument will be the dogma of their belief. They seem unable to concede or even entertain a point, even when I search for common ground.

I have met many fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and some are open-minded in debate. I want to know what makes some so single-minded and dogmatic in their belief that they refuse to concede or entertain points when presented with evidence? I have seen this same behavior in atheists, but to a much lesser degree. I do know many Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists because of my work, and they always seem worldly and eager to explore alternative opinions. I know that there are fundamentalist in these groups, but I am not exposed to them.

So if the conversation is necessary, we need to also have a greater understanding of why certain people will continue to believe that they have a monopoly on truth even when presented with contrary evidence. Why do they not even consider their view wrong when presented with evidence? I need to research this more than I have done in the past.

I read "The Gnostic Gospels" and loved it. Thank you for your work, Ms. Pagels.

If offended, I am often wrong.

I am sorry for our suffering.

Peace and Love to all.

Interesting that Babe Ruth still feels compelled to participate in this T-Ball game.

"Organized Religions that claim "exclusivity" to truth often also have an "expansionist" agenda - of invading and / or converting people totheir faith."

For Christians who believe the Bible is from God and accurate, the issue is not monopoly, but faithfulness. The biblical Christian does not believe that he / she has come to know truth on his own, but rather, that truth has been revealed, ultimately through the perfect teaching of Jesus Christ.

This is not an arrogant position, but one of humility, were personal agenda is set aside for Christ's agenda.

This is why we seek to "expand." It precisely because we believe that what Jesus taught is true, and that true love seeks to share this truth and hope that others embrace it. Think about it, we believe what we think is true. And if it really is true, we will naturally want others to have it.

If I think the coconut shrimp is wonderful, I would tell others, "You should get the coconut shrimp."

Dear Alex,

Please take your argument to one of the previously posted blogs. I refuse to ruin another theological debate with evolution.

Canyon Shearer is a troll, but he is right about one thing (disregarding the childish capitalization) :

"But the truth is that evolution and Creation are polar opposites, they cannot exist together"

When there are two explanations how we got here: a scientific theory supported by overwhelming, repeat: overwhelming(!), evidence, and the other is a bronze age creation myth (let's dismiss for the sake of argument the many thousands of other creation myths); which explanation should a rational thinking human being choose?

Religion is just belief in the Blue Fairy.

I read through all the threads, but mostly saw mud-slinging. Unfortunate.

The truth is what it is, but our knowledge and understanding are limited. It's not just a question of running a few more tests and being able to prove "truth." You can prove how something works, but you can only theorize about why it works. A belief system is just a theory. That doesn't mean that the theory is wrong. As a matter of logic, atheism, Christianity, or Buddhism are all equally likely to be true (or false). Agnosticism is the only purely rational response to the unknown.

Having said which, agnosticism is deeply unsatisfactory for most people, because it denies those parts of our lives -- generally the most important parts -- that transcend rationality. You cannot prove, as one earlier post noted, that love exists; the most you can do is hypothesize its existence from the totality of your personal experiences and the information that you observe. Similarly hate. But our experience tells us that these things are real, and incredibly important, even if they are (as a matter of logic), only theories.

So where does that leave the possibility for dialog? Is it dead? Well, I don't think so. If you accept a belief system -- be it atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wicca, or something else -- you are taking a stand on issues which are not susceptible to proof, but which you believe to be important. This generally implies acceptance that the belief system you are adopting has a "monopoly" on truth, since by definition you are taking a position on what is "true." BUT -- and this is key -- it is still possible to take that step, and be a believer, while recognizing that the truth you have accepted cannot be proven, and thus is not compulsory on anyone else.

I am a Christian, and have been, by choice, since my early 20s. I belong to the Catholic Church, and accept the Christian world view as truth. I guess you would say, it's a "monopoly" on truth. However, I readily acknowledge that I cannot prove the principal tenets of my faith to a nonbeliever. That does not make my belief any less, but it DOES temper my willingness to cram it down everyone else's throat.

We live in a pluralistic society, and people have different beliefs, none of which can be proven. Those beliefs inform their values (and vice versa). But you would not eliminate arguments about values by eliminating religion; people would have different values anyway. For example, some people would still place more "value" on the life of a fetus than on the health, happiness, or well-being of its mother, regardless of whether they espoused particular creeds. So, you should not blame religion for all intollerance. There will be intollerance, and clashes, so long as people are free to think and have to make choices between competing priorities.

The beauty of our system of government is that it permits people the freedom to make their own choices. This, we should cherish, even if it allows people to make choices we believe to be "wrong." The kingdom of God exists in every heart that freely acknowledges His dominion over it. For government policy, the key word is "freely."

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...

Mark, as I said earlier, I don't want to take up yet another section of this board discussion the lack of merit on Evolution, that has been done to exhaustion at:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2006/11/dumb_dialogue.html#comments
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/salman_ahmad/2006/11/the_search_for_common_ground.html#comments

But the truth is that evolution and Creation are polar opposites, they cannot exist together.

Evolution says that Death Created Man
Creation says that Man Created Death

That is an irreconcilable difference. If there was death before sin, then Christ is dead in vain, if there were no no death before man, then evolution is disproven.

Religion is for those that need a simple answer to life, death and after death. A soul is a must in religion so some sort of existence for us will continue. The trouble with souls is figuring out who gets one? Who is worthy? Homo Sapiens (us) would be part of the club, but how about Homo Erectus or Neanderthal who buried their dead, made stone tools, made fire and hunted in groups just like we did while living among us, but weren’t related to us. So who get a soul and doesn’t. If we give Erectus and Neanderthal a soul then can we leave any living things out? How about Fido our faithful pet? Surly we don't have to share the soul club with rabbits or slime worms. This is getting complicated I need to go get my bible.

John

While blogs are not my thing, Elaine Pagels shows consideration for a host of questions.
Based on responses, inquiry is not a factor in higher education.
What happens when people reflect on a question that someone takes the time to present?
When I answer, I think, "Wow, are people serious?
Do they really want to puzzle, play or even work on this as an issue?"
As a practicing Quaker (silent meeting) over the past 50 years,
I value opportunity to review the many different ways that inquiry permits. For me, answers or responses come out of meditation, deep inward quiet.
I leave you there.
Hank Maiden
Sequim, WA
m100@olypen.com

I am interested in all this stuff, but I am finding everything offered on this website to be repetitive thinking, and has little or nothing to do with behavior. For 20 years now, I have had this hobby I call a study of "How Did Humans Get To Be the Way They Are."

As to religion I was impressed by Xenophanes statement. In about 550 B.C, he noted each culture creates its gods in its own image: "The Ethiopians make their gods black and snubnosed. the Thracians make theirs have grey-eyes and red-hair."

Then I noted that the God/Abraham "Kill Me a son" story gave the world the idea that human sacrifice was no longer neccessary. There continued to be much resistance to this idea, so reading further I noted that this God allowed His own Son to be sacrificed, which I think was meant as a "one for all idea" -- no more human sacrifice needed. However, I also noted that worship and sacrifice continued to be closely related. I still find that puzzling.

Along with religion texts and histories, and philosophy texts and histories, I read the history of science and the history of war. I concluded that I am one very lucky white guy.

I also concluded that all applications of ethics, morals and laws come from the muzzle of a gun, or whatever weapons one had at the time.

The two easiest reads I had, and I recommend, are two from Matt Ridley and one from Michio Kaku. Ridley's "The Red Queen" and "The Origins of Virtue" brought everything together for me. Kaku's "Beyond Einstein" was a lot of fun.

In 1947, my fourth grade nun announced that I had the lowest I.Q. in the class, so, this is the best I can do.

This may appear to be off the point, but in the sidebar on this page is a quote from a Sister Anne Elizabeth saying"My friends were planning their college schedules around their soap operas and I was planning them around morning prayer and evening prayer"

I don't see a whole lot of difference between her and her friends since none of them were particularly interested in learning. When I was planning my college schedule, it was around the courses I wanted to learn from and the rest of my life was arranged around my courses. If you aren't interersted in learning, why bother studying at all?

This may be why people who are deeply rooted in their religions are so incapable of having a discussion about the pros and cons of their beliefs and thus the question that this message board is supposed to be about. The ability to analyze, question and learn just is not an intellectual priority with them. Learning requires change and some people cannot deal with change.

A lot of people are very entrenched on evolution, and both sides have "proof" that their side is right . This definitely confused me a lot because at first glance the two sides contradict each other, but after looking deeper I can say that I believe in both. The Bible says God created the world, but it doesn't say how he did it. It says God created the world in six days, but does it mean days as in 24 hour periods? I don't think so, they are just referring to creative periods, God is eternal, so he can take all the time he needs to carry out his plan that he created for us. Evolution says that all the plants and animals (including us) evolved from bacteria or some sort of organism. But how did it all start? Where did the spark of life come from? It definitely wasn't random. I believe God gave that spark of life and through evolution created the life we see every day. I won't get into too much detail, but as I learn I see more and little things all over in science point to a maker. Things like the atmosphere, which has just the right ingredients to block out most of the suns harmful rays (which without being filtered would fry all of life on earth pretty quick) and yet let in light and heat. I've written too much already, but seriously look into it and you will see God's hand in everything, including evolution.

" what actions inspired by religious convictions deserve our immediate attention and energy? How can people of different communities collaborate on them?"

My own feelings is that actions that affect people other than the actors deserve attention and scrutiny. For instance, it is fine for someone to be a creationist as long as they don't act their beliefs to the detriment of other people. E.g., a creationist would not believe that overuse of pesticides will result in resistant pests, an example of selective pressure in action, and is likely to be responsible for flies that eat pyrethroids for dessert. Another example would be those who believe that spare the rod and spoil the child demands that they beat little kids for every small infraction, an example of child abuse if nothing else.

As for different communities collaborating on actions, it would require that these communities base their behavior on something shared, which may not be their religion. We have the hope that since morality seems to be to a large extent hard wired into our brains, at least according to recent psychological studies, that even those of differing religious communities can find some common base on which to coordinate actions.

Some time ago I saw a quote that was tailor made for this message board, but unfortunately I cannot remember the original author.

"Follow those who seek the truth. Flee those who have found it."

I would say that it is very apropos and good advice for all of us.

Aside: Canyon, my boy. You are a Christianist, not a Christian, and calling yourself one gives real Christians a bad name. In the future, please desist from false pretenses.

If Canyon had really read his Bible, he'd know there were TWO trees in the Garden of Eden. One was the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the other was the Tree of Eternal Life. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the first one, but they did. Then he said, "If they now eat from the second tree, they will be like me." Thus he thrust them out of the Garden. I'm not making this up; read Genesis.... (I just love it when people who want to tell all the rest of us that we have to be Christians to be "right with God" don't even know the details of their own Great Books.)

Canyon:

Are you for real? Because of the Christian right-wing wing-nuts that have ruled this country for the last 6 years, AMERICA now looks like an Orwellian novel.

Canyon,

Three comments: First, The one rule in Genesis 2 is not "don't touch the tree" but "don't eat its fruit." Eve is actually inappropriately adding to God's Word in Genesis 3.3 when she tells the serpent that she can't touch it. (Note that God doesn't ask about touching the tree in v. 11.) Second, I would argue that the Bible is robust to different English translations by the faithful (and why should the translation to English and not to any other language be "key"?). Third, without referring to specific issues, Christian ethics is a good deal more complex than you make it seem.

As for Prof. Pagels' piece, I take issue with the second paragraph. Considering the works listed in her bio, I find her questions in it not quite neutral because she presumably already has her answers waiting for a future post. In any case, the paragraph's emphasis on purely human causes and motivations makes powerful rhetoric against the possibility that any system of belief could be exlusively true.

Her rhetoric can also be turned against atheism and pluralism. In particular, we can ask "what's at stake" in making the claim that there is no god or that all religions contain partial truths about God. The stake many (not all) atheists have in their belief is not to be constrained by any rules or desires but their own. A pluralist might have a stake in full acceptance by people with all worldviews, even if it means choosing between accepting flat contradictions or denying the essence of these worldviews; or simply in being accepted by a community of pluralists, particularly one of high standing.

I won't speak for Prof. Pagels, but I think it's fair to ask what her stake in her work is. If she plans to speak for the early Christians as to what stake they had in promoting their beliefs, intellectual honesty would seem to require that she first state her own stake. (My own stake? See John 1.12 and Matthew 28.19.)

I see the evidence of truth everywhere on this planet. A definition of truth I find clear is: "that which is true for all people, for all times, for all places. Absolute truth is truth that is objective, universal, and constant." (McDowell) Creation, science, the reality of human life all combine their truths to give us insight and answers. And the answers must conform with reality. We still have an infinite number of mysteries to understand about ourselves and our universe. Who of us could have created one cell of it? We are fretting over global warming, yet who of us has ever controlled the climate? or the position of the sun? Everything we know about this planet is complex and infinitely creative. All that holds it together is beyond our power to create or control. Yet we can somehow deny an intelligent designer beyond ourselves. Who of us can say that there is no universal right and wrong written in ourselves? What right minded person believes rape is right? or murder? or stealing that which belongs to another? or opression? Understanding the reality of an intelligent designer who obviously created an order to our world and made it possible for us to be a part of it, why would'nt he design a way to have an intricate part of our lives? To answer the obvious questions of where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going and the source from which we answer these questions determines our belief system, our world view, our intimate faith. Truth is what conforms to reality.(Colson) The best case for truth is living out a lie and seeing its consequences. We live in an era where truth becomes whatever one believes. "You have your truth and I have mine." "But if all propositions are equally true, in the end none is true. I believe there is a truth, and it is knowable; and it matters because it's literally about life and death."

Truth is relative, and all relativity comes from God. So all faiths have some truths, and who is this "He/Him," Nita? And if God is a God of Order, who is the God of Chaos?

Claims of absolute truth are claims of absolute power. Therein lies one of the problems which rends potentially productive "interfaith dialogues" or even innocent blogs to ribbons.

What is going on in the religious world and what is going on in the political world are all tied together and you can't adequately understand one without understanding the other.

If you take the position, that is rather self evident, that the books attributed to Moses were made up along with Matthew and Revelation you get a totally different world than what is normally considered. Since the writings attributed to "Moses" can not reasonably be any longer maintained as true or even the inspired word of God then something else has to be presented. The concept of "Evolution of Species by Natural Selection" has been pushed but it too is no longer reasonably maintainable. Thus an entirely new working concept needs to be put together that recognizes a God of the Universe that revealed Himself in Jesus of Nazareth! But people like/want the Bible story/account and are not particularly interested in replacing it. So there needs to be conversations etc. to get peoples everywhere to recognize that "Abraham etc." was made up and there needs to be a set of common rules for everyone to live by.

Once you get the picture that the "law of Moses", and the writings attributed to him, was/is an invented political system you start to "with all thy getting get understanding".

Truth is absolute, and all truth (good) comes from God. So most faiths probably have some truth, and insofar as they have tolerance for other faiths and have charity towards all and love their neighbor as themselves, they will please Him because He said so. Since God says he is a God of order, then it is probable that there is a Church somewhere that spiritually minded people should look for, whose adherents are examples of what a child of God should be, and who remember that every person on this earth and who has ever lived on this earth is a child of God and He loves us all and wants us to be good, because then we will be happy.

Alex,

You have sorely misunderstood separation of Church and State. The Founding Fathers said, "The State shall make no law infringing on the Church." It was a direct responce to the Church of England being ruled by the Monarchy.

To separate religion and politics is impossible because you can't seperate religion from people. Everyone believes in something, even if that belief is that we came from dirt 4.6 Billion years ago and our morals are our own creation.

I wonder how long it will take for your secular people to realize that the lack of religion in Europe is creating for rampant hedonism;where it is now legal to kill delivered, breathing, babies in Norway and will soon be legal in the UK...you know what's next? Old people, then fat people, then stupid people, then Europe will look a little like an Orwell novel.

Yay! I'm going to heaven to be with Canyon Shearer and George W. Bush!

I would disagree with the premise for "conversation" in this blogg.

Understanding the history of particular beliefs will not, as history continually proves, stop religious hatred and violence. Understanding the history of irrational belief doesn't make it rational.

It precisely the fact that every religion has an irrational "non-negotiable conviction about the divine" that makes any serious dicussion with rational people impossible.

Good luck with the common action among irrational believers.

Bob

The fact that many religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth is what makes conversations like these -- often ruled out in the past as impolite or impossible -- so necessary.

What we need to ask in such conversations is how, historically speaking, each tradition began, and what pressures generated such claims to monopoly. We might ask, for example, against whom such claims were made, and for what reasons? What is at stake in making them?

Second, 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?

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

Finally, what actions inspired by religious convictions deserve our immediate attention and energy? How can people of different communities collaborate on them?

Posted by Elaine Pagels on November 20, 2006 12:00 PM

It seems to me that Kalyan Viswanathan has it right when he makes a distinction between the exclusivity of monotheistic faiths and the inclusive and pluralistic nature of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism etc. That is an important issue that is always missed in all our discussions about religions. Arrogantly, we disregard the presence of at least a thid of the peoples on this planet who have never felt the need to hold up their personal faiths as something all others on this earth must embrace. In fact, the Hindus say that truth is one and the wise call it by many names. The Buddhists, Jains and the Taoists have no quarrels with any who want to march to their own drummers. It is only those who belong to the Abrahamic faiths seem to have this ugly itch to teach others to scratch themselves as we do!

The Abrahamic faiths have also the past used their faiths as political tools to subjugate the "pagans and heathens". Fortunately for mankind, the non-Abrahamic faiths have not used their faiths to maintain hegemony over others. That is something that the zealots of monotheistic faiths ought to learn and emulate. They should also cast aside their obsessions to convert all others on this planet into their respective faiths.

Religious proselytization ought to be banned as antithetical to the practice of human rights. The UN should take a lead in doing that and also speak out against theocracies. Theocracies should be disallowed from holding full membership in the United Nations until they change their Constitutions and become secular.

Our founding fathers showed great wisdom by insisting on the separation of church and state. And much of the European nations have also seen the virtue of separating religion(s) from the affairs of state. But, during the last six years, our President seems to have made the US regress mightily by whipping up Christian fundamentalism to engage in a crusade against Islam in the name of terrorism. And the Jehadis of Islam are using that to whip up hysteria among their cohorts to proclaim their aims of world domination through Islam.

Here is where the nearly two billion people practicing non-Abrahmic faiths have much to teach the monotheists, especially those like Canyon Shearer and others who believe that their faith alone can provide passports to "heaven".

My sincere and deepest appologies for ending the conversation; I was hoping to see some other religions answer the questions. :(

I guess it's no fun for you when you're trying to have a friendly game of T-Ball and Babe Ruth steps up to the plate...

It is essential to ask ourselves, "To whom am I, and to whom are we-the "other." Even more important, we must be able to acknowledge if there are those whom we define as "other." When we relegate anyone to "otherness," we are closing ourselves from the Mystery. When we imprison anyone in that "otherness," as if we alone have truth, we have lost "the oneness, the union of conflicting opposites" which is essential for wisdom, for holiness, for godliness. We are thus ourselves imprisoned on the horizontal axis of secularism. Only in embracing the oneness of "us/them"- will we be united with the vertical axis-God.

So, the Buddhist says, "All beings without number I vow to liberate," meaning, among other things, a liberation for all from the imprisonment of my mind, my prejudice, my unholy exclusivity and righteousness.

So, the Catholic says, "My God and my All," meaning the union of "I/thou" in God and the dissolution of all otherness.

So, the Quaker says, "There is that of God in everyone."

Looking back to the beginning is the correct way to decide what it is one actually has. The problem is the fog thrown up by both time and accepted "truths" from the more recent past. What we can say for sure is everyone with a vested interest, the clergy and others who profit from "truths" are not likely to admit it when their truths are proved to be something else.

How accurate is the claim that what Christians believe today is the same thing they believed a mere 500 years ago. In the year, 1492 the world was proved to be round. The Bible is based upon a flat earth. Jesus threatens people with the abyss. St John, Revelation does the same complete with shafts connecting the surface of the flat earth to the abyss. If the Bible is the word of God then God must not have known the earth is round. Christianity exploded like a grenade with literally thousands of faiths springing up coincidental with proof the earth is round. Is there a connection? Did the Vatican, the only Christian faith prior to the discovery make a few changes in how the Bible is interpreted?

We need to look back further in time to get the answers to a lot of questions. That has been done and the original materials used to construct the Bible uncovered. Unfortunately it's the WMD of Christianity. Unlike "Da Vince Codes" that only pokes around at the details, this find says the Bible is bogus, a literary hoax. The true story of Christianity, it's roots are on the internet at http://www.hoax-buster.org

There can be no peace on earth as long as one group of people use their claimed patent on truth to condemn all others to hell. Hell is the key to understanding religion. Hell is the primary hoax of the Bible that is a collection of hoaxes.

Real simple. Virtually nobody wants to die, ever. If I promise you life everlasting, in any form whatsoever, I've got a religion going on, don't I?

I am going to stay simple-minded here. There is only one question. What is dying?

Science has one answer. It's over. Bury it. Burn it. Say a couple of nice words.

Faith's answer is contained in all the panelists' essays, and all the posters' responses.

Religion is about control. Politics is about control. All of my favorite philosophers of the past 3,000 years were looking for a new politics, I now understand.

Ontolagical Undecidability, indeed!

De gustibus non desputandum & et cum spiritu tuo.

It seems that in every one of these "On Faith" chats, someone ruins the conversation by presenting, as Canyon Shearer called it, the "Christian point of view." This "point of view" does not recognize the validity of other points of view, as those with other viewpoints are doomed to hell. Why listen to someone who is going to hell?

I suggest a chat on the psychology of those who need to find the absolute truth, and cannot consider that humans are incapable of knowing the absolute truth about anything.

Alex tells us, "

I find it interesting and strange that people/organizations can hold 'claims on the truth'. Truth is not something you can claim. A statement/hypothesis is either true, or it is not. If it is true, it is there for all to witness, and for none to own."

I heartily agree that no one can claim to know all truths. But there are some truths (facts) which are not public ones. For instance, the character of your love for your best beloved is simply inaccessible to others. You can try to tell your best beloved about it, but it remains essentially private. Believers often claim that there are private spiritual events which actually happen and which are inaccessible to others. I'm thinking of the mystical experiences and other sorts of spiritual events which are totally private.

The problems mainly arise in such discussions as ours when we try to understand the spiritual events of others. They are notoriously difficult to describe, and only the greatest of mystics/poets seem to do it at all well. I'm thinking here of Rumi, the Muslim, and St. John of the Cross, the Christian.

How can we be sure of other people's private experiences? I think the answer is that we can't. But neither can we disprove them.

Canyon Shearer got snakeskin teeth!

Excellent questions. I have a couple observations on the process of conversation that these questions are intended to facilitate.

First, I seriously doubt that meaningful conversation can take place between proponents of differing religious paths, if those paths both claim to have a monopoly on truth. At the heart of the "monopoly" concept is "I'm right, and anyone differing with me is wrong." One cannot have a conversation under these terms. At best, you have a forum where all parties can public declare their position, state that it (and only it) is correct, and then politely listen while everyone else does the same. At worst, you have an Inquisition (if one party is more powerful than all the others), or a holy war (if the power is more equal). "Conversation" requires a give and take of ideas, a willingness to seriously consider the others' position. In a system where at least some of the participants refuse to do that, conversation is impossible.

Second, most practitioners of a religion are not considered adepts in that religion's inner mysteries. Frankly, the majority of Christians that I know (for example; I do not know many practitioners of another mainstream faith) do not really know the central tenets of their own branch of Christianity well enough to explain it in more than the most basic terms. My own religion, Wicca, doesn't have a central authority or dogma, but even among us there are few with the spiritual underpinnings to explain what we are. Without the ability to answer any but the most basic questions about their own faith, let alone its history, psychology and metaphysics, real conversation is impossible.

I was working on my answers to Elaine's questions when I read Canyon Shearer's own comments. And I saw the lights ! No need for silly debates anymore! Canyon has all the answers prepared for me already ! From the "greatest story ever told" to the elimination of the "Silly theory of evolution" at school, I embrace all of it.
I am just disappointed that he did not add the fact that the earth was actually flat !!

Who said: "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
Well Kierkegaard was up to something. And I join the people , I quit thinking. It has already been made for me. Thank you , brother Canyon !

I found the posting of Shearer to be a excellent example of the I am right and you are wrong mindset that is so prevalent in today's society. The mere fact that the post claimed to be from the Christian point of view is troubling in that the post supposes to speak for all Christians, well with the exception of Catholics who the post does not consider Christian. As a Christian this post does not speak for me. Much was made of the Christian respect for life, but I did not see one word regarding the death penality. If life is so precious as the post states then all life is so and that of the criminal is just as deserving of the mercy.

I choose not to argue each point made in the post. But it seems to show how the debate over truth can be so hard to have a dialog because people will make claims based on faith that cannot be proven.

I think that part of the reason that conversations between people with different religious beliefs are so difficult is that it is actually painful for us to assimilate ideas which challenge our cherished beliefs and therefore seem to threaten our very identity. When we exhibit good will, sensitivity, and tact, and we make no attempt to convince each other of anything, there is a chance that we will learn something worthwhile about each other and ourselves.

What an interesting forum. No questions need to be asked further, as Canyon Shearer has provided all the answers. In essence, all of history revolves around the statement "I feel", whether this has anything to do with fact or faith or doctrine is unnecessary. This writer seems willing to recreate history, dogma and faith based upon the opinion of the writer alone. Too bad we haven't some insight into the misguided path taken to the listed history given us by the writer. The description of the term "Christians" relating to the unborn is seemingly typical of those awaiting Rapture, whatever that is - Life begins for them at conception and the right to life ends at birth. How else to explain their support for more than a half million dead innocents in Iraq, for the uncaring for miliions in Africa, for genocide in Kosovo and so many other places. I think God intended a message through his Son concerning the second Commandment of the two He pronounced. Which, in effect, is "Love your neighbor as yourself". I choose to believe He meant my fellow human, not my fellow Bible Belt "Christian" who goes to my church and whom I like and who votes as I do and who is not ugly, poor or unsocial.

You know, Canyon, it's one thing to present a point of view. It's another thing entirely to mock it.

Excellent questions, which should be quite enlightening if answered truthfully.

I will answer from the Christian point of view, but I may throw in other religions as necessary, I will annotate that.

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

In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth, and it was Good. God Created man with one rule, don't touch the tree. Man broke that rule, and introduced death into the world. God placed no more rules over the people in order that they would try to govern themselves. These people were sin filled and ran amuck.

In order to allow for the next race to see that people were unable to rule themselves without rules set by God, God destroyed the Earth with a World Wide Flood. Then God gave men 10 rules to live by, which briefly, are, "Love God, Don't Make up your own God, Keep the name of the Lord Holy, Honor the Sabbath, Honor your parents, Don't Hate, Don't Lust, Don't Steal, Don't Lie, Don't Covet". In order to atone for breaking these laws, God gave men the ability to sacrifice lambs and such, through repentance and trust were the Jews saved. Men, in their wickedness continued to invent new laws and the Pharisees developed the oral law, which was a super strict version of the 10-commandments, which made for a ruling body of pretty much every function of daily life. It was stifling. During this time, God promised to save the people from their enemy and that they should be watching out for a Messiah.

A Messiah was born of woman, for in this way the circle was completed, woman introduced death into the world with the first sin and the Messiah cured death.

Jesus Christ, who never broke a single of the commandments, of which the punishment was death and Hell, was beaten and humiliated under a false charge. Just as lambs were once sacrificed to atone for sin, God in the Flesh was hung on a Cross outside the gates in Jerusalem and was sacrificed for the sins of the world. Jesus Christ then rose from the dead, and defeated the enemy of man, death, delivering the soul of all those who would believe in Him and repent of their sins. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to His Disciples and Apostles and told them to Preach the Gospel to all the world.

Of which Paul, Peter and John, amongst others, spent time writing inspired letters to various churches in order that we may receive the doctrine which God wants us to know. By 100 A.D., the Bible was largely completed and an accepted collection of works was included in it. A few apocryphal works sometimes were included, which caused the newly Born-Again Constantine to order a definitive Bible be authorized. In 325, using the Canon of Scripture, the definitive Bible was put together. Major dates in the religion are 1517 when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church, 1603-1611 when the KJV, the definitive English Translation of the Bible was completed, and the final important date is yet to be know, the Rapture, when all Children of God will be delivered to New Jerusalem and Sin will be eradicated from the Earth.

Thus, we have the only religion with a full history of the Earth. Islam also follows the Bible through Genesis 26, where Ishmael splits from the Abrahamic Line and moves to Mecca, but the events between ~2,000 B.C. and 612 A.D. are lost.

Within Christianity, there are two major divisions, not withstanding the Catholic Tradition...which I feel has not been Christianity since the mid 300's. Those two are Baptism and Predestination. The Bible is quite clear that lest you be Baptized you shall not see the Kingdom of God. The definition is where the confusion sets in. The word, "Baptism" comes from a Greek Word and means to be immersed. For this reason, and the fact that the thief on the cross was not dunked in water, I believe that the Baptism is solely in Jesus Christ and as He referred to it, "Living Water", and had nothing to do with actually getting wet in a pond or river. Predestination is the thought that those that will be saved by God were picked by Him, and if you are not one of the elect, you are doomed to Hell. This idea was championed by John Calvin and its greatest proponents today are the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, which is a Judeo-Christian Cult. For most, the idea of predestination has been abandoned and most Christians believe the order to "Go into all the World and Preach the Gospel" still stands.

In different religions, the idea of Baptism is absent to the best of my knowledge, besides Catholicism. As for Predestination, Muslims believe that everyone is born a Muslim and you fall away to apostasy afterwards. All other religions of the world that believe in an afterlife believe that good works will get you there. Christianity realizes that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Therefore, other religions would not believe in predestination because they believe they can earn their way in. Being pre-chosen by God to enter Heaven seems to be a purely Christian idea.

On what is most pressing in the Christian religion is to get your soul right with God, for death comes to all men, and you should be ready for it. In order to be saved from Hell, Christians believe you must repent of your sins, apologize for them and do your best not to do them again, and trust that the death of Jesus Christ was payment for your sins, that your greatest enemy, death, has been defeated and you are washed clean in the eyes of God.

In a worldly sense, Christianity is primarily focused on saving the lives of unborn babies. Because our life was so precious to God that He came to Earth and Died for us, we feel that all life is precious and should be fought for. Christians believe that a baby is a baby from conception, that no post-conception abortion is ethical.

Next, Christians are against embryonic stem-cell research, because it costs the life of a baby. Fortunately, while God has given us many difficult choices in life, He made it so that embryonic stem-cells have no medical benefit, and we will never have the potentially difficult decision to make on whether or not we should save a babies life, or a person with Alzheimer’s. Christians are huge proponents for Umbilical and Adult Stem-Cell research, which saves lives and improves life every day, without anybody having to die.

The final point is the greatest attack on the Bible in years, which is evolution, which is related to prayer in schools. I will not debate it here, I have used On-Faith too much for that already, but Christians see Evolution as a silly religion and are still waiting for evidence of its occurrence. We feel that if you've taken our religion out of schools, you should be required to remove the religion of evolution from them as well.

In closing, I really liked your questions, and I hope you are able to learn where I am coming from.

I find it interesting and strange that people/organizations can hold 'claims on the truth'. Truth is not something you can claim. A statement/hypothesis is either true, or it is not. If it is true, it is there for all to witness, and for none to own.

If religious factions have differing ideas about what's true and what is not, they should present these ideas in an open forum and present evidence in support of their hypotheses.

The problem of course is that this is not happening. Religious sects are claiming all sorts of things without evidence, and are usually intollerant of those who question or disagree.

Augustinian pessimism was not found among all Christians. The Orthodox never accepted this doctrine and after the 16th century the Roman Church gradually and then rapidly abandoned Augustinianism. Augustine's doctrines were based on his inability to understand the contradictory beliefs of the bible and the church. His solution was probably worst than the problem.

Organized Religions that claim "exclusivity" to truth often also have an "expansionist" agenda - of invading and / or converting people totheir faith. This inter-mingles their theology with their politics, to a point where, it blurs the lines between an individual's personal relationship with his God, and his social orientation and activity, and his political agenda. We have to recognize that there are religions that are more "political" and those that are less. And this is where the "clash of civilizations" is taking place. Aggressive, expansionist religions versus Non-aggressive, traditions, or even between two aggressive, expansionist traditions. Without this foundational recognition, all dialogues breaks down into mere propaganda, of one religion trying to convince another of their position.

I recently read Pagels' "Adam, Eve and the Serpent" and was blown away by an observation that she made in the book's epilogue. (I don't have the book in front of me, so below is an approximation of what she wrote.)

Pagels asked why Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin has persisted in Christian teaching for so many centuries. After all, the doctrine teaches that all humans bear the guilt of Adam and Eve's transgression in Eden. Personally, I find that idea to be horrid. But Pagels concluded that people would rather bear that awesome guilt than accept the alternative, which is that death and suffering are random. Bearing the guilt gives people the illusion that they have some control over the world.

So, I suspect that most "monopolies on truth" began as attempts to explain the existence of death and suffering, or in some cases to deny the inevitability of those. In my view, these traditions generate so much passion because of the human fear of the unknown. Maybe one conversation-starter might be the idea that everyone is afraid of death and afraid of the future, regardless of religious affiliation.

These are all good questions to ask, and I think this is a good way to frame "the debate" about religious differences among the faithful.

However, in my experience, I have not found many among the faithful who possess the motivation necessary to do the research to answer these questions, much less ask them in the first place, anymore than they want to actually read what is in their holy books.

It also seems to me that in answering these questions, one would logically conclude that "organized religions" are basically political agendas that have been propagated throughout the last 2,000 years, are not in any way based on truths about the universe, and should therefore be abandoned by right-thinking people.