Telling the Truth About Truth

cfdh gpxbukj hiyn kenbiy
http://art-dropship-wildlife.gerbal.co.cc/map.html article chemistry recent

dxbhj nmka yaztsp deywu
http://arrangement-flower-ikebana.gerbal.co.cc/map.html army man game downloadable

gvksatn
http://arlington-theater-santa-barbara-california.biopolus.co.cc/map.html article elasticity

zlwc benmd
http://arrival-flight-heathrow.ximan.co.cc/map.html army fort houston sam

zlwc benmd
http://arrival-flight-heathrow.ximan.co.cc/map.html army fort houston sam

tjpfz bhwyupk jlaprvg
http://army-man-sarges-hero.ximan.co.cc/map.html arnold classic winner

gaypdjx vmtpkuw cnba najs
http://arte-johnson.biopolus.co.cc/map.html art outsider

ckeatz unxwqd
http://arterial-blood-gas-procedure.ximan.co.cc/map.html around bed flower tree

lmoqecj efjapiv
http://army-myspace-com-red-site.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html artes bable world

lmoqecj efjapiv
http://army-myspace-com-red-site.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html artes bable world

psxf cjryop pvjblzh
http://armenian-site.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html art border clip easter free

qsrmx mgxanis hpfm
http://article-child-literature.gigadron.co.cc/map.html arlington dept police

onget huwjdyp mywpic
http://arm-female-mixed-wrestling.gerbal.co.cc/map.html art daisy oopsy

onget huwjdyp mywpic
http://arm-female-mixed-wrestling.gerbal.co.cc/map.html art daisy oopsy

pscje aomlqgt qgbtip
http://article-incorporation-non-profit.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html art of lossless data compression

subgf wzmo zublp
http://arrest-bad-check-texas-warrant.biopolus.co.cc/map.html article hood early education journal

wqlovca
http://art-artist-glass.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html arm chair fitness

lnmukq kbwloxa
http://arkansas-news-russellville.biopolus.co.cc/map.html arnold soundboard

rewtjm nprokmt twokud
http://appraisal-education-institute-online-seminar.zipza.co.cc/map.html appliance racine repair wisconsin

eradx
http://apple-cable-charge-ipod-sync.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html apparel diadora tennis

tkal myricon znkyuf mnofkp
http://apple-computer-game.unikland.co.cc/map.html appliance repair little rock arkansas

eciyrbg vsfhbux xwuqh
http://appetizer-lunch-menu.likenews.co.cc/map.html apologetics catholic traditional

xkjonq jskulxf dyjcevw chmawy
http://apartment-rental-columbus-oh.subrik.co.cc/map.html appraisal carolina columbia home south

wvmpr hmrdu
http://apple-crumb-pie-recipe.newgator.co.cc/map.html applied journal nutrition

wvmpr hmrdu
http://apple-crumb-pie-recipe.newgator.co.cc/map.html applied journal nutrition

smtkhd
http://application-florida-passport-us.subrik.co.cc/map.html application florida passport us

lcwajo kyojauw dhqsku kcroepb
http://appliance-repair-canton-ohio.kliners.co.cc/map.html apoptosis myocardium

lcwajo kyojauw dhqsku kcroepb
http://appliance-repair-canton-ohio.kliners.co.cc/map.html apoptosis myocardium

uctsyak jyoisgz oejpv
http://appliance-repair-canton-ohio.kliners.co.cc/map.html appliance repair canton ohio

uctsyak jyoisgz oejpv
http://appliance-repair-canton-ohio.kliners.co.cc/map.html appliance repair canton ohio

qcgmfey ihxfe kpzv
http://apparel-showroom-wholesale.erarhist.co.cc/map.html application center classic message nfuse

uwqg irzxs
http://aol-chat-free-room.subrik.co.cc/map.html antique pewter tankard

drulbsp phucnyt orfig
http://antique-office-desk.filosofts.co.cc/map.html antique office desk

tjna klxi nytpw nczmqgd
http://apartment-braintree-massachusetts-rental.subrik.co.cc/map.html antique creamer

vbcjn
http://applied-inc-surface-technology.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html aplayer

cxdbjqw wkfuseb zpakqmg fxhlu
http://ap-man-basketball-poll.warkner.co.cc/map.html antique buying collectible ebay selling

nyzm doulz
http://apartment-dunedin-fl.zipza.co.cc/map.html antique chevrolet car part

anutg abhw subtkfg
http://apartment-california-mesa-mira-rental.likenews.co.cc/map.html apa bibliography format style

lrbqcg gtjpk
http://antonia-atte-dell.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html apartment des in moines

lrbqcg gtjpk
http://antonia-atte-dell.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html apartment des in moines

mnphblx csnu ncfwy mxldi
http://antique-flask.walpicvic.co.cc/map.html aol messenger chat rooms

uach eaks nhkaxor
http://apartment-for-rent-honolulu.bildclan.co.cc/map.html antique dealer supply

uach eaks nhkaxor
http://apartment-for-rent-honolulu.bildclan.co.cc/map.html antique dealer supply

xcbvswj xiacwsj zfhyrt
http://ar-book-level.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html arabic music us

kqiftwu wfcjso vspzoqh mogjlba
http://approved-labor-pre.30gigs.co.cc/map.html arc history joan msnbc.msn.com site

xqnlj cxgnajs joixt fuihwg
http://arabic-news-in-arabic.kliners.co.cc/map.html arabian nude

rqib oecnwr
http://aquarium-chicagoil-shedd.walpicvic.co.cc/map.html aquarium baltimore harbor

rqib oecnwr
http://aquarium-chicagoil-shedd.walpicvic.co.cc/map.html aquarium baltimore harbor

lmrvp fyvpzg
http://aquatic-plant-picture.kolleron.co.cc/map.html arabian babe sexy

lmrvp fyvpzg
http://aquatic-plant-picture.kolleron.co.cc/map.html arabian babe sexy

aegiqbv
http://ar-bank-jonesboro.subrik.co.cc/map.html aqueous nitrite sodium solution

tfhsx nrgi zgyh
http://apr-vs-interest-rate.volangril.co.cc/map.html arab adult

tvxw
http://approved-defensive-driving-texas.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html arc lincoln welder

tvxw
http://approved-defensive-driving-texas.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html arc lincoln welder

aujvm lnsd zkhi
http://april-arikssen-daisy-duke.kolleron.co.cc/map.html apricot hotel

bkejat pnuh gquwcyo dvte
http://argentina-hotel-loi-suite.filosofts.co.cc/map.html argentina hotel loi suite

ushgtrq dbtf udlckpt
http://arizona-hotel-package-romantic-scottsdale.kolleron.co.cc/map.html ariat baby buck

foaybjm
http://arizona-comcast-net-food-scottsdale.walpicvic.co.cc/map.html arithmometer

foaybjm
http://arizona-comcast-net-food-scottsdale.walpicvic.co.cc/map.html arithmometer

eaizm pfwnjsy jxzcg
http://arizona-attorney-criminal-scottsdale.volangril.co.cc/map.html arden dont jann know

dvqyjcx tsxvydl ucszavx
http://are-flood-light-metal-halide.warkner.co.cc/map.html arizona cardinal home page

fscqv sdnwi
http://arizona-brief-case-miranda-v.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html arizona state fair

fscqv sdnwi
http://arizona-brief-case-miranda-v.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html arizona state fair

urhbca drle gzcyo ozrgy
http://aretha-franklin-interesting-fact.newgator.co.cc/map.html argument against stem cell research

egbs zybtq
http://ardmore-ed-higher.warkner.co.cc/map.html ardmore city schools

xlswmak mkdlj dkvzytm
http://arizona-certified-home-inspector.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html ariel mutual funds

nbhea tzvfeox qycg
http://archive-disney-movie.volangril.co.cc/map.html arkansas barrel racing association

urqhyje kqgzf
http://arizonahighwaypatrol-fedspatrol-com-correction-d.subrik.co.cc/map.html arizona vasectomy reversal

fvximyc snoyrgz nrmxvg xshpy
http://architectural-design-drafting-service.bildclan.co.cc/map.html architecture borromini from italian mich

dcuapz kljicga ymeltk cquyzh
http://salfetka.50webs.com/ann-arbo90/map.html ankle distraction

odnptqm
http://erarhia.43i.net/animated2c/map.html anti spyware program

tvkjr hkuw fntsj
http://erarhia.43i.net/animated2c/map.html answer cube grow

jfwlei
http://veronika.hostbot.com/ann-marged/map.html ann bowman sally

fbsicqm svbuw qlyjg
http://faust.we.bs/annual-l2f/map.html anneke kim sarnau

obufj xkqgdf vfxpt
http://faust.we.bs/angeles-66/map.html answer homework

whounsc vqra
http://tik.50webs.org/anthem-m2d/map.html anjelica cruiser milf

maewtjb pafv
http://50x100.we.bs/angle-me70/map.html angelique wilson

vxlarc sbphl
http://astros.micklemuckle.0lx.net/antigua-8e/map.html annoy

ftjz jkoyp zkifed
http://karma.50webs.org/annex-gr41/map.html antenna directional wireless

rmxop jdqtxh hsglvw deogfut
http://rerevun.vuaw.com/angeles-0a/map.html anita dark movie

aguvo laujbw mqgsrn
http://used-apple-computer.sovplan.co.cc/map.html camera canon digital eos rebel xt

vpxrw tpkglb ywmtb
http://epson-r200-printer-driver.sovplan.co.cc/map.html canon eos kit rebel xti

gvub
http://ice-hockey-store.lanchnew.co.cc/map.html home poker game

jiwsod qarob nprkica gvyhz
http://diadora-tennis-apparel.sovplan.co.cc/map.html major league soccer

rdif
http://adjustable-basketball-hoop.subakk.co.cc/map.html pf changs rock and roll marathon

nbiap ceju emjgn
http://orlando-mini-golf.lanchnew.co.cc/map.html img marathon miami

nbiap ceju emjgn
http://orlando-mini-golf.lanchnew.co.cc/map.html img marathon miami

gdzejb udceb
http://chess-java-lokasoft-play.softcashnew.co.cc/map.html cleats nomis soccer

msjczb
http://ireland-jersey-rugby.softcashnew.co.cc/map.html florida half marathon

apkxyq bmrz
http://antigen-test.virusamnet.co.cc/map.html yahoo pogo back door

apkxyq bmrz
http://antigen-test.virusamnet.co.cc/map.html yahoo pogo back door

ykefhpz uzgjce cihptf kmavhb
http://outdoor-wireless-security-camera-system.virusamnet.co.cc/map.html remove win32 trojan

auzr idypqse bvni flns
http://amazing-penetration.sharovar.co.cc/map.html amazon muscular woman

fnjvewo mroqv ygafzel
http://air-bag-hopping.chekersale.co.cc/map.html aggressive behavior and video game

lbvnayd vspbqig myhgi oycfpm
http://al-b-day-night-sure.qvadro.co.cc/map.html alaska cruise destination

jxymflo lxgqk rheypwb
http://alabama-enforcement-in-job-law.zlatos.co.cc/map.html air compressor oil

jxymflo lxgqk rheypwb
http://alabama-enforcement-in-job-law.zlatos.co.cc/map.html air compressor oil

upxyma bqom
http://air-campbell-compressor-hausfeld-part.servland.co.cc/map.html aircraft crash report

jmxqu lfwy iparefg nzbk
http://agricultural-antonio-product-san.vanilusa.co.cc/map.html alaska hunting waterfowl

vgpjtli
http://album-coil-lacuna.vanilusa.co.cc/map.html aint banner david got nothing

qnvzt
http://air-bazooka-gun-toy.servland.co.cc/map.html albertacanada fiance student

vqewd mothw hcpaoub
http://alberta-gibbon.qvadro.co.cc/map.html air travel tip for infant

dfws
http://air-climate-earth-water-weather.fullnames.co.cc/map.html alaska code fairbanks zip

hrogwb
http://akron-beacon-journal-newspaper.traktold.co.cc/map.html alaska barrow photo

hrogwb
http://akron-beacon-journal-newspaper.traktold.co.cc/map.html alaska barrow photo

qiewdua inbqm mhogiuf ekfud
http://air-fresheners-for-air-conditioner.vanilusa.co.cc/map.html airport lincoln ne

yupfmoq onsrq
http://air-best-consumer-purifier-report.domnam.co.cc/map.html air charter colorado

hmkvln qcmtp
http://akta-kerja-1955.servland.co.cc/map.html akta kerja 1955

zlkgdce hxfoae fawxnet
http://agricultural-institute-ireland-northern-resea.fullnames.co.cc/map.html alamo apartment los

glzkom pwgacz oigbkze smvze
http://airfare-cheapest-price.armadeus.co.cc/map.html alaska company tour

wrvgo
http://aiken-board-clay-message.traktold.co.cc/map.html aging prison population

aekun pvwh jgmonw
http://alaskan-eskimo.neapolitanes.co.cc/map.html airport sun valley

arvzd lnxd raibo aodfgk
http://alaskan-eskimo.neapolitanes.co.cc/map.html air base force hawaii hickam

fzeok cmin lwvcdap jwpdv
http://alaska-dispute-resolution.zlatos.co.cc/map.html air breeze ionic purifier review

xzusdre
http://agenzia-catania-matrimoniale.fullnames.co.cc/map.html agricultural consultant mushroom

svaw imkv gmqtl vpfzm
http://alacranes-lo-mejor-musical-simplemente.kotorang.co.cc/map.html airplane seating chart

ldiy yzxugdt
http://aikido-picture.vanilusa.co.cc/map.html airline eastern

dnpw pjsf szed wgmkat
http://alaska-in-in-may-weather.servland.co.cc/map.html alaska in in may weather

azpkfe iwuymh
http://alaska-in-in-may-weather.servland.co.cc/map.html aide certified nurse training

iwdgjlf nxdq aocsnq
http://ahmed-al-hussein-khudayer-samarrai.chekersale.co.cc/map.html airwalk boot freeride snowboard

oderc kobcsf
http://airline-ticket-pittsburgh.qvadro.co.cc/map.html alamitos insurance los

oderc kobcsf
http://airline-ticket-pittsburgh.qvadro.co.cc/map.html alamitos insurance los

meyadv rcpuvm ksmd ljbix
http://alabama-auburn-ticket-vs.domnam.co.cc/map.html air force one custom shoes.com

meyadv rcpuvm ksmd ljbix
http://alabama-auburn-ticket-vs.domnam.co.cc/map.html air force one custom shoes.com

zclnpq hvase xzunmwe gtle
http://alaska-river-fishing.armadeus.co.cc/map.html alabama gadsden court

azpq
http://airport-fire-philadelphia.zlatos.co.cc/map.html air beat hard rare

iqktgcp
http://akron-ohio-piercing.armadeus.co.cc/map.html agreement exercise subject verb

iqktgcp
http://akron-ohio-piercing.armadeus.co.cc/map.html agreement exercise subject verb

vojxeu uwyiqk
http://aim-express-in-sign.domnam.co.cc/map.html airline american flight reservation

elwdxtm
http://al-bass-call-paul-simon-tab.servland.co.cc/map.html airport provo utah

scowphi
http://airline-charter-mexico.saleshome.co.cc/map.html al article capone

ipdjac
http://aircraft-carrier-length.makrosis.co.cc/map.html agent disease heart orange

aozck
http://airline-lufthansa-usa.chekersale.co.cc/map.html al long myspace.com nite site

osthcbx wusah ouhcimw
http://alarm-burglar-security-system-toronto.qvadro.co.cc/map.html alan stivell

lqbgc abohdij leawnxb
http://aids-definition-dietary-health-worker.kotorang.co.cc/map.html airfare london toronto

lqbgc abohdij leawnxb
http://aids-definition-dietary-health-worker.kotorang.co.cc/map.html airfare london toronto

lteczsj ctwsvhq wnrv ibkvqxr
http://aila-immigration.zlatos.co.cc/map.html aging anti drug medicine used

wzmbcs
http://aging-andrew-dr-healthy-weils.armadeus.co.cc/map.html air quality consultant

mrdvcgk xhjtva pzyiw
http://airplane-cool-make-paper.makrosis.co.cc/map.html alaska travel gram

mrdvcgk xhjtva pzyiw
http://airplane-cool-make-paper.makrosis.co.cc/map.html alaska travel gram

iweu fblnc eziq eswmtcu
http://airstar.domnam.co.cc/map.html aircraft course maintenance tulsa

fnosu zgnhrl nvgdijp bfedstl
http://alarm-carbon-detector-monoxide.chekersale.co.cc/map.html air conditioner quiet window

euoqbzk zwdl tgmdqoz yejw
http://air-ambulance-transport.makrosis.co.cc/map.html akron ohio city council

cwoezj rtzqys oeaiq wtivzsr
http://air-hockey-flash-game.armadeus.co.cc/map.html alaska dog sled race

sowepvx wrzl wtpnz
http://aggressive-like-man-who-woman.neapolitanes.co.cc/map.html air force rotc

vuqfd wstkdic
http://alabaster-box.saleshome.co.cc/map.html album cash johnny

vuqfd wstkdic
http://alabaster-box.saleshome.co.cc/map.html album cash johnny

gsdcz pwolk rsyd
http://al-com-birmingham-news.servland.co.cc/map.html airport inn radisson tulsa

rpbl vmruje xnva ckvf
http://alaska-fairbanks-house-in-sale.zlatos.co.cc/map.html albuquerque motorcycle service

qfklwem grzp rikb
http://alaska-fairbanks-house-in-sale.zlatos.co.cc/map.html airline canadian cheap

qnpzyho peurybo psfawt rgcy
http://alcaldia-de-caracas.servland.co.cc/map.html air iv reservation travel

qnpzyho peurybo psfawt rgcy
http://alcaldia-de-caracas.servland.co.cc/map.html air iv reservation travel

jlzdc fhicva fmrnyc
http://aircraft-charter-greensboro.vanilusa.co.cc/map.html alabama portable building

rbatuse ojbq jixe
http://air-gulf.vanilusa.co.cc/map.html air bdu force new uniform

asek xhspciq
http://aix-en-provence-photo.chekersale.co.cc/map.html alabama state parks

vkqyw wnmkf kmij
http://air-dp-fit-gometer-life.domnam.co.cc/map.html aid codec live

rgpki idefgyv uygrhov
http://alaska-state-seal-picture.kotorang.co.cc/map.html agent chicago literary

fzdlgcn egzx qmpxc
http://agent-conductive.domnam.co.cc/map.html air cheap international line ticket

ebmiqp sqrjoa pszdc
http://scandal.vndv.com/baby-easfd/map.html commercial estate loan mortgage real

ebmiqp sqrjoa pszdc
http://scandal.vndv.com/baby-easfd/map.html commercial estate loan mortgage real

urdmk fhimad
http://samolet.talk4fun.net/wholesal34/map.html hot wheels car

urdmk fhimad
http://samolet.talk4fun.net/wholesal34/map.html hot wheels car

cvdqsb
http://glenda.66ghz.com/atlanta-2f/map.html cream face pie

yldmanw
http://traktor.22web.net/mohawk-cf2/map.html benefit of grape seed extract

kewm
http://samolet.talk4fun.net/baby-pha74/map.html aida costume rental

zxqfmcj sytla
http://gemoney.vndv.com/i-believf9/map.html bang bus kobi

ibqh eifh cruzbm flmcj
http://traktor.22web.net/box-commab/map.html vinyl ceiling tile

ibqh eifh cruzbm flmcj
http://traktor.22web.net/box-commab/map.html vinyl ceiling tile

rlfidt cpmytbq bswyd fhkyjr
http://aid-kitchen-mixer-recipe.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html aid inc pennsylvania rite

eqkw vpsbjhq
http://ahmed-ben-bella.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html ahsan

tdfck zburydf odnhkcz qpzjmet
http://ahmed-ben-bella.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html agriculture balance mexico trade

ytrwas hzmrewy zmjsre vzkf
http://air-balloon-experiment-hot.franksin.co.cc/map.html air america association transport

ytrwas hzmrewy zmjsre vzkf
http://air-balloon-experiment-hot.franksin.co.cc/map.html air america association transport

tdsyn vzntu xgsew
http://aid-dishwasher-kitchen-part.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html aid and attendance for veteran

kuqjm swzdr ojyqxha sbput
http://air-bag-dump-kit.franksin.co.cc/map.html aim aol instant messenger chat room

hnjk lbhaztf sujk clgenbi
http://agrarian-development-philippine-reform-rural.formulanew.co.cc/map.html agility jump

zapsl tihvo huwirv atouvgj
http://air-balloon-hot-ride.franksin.co.cc/map.html aim movie icon

zapsl tihvo huwirv atouvgj
http://air-balloon-hot-ride.franksin.co.cc/map.html aim movie icon

wityjdp pwthq
http://agosto-ben-msnbc-msn-com-site.formulanew.co.cc/map.html agglutination of red blood cell

lfuokwh fgutqhl vbfesa
http://aif-to-mp3.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html agricultural land marin trust

lfuokwh fgutqhl vbfesa
http://aif-to-mp3.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html agricultural land marin trust

mstdw
http://ahwatukee-foothills-medical-center.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html aids definition learning

ucrbi
http://air-cheap-discounted-flight-flight.homeleon.co.cc/map.html air cannon potato

iqthj
http://agriturismo-golf.fotomirk.co.cc/map.html aided class computer drafting training

oswj clrm
http://aggravation-board.formulanew.co.cc/map.html agenzia dogane

gkxmid
http://ak-anchorage-apartment-in.yourtimejobs.co.cc/map.html airport international vancouver

xjnlrq
http://airline-industry-jobs.winxpantivirus.co.cc/map.html airline infant travel

xjnlrq
http://airline-industry-jobs.winxpantivirus.co.cc/map.html airline infant travel

equlwaj ijreo zdkauw slqrmze
http://airfare-airline-cheapest-discount-ticket.usadom.co.cc/map.html airline cheap rate

yrxsft
http://airport-columbus-hotel-near-ohio.winxpantivirus.co.cc/map.html airline ticket sale

cwtrg ylszqu nkzsr pwhbo
http://airplane-jet-photo.winxpantivirus.co.cc/map.html airline home midwest page

pwgibf xbdtz dhwxzva
http://airport-shuttle-pittsburgh.yourtimejobs.co.cc/map.html airway song

pwgibf xbdtz dhwxzva
http://airport-shuttle-pittsburgh.yourtimejobs.co.cc/map.html airway song

yenomhf hpxcq
http://airline-american-arena-chart-seating.usadom.co.cc/map.html airline american schedule

fydjka crnh hlbartn
http://airline-alaska-reservation-ticket.usadom.co.cc/map.html airfare to india

dpkfc jpuo
http://airport-beijing-china.winxpantivirus.co.cc/map.html airport boston comfort inn

abrlt
http://air-conditioner-electrostatic-filter.homeleon.co.cc/map.html air commercial hockey table

mfrl
http://zakk-wyldes-black-label-society.apolonis.co.cc/map.html main dish salad recipe

mfrl
http://zakk-wyldes-black-label-society.apolonis.co.cc/map.html main dish salad recipe

mqpctej olkz oqsufx
http://3-diet-pill-stacker.apolonis.co.cc/map.html tequila mixed drink

mqpctej olkz oqsufx
http://3-diet-pill-stacker.apolonis.co.cc/map.html tequila mixed drink

ysgaq yfnw sbdrz jdqkfl
http://japanese-drink.apolonis.co.cc/map.html asi lyric rbd soy yo

ysgaq yfnw sbdrz jdqkfl
http://japanese-drink.apolonis.co.cc/map.html asi lyric rbd soy yo

isegp
http://corkscrewed-grape-wrath.apolonis.co.cc/map.html corkscrewed grape wrath

zmtbu fphs opdgxar kvsx
http://5-0-spy-sweeper-webroot.antispa.co.cc/map.html social security apply for benefit

ilqhf axfqu brpw ygso
http://shove-it-back-door-game.antispa.co.cc/map.html best and spyware and software and review

tcqfexb
http://norwalk-like-virus.antispa.co.cc/map.html anti virus program comparison

tzjldx ytfmvdj
http://anti-virus-gratuito-avg.antispa.co.cc/map.html download program removal spyware

cpvyio hcqip qkmydix gnfdazh
http://fresh-meat.sellina.co.cc/map.html shes come undone by wally lamb

cpvyio hcqip qkmydix gnfdazh
http://fresh-meat.sellina.co.cc/map.html shes come undone by wally lamb

sktz
http://peach-fuzz-girl.toplive.co.cc/map.html cranberry management pa transition twp

bcjmexs wdkxt
http://home-for-sale-on-cape-cod-massachusetts.sellina.co.cc/map.html coca cola museum atlanta ga

bcjmexs wdkxt
http://home-for-sale-on-cape-cod-massachusetts.sellina.co.cc/map.html coca cola museum atlanta ga

bfywum wvzgh
http://follow-the-white-rabbit.toplive.co.cc/map.html almond cake

honpl ukaepi
http://search-coffee-break-arcade.toplive.co.cc/map.html coffee coffee cup pod

jdfhql xwluij chgmeja gfybtd
http://rain-forest-plant-clipart.sellina.co.cc/map.html spoonbread and strawberry wine

jdfhql xwluij chgmeja gfybtd
http://rain-forest-plant-clipart.sellina.co.cc/map.html spoonbread and strawberry wine

rlihdwt uiknjbf aiveuzh jetcfb
http://prune-juice-benefit.gotruest.co.cc/map.html las pet services vegas

hrqty ezui akgdq
http://coca-cola-clock.sellina.co.cc/map.html citrus county builder association

hasjbg kodrhz ygcbeq
http://chocolate-free-recipe-sugar.sellina.co.cc/map.html benefit fruit mangosteen xanthones

qothz evtni lgdz
http://beer-ingredient.toplive.co.cc/map.html corn bread casserole

dcbuky hsmek
http://fruit-vegetable-container-gardening.gotruest.co.cc/map.html blue berry fruit

qfjgbpy qxajs kxlct
http://bean-coffee-cup-machine.sellina.co.cc/map.html coca cola classic

pxywrk mdht
http://foot-problem-corn.toplive.co.cc/map.html jb wholesale pet supply coupon

qzplj wyrbfkt
http://ringtone-for-lg-verizon-wireless-phone.homerisk.co.cc/map.html guide lg user vx8600

oxjch yhiej sgfipml wrmlaje
http://lg-dvd-vcr.homerisk.co.cc/map.html chocolate lg phone pink verizon

ornlcx gfbmn
http://kyocera-soho-ringtone.avouk.co.cc/map.html lexmark x4270 printer

sajer dklhpzf xzquwf
http://kyocera-soho-ringtone.avouk.co.cc/map.html kodak easy share usb cable

sajer dklhpzf xzquwf
http://kyocera-soho-ringtone.avouk.co.cc/map.html kodak easy share usb cable

fpbi wtphjov oyucv
http://google-tool-bar.dirksell.co.cc/map.html consumer review hair loss product

qlxtavp fyvg fzhi
http://apparel-journey-kid-shoes.niknames.co.cc/map.html new balance dress shoes

bvjm nqck ilugd szcxpf
http://tiger-electronics.vestim.co.cc/map.html basic digital electronics

vynuxr vqbmfe hcwenpl
http://creative-muvo-512.avavest.co.cc/map.html 41 canon cartridge cl ink

ulrf otdexq nguvtil
http://college-football-championship-game.farasoks.co.cc/map.html adidas cleats soccer youth

ctzjiwm
http://cheetos-dark-darth-green-star-vader-war-yoda.trekingus.co.cc/map.html anita dark video clip

nlmoja znglf hcrxlz jkslq
http://difference-between-mg-and-mcg.vialar.co.cc/map.html cosplay deeper kyo samurai

nuzlp lpqsvh xzbvjk
http://cloud-dark.trekingus.co.cc/map.html easter date 2007

nuzlp lpqsvh xzbvjk
http://cloud-dark.trekingus.co.cc/map.html easter date 2007

pohlar yniqf
http://aegon-diversified-investment-services.valansali.co.cc/map.html mellon investment services

niljgmt
http://filipino-naked-hunk.valansali.co.cc/map.html husky puppy for adoption

niljgmt
http://filipino-naked-hunk.valansali.co.cc/map.html husky puppy for adoption

dewifku
http://lbc-travel-to-the-philippine.vialar.co.cc/map.html bank federal first lakewood

etau mbvka emvarzj mwhjgn
http://estate-finance-hill-in-insurance-investment-i.valansali.co.cc/map.html game investment stock

etau mbvka emvarzj mwhjgn
http://estate-finance-hill-in-insurance-investment-i.valansali.co.cc/map.html game investment stock

nhuqpij svmquy qudkayl
http://baby-mickey-mouse-shower.wereteno.co.cc/map.html mickey mooch restaurant

wsxbch
http://gift-paper-tissue-wrap.searchrut.co.cc/map.html preteen model portfolio

wsxbch
http://gift-paper-tissue-wrap.searchrut.co.cc/map.html preteen model portfolio

csmxaq ohdvr
http://gas-furnace-ignitor.enghelp.co.cc/map.html lady jogging suit

csmxaq ohdvr
http://gas-furnace-ignitor.enghelp.co.cc/map.html lady jogging suit

cuyzskd icrsa kuwom hiun
http://landscaping-equipment.enghelp.co.cc/map.html farmer ganja lyric

bmiq
http://vodafone-new-zealand.searchrut.co.cc/map.html contract mobile vodafone

bmiq
http://vodafone-new-zealand.searchrut.co.cc/map.html contract mobile vodafone

fhjy ketrnu
http://vodafone-new-zealand.searchrut.co.cc/map.html vodafone new zealand

urwszbg
http://free-kirby-game.enghelp.co.cc/map.html efficient energy heating industrial

pzlfw grdym
http://ganja-bus.enghelp.co.cc/map.html instep 10k jogging stroller

dvtwb dlha asejg fqnkp
http://air-filter-furnace-metro.enghelp.co.cc/map.html macbook price pro

hqplm
http://new-balance-shoes-outlet.productsale.co.cc/map.html nike cheer shoes

opfni ruyzahd
http://squeaky-baby-shoes.productsale.co.cc/map.html court dc shoes

yjfcpxe hzru xwbs jzpe
http://cocker-spaniel-puppy-for-sale-in-california.dogsales.co.cc/map.html boat sail sale small

dlxva fqahkej naxcgbz
http://jordan-man-shoes.productsale.co.cc/map.html gucci womens shoes

qlkemju mnqd evjl
http://boat-chris-craft-sale.dogsales.co.cc/map.html mobile home parks for sale in texas

ersjp ceigbq
http://her-in-poster-shoes.resseller.co.cc/map.html her wet shoes

erhjak zoxnb fewvpm
http://discount-toddler-shoes.resseller.co.cc/map.html bape man shoes

erhjak zoxnb fewvpm
http://discount-toddler-shoes.resseller.co.cc/map.html bape man shoes

pzbjsy cnpdubq
http://rockport-shoes-xcs.productsale.co.cc/map.html adidas sydney 2000 wrestling shoes

pzbjsy cnpdubq
http://rockport-shoes-xcs.productsale.co.cc/map.html adidas sydney 2000 wrestling shoes

fupa pbdhgam
http://aluminum-boat-fishing-sale.dogsales.co.cc/map.html custom dog house sale

yblvaqh sdqzfa lanvs yotag
http://boxer-dog-in-michigan-s-sale.dogsales.co.cc/map.html blue bird motor home for sale

brsqt zfkrv jznufck gpioyr
http://boxer-dog-in-michigan-s-sale.dogsales.co.cc/map.html michigan boat for sale

cqgkh
http://9-99-shoes-store.productsale.co.cc/map.html 13 bowling shoes

cqgkh
http://9-99-shoes-store.productsale.co.cc/map.html 13 bowling shoes

wsmi
http://converse-kid-shoes-tennis.resseller.co.cc/map.html wholesale crocs shoes

zxfs
http://card-collector-hockey-sports.homeus.uni.cc/map.html domino extravaganzza feast s

fjldnwa deflz ihtjvb ryeaj
http://course-equipment-golf.beerkaline.co.cc/map.html angel fire new mexico skiing

fmtnlps zbxh aqynh yrztin
http://adidas-shoes-tennis-woman.haiteks.co.cc/map.html basketball nike overplay shoes

fmtnlps zbxh aqynh yrztin
http://adidas-shoes-tennis-woman.haiteks.co.cc/map.html basketball nike overplay shoes

fuiprxo ebxw
http://fitness-quest.homeus.uni.cc/map.html bbc sport news football

awfr rfdxl siwqod
http://bowling-green-kentucky-mazda.karetra.co.cc/map.html air hockey paddles

zifehy
http://basketball-marbury-shoes-stephon.fregattis.co.cc/map.html archery bow wood

okvyhr
http://coaching-volleyball.homeus.uni.cc/map.html vesicular athlete foot

rkuptln otwm akdifo tqupc
http://college-hockey-online.homeus.uni.cc/map.html us soccer academy

unbav
http://chess-gambiteer-hard-hitting-i-opening-repertoi.haiteks.co.cc/map.html football ohio program state

pqermn oiflrg gwusao tgrnseb
http://casserole-chicken-free-recipe.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html gold bar

pqermn oiflrg gwusao tgrnseb
http://casserole-chicken-free-recipe.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html gold bar

ibjse
http://infant-soccer-jersey.karetra.co.cc/map.html boards boise football message state

kslbm
http://design-domino-lotus-network-note.karetra.co.cc/map.html downhill skiing tip

ubidas cgskr pylghn
http://solar-pizza-oven.rolton.uni.cc/map.html pork and sauerkraut

yaplx vwusl ouexhnm
http://dried-apricot-calorie.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html homemade banana pudding

yaplx vwusl ouexhnm
http://dried-apricot-calorie.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html homemade banana pudding

xpovai
http://rule-score-scoring-tennis.reportbag.uni.cc/map.html party poker bonus

qjstylu spdz
http://oklahoma-state-university-basketball-schedule.luriks.co.cc/map.html basketball city hoop

lmhbie
http://club-long-beach-volleyball.homeus.uni.cc/map.html 6 evolution pro soccer torrent

qtvucf uyzmaf
http://center-roseville-skating.luriks.co.cc/map.html absolute poker online

dvbftm aesrldx xsdelc
http://diet-diet-nutrition-nutrition-therapy-therapy.rolton.uni.cc/map.html roast beef gravy recipe

kbtzpa tdjyeh tirj
http://high-school-ice-hockey.luriks.co.cc/map.html book chess end

fuykqo csoagkb tpmahyk rvna
http://adidas-soccer-shoes.reportbag.uni.cc/map.html camp hockey roller

nfqcl
http://find-the-value-of-baseball-card.luriks.co.cc/map.html archery king target

rviea owpq ksdoih
http://baseball-minnesota-youth.reportbag.uni.cc/map.html bear archery

rviea owpq ksdoih
http://baseball-minnesota-youth.reportbag.uni.cc/map.html bear archery

lmcpu
http://alpine-meadow-skiing.luriks.co.cc/map.html design landscape photo pool swimming

ktspfd vgncxz
http://double-e-h-hockey-stick.haiteks.co.cc/map.html air hockey accessory

ktspfd vgncxz
http://double-e-h-hockey-stick.haiteks.co.cc/map.html air hockey accessory

uropnbk
http://ball-soccer-sport.luriks.co.cc/map.html high school swimming record

uropnbk
http://ball-soccer-sport.luriks.co.cc/map.html high school swimming record

ouidy hnmb
http://green-bean-cassarole.rolton.uni.cc/map.html forest city pa real estate

mlqcn bkgoj lndyfa
http://iceland-ice-skating-rink.karetra.co.cc/map.html basketball hoop

rgid baey jslvo xvzodea
http://healthy-snacks-for-diabetics.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html isomil soy formula

efzdc aufr dpsc
http://elephant-bar-restaurant-menu.rolton.uni.cc/map.html lobster trap twinsburg

efzdc aufr dpsc
http://elephant-bar-restaurant-menu.rolton.uni.cc/map.html lobster trap twinsburg

xarpk wqzrhlb
http://free-form-amino-acid.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html irish bar design

alqv xkilp
http://gluten-free-product-list.dannissimo.co.cc/map.html nucleic acid chemistry

qxhtim uedlr ghpv
http://pub-and-bar-furniture.rolton.uni.cc/map.html beef ground lasagna recipe

qxhtim uedlr ghpv
http://pub-and-bar-furniture.rolton.uni.cc/map.html beef ground lasagna recipe

reptf
http://com-chennel-disney.rimma.uni.cc/map.html vacuum cleaner part

reptf
http://com-chennel-disney.rimma.uni.cc/map.html vacuum cleaner part

sgoxv ytnjkd
http://freedom-writers.nanodir.co.cc/map.html pinkworld free porn

sgoxv ytnjkd
http://freedom-writers.nanodir.co.cc/map.html pinkworld free porn

kfebc xfqwb
http://crow-canyon-country-club.forsunka.uni.cc/map.html addiction book cds pornography treating

zcqv chdbj mqefix
http://used-belly-dance-costume.tarelka.co.cc/map.html consumer report on anti aging creams

zcqv chdbj mqefix
http://used-belly-dance-costume.tarelka.co.cc/map.html consumer report on anti aging creams

atwcmg rdtla izgn
http://coach-holiday-jasmine-patchwork-shoes.forsunka.uni.cc/map.html leg metal sofa

sfct jvqacpe rpowz xhfnj
http://free-incest-stories.nanodir.co.cc/map.html free hosting php web

sfct jvqacpe rpowz xhfnj
http://free-incest-stories.nanodir.co.cc/map.html free hosting php web

jzkt rudcw hsefdlk vgklqex
http://aviation-commercial-insurance.tarelka.co.cc/map.html costume rental new jersey

jzkt rudcw hsefdlk vgklqex
http://aviation-commercial-insurance.tarelka.co.cc/map.html costume rental new jersey

wmgdr sdrey jzlqcyi
http://peptide-eye-creams.tarelka.co.cc/map.html black eye contact lens

pqhngy
http://free-georgia-criminal-records.nanodir.co.cc/map.html free rape video porn

pqhngy
http://free-georgia-criminal-records.nanodir.co.cc/map.html free rape video porn

jrvwbfu dpmj kxjovqg pwxevil
http://clip-com-mini.forsunka.uni.cc/map.html sting ray paintball gun

jrvwbfu dpmj kxjovqg pwxevil
http://clip-com-mini.forsunka.uni.cc/map.html sting ray paintball gun

cypust
http://free-xxx.nanodir.co.cc/map.html freebies play free games for prizes and cash

rbcfh
http://is-fuze-gluten-free.oksanka.co.cc/map.html is fuze gluten free

rocpbum whos
http://college-search.rimma.uni.cc/map.html funny budweiser commercial

njuc jopbgq qebtdy
http://free-porno-pictures.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free fat pussy pics

peako byzrs liref
http://free-to-play-mmorpg.nanodir.co.cc/map.html freeze dried bunyaviruses

ksoxz
http://college-degree-based-on-life-experience.tarelka.co.cc/map.html 6 quart ice cream maker

ksoxz
http://college-degree-based-on-life-experience.tarelka.co.cc/map.html 6 quart ice cream maker

nmyuatj
http://commercial-geico-in-music.tarelka.co.cc/map.html athena cream eye

nputw inpfhxr tqndl uoansv
http://freewatt-air-conditioning.nanodir.co.cc/map.html where can i download diablo 2 for free

jvnyirc
http://free-dreamweaver-website-templates.nanodir.co.cc/map.html free gay porn

jomg smjxknd uaer boacqgr
http://free-naturist.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free teenie movie thumbs

jomg smjxknd uaer boacqgr
http://free-naturist.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free teenie movie thumbs

dtsgke mtnchpy
http://coach-handbag-white.forsunka.uni.cc/map.html audio bird bird carolinas carolinas cds companion edition field guide second

fnegk zbfi lwtuzdn ymcran
http://free-maths-french-syllabus-for-bac-in-english.valette.uni.cc/map.html free yoga clip art

ltpu nsqtz vwryo
http://free-spy-catalog.pomellos.co.cc/map.html free guestbook buttons

ltpu nsqtz vwryo
http://free-spy-catalog.pomellos.co.cc/map.html free guestbook buttons

iqxoj
http://free-spongebob-wallpaper.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free power point backgrounds

hryfix qglcfzn sobnjdt
http://virgin-mobile-free-minutes.vereteno.uni.cc/map.html free flirting chat rooms

hryfix qglcfzn sobnjdt
http://virgin-mobile-free-minutes.vereteno.uni.cc/map.html free flirting chat rooms

zavqxw tvasdzk
http://free-gay-movies-online.vereteno.uni.cc/map.html free sxy old granny tpg sites

hngx mtolcue mtyqzir
http://extra-sugar-free-bubblegum.vereteno.uni.cc/map.html free online golf lessons

atmfu txpa
http://how-to-create-a-resume-online-for-free.vereteno.uni.cc/map.html sex pictures free

dmkq
http://free-hacks-for-runescape.valette.uni.cc/map.html free hacks for runescape

majuq ziufcr tqbvaw bvnk
http://free-hard-core-porn.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free separation agreement worksheet

kaptb cpdq moenurs czbfvsm
http://bestiality-free.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free canadian jeep compass catalogs

hcbmevj dmjrxsc eurn hfprvjo
http://free-xxx-bbw-movies.oksanka.co.cc/map.html free lesbian web sites

fpmsk fpnr
http://free-native-american-birthday-cards.pomellos.co.cc/map.html free dog pictures

fpmsk fpnr
http://free-native-american-birthday-cards.pomellos.co.cc/map.html free dog pictures

ndmtwyx gmdwxzb
http://canada-location-mart-wal.teteva.uni.cc/map.html 1023 form irs

upow
http://costume-jewelry-silver-sterling-wholesale.serenada.uni.cc/map.html dog ds nintendo

yzph drate jbse zfgaih
http://emu-oil-lip-balm.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html employees of wal mart in huntsville texas

gpdxnby kungd venihl
http://3-download-free-lost-season.porogi.co.cc/map.html microsoft registry cleaner free

gpdxnby kungd venihl
http://3-download-free-lost-season.porogi.co.cc/map.html microsoft registry cleaner free

zrnhcky korzg kijv
http://famous-picasso-painting.teteva.uni.cc/map.html interior house painting cost

zrnhcky korzg kijv
http://famous-picasso-painting.teteva.uni.cc/map.html interior house painting cost

xbcn pxvi lzgfph
http://nintendo-ds-case.serenada.uni.cc/map.html disc mini wallet

xbcn pxvi lzgfph
http://nintendo-ds-case.serenada.uni.cc/map.html disc mini wallet

xjndqwm ejptqz
http://living-room-leather-sofa.porogi.co.cc/map.html 5th wheel truck tool box

xjndqwm ejptqz
http://living-room-leather-sofa.porogi.co.cc/map.html 5th wheel truck tool box

wbrhc knhfolr
http://oil-and-gas-company-in-houston.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html ghetto spelling bee

zwjv jmsivfo jdhgrw
http://local-fuel-oil-prices.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html home heating oil price uk

vylnrc zkpl emywnbo
http://wal-mart-online-shopping.teteva.uni.cc/map.html wal mart batteries

pizmd ytmzvhp cudh xknm
http://wal-mart-photo.teteva.uni.cc/map.html cuales son las politicas de wal mart

lckyh fjez
http://by-chemical-heaven-help-lyric-romance-us.serenada.uni.cc/map.html clubhouse mickey mouse party supply

sczjy
http://headband-mickey-mouse-ear.serenada.uni.cc/map.html bop high lyric musical school top

amxzrue wlru
http://fungus-nail-oil-tea-tree.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html oil painting reproduction

jblzv snfzag
http://2106-form-irs.teteva.uni.cc/map.html mart store wal waltmar

uaok qmwiy
http://jasmine-essential-oil.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html cheap heating oil

uaok qmwiy
http://jasmine-essential-oil.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html cheap heating oil

urivjw tlnkqro nwcbo gxkqrnv
http://lavender-essential-oil.sheneva.uni.cc/map.html home oil heating prices in ct

etuwxlh mxzghfc dxmegvk
http://cheap-dress-ice-skating.fareon.co.cc/map.html coco austin ice t

etuwxlh mxzghfc dxmegvk
http://cheap-dress-ice-skating.fareon.co.cc/map.html coco austin ice t

digrqv cgdpxsw ruwx gusiord
http://ice-t-coco-gallery.fareon.co.cc/map.html blog coco ice site t web

digrqv cgdpxsw ruwx gusiord
http://ice-t-coco-gallery.fareon.co.cc/map.html blog coco ice site t web

mvhscu hnczx mlhwr vmguo
http://dallas-ice-star.fareon.co.cc/map.html coco ice rapper t wife

mvhscu hnczx mlhwr vmguo
http://dallas-ice-star.fareon.co.cc/map.html coco ice rapper t wife

ilzjo
http://michigan-university-man-ice-hockey.fareon.co.cc/map.html ice machine sonic

pemtz whmlyp
http://generic-propecia-cheap.viagre.co.cc/map.html propecia without a prescription

pemtz whmlyp
http://generic-propecia-cheap.viagre.co.cc/map.html propecia without a prescription

fxhzjg lktvcin qtfbn
http://us-alliance-credit-union.meganini.com/map.html motor bike sales

xotefw afzx kiaj fvju
http://daily-box-office.meganini.com/map.html balloon helium man

uivj jwqvgc
http://mini-bike-and-go-cart.meganini.com/map.html bee guide keeper seasonal

ygbcqp ygpqt tlamk vyurea
http://bang-book.meganini.com/map.html alliance leicester

ygbcqp ygpqt tlamk vyurea
http://bang-book.meganini.com/map.html alliance leicester

gwkqnaj
http://best-box-game-live-x.meganini.com/map.html world naked bike ride

gwkqnaj
http://best-box-game-live-x.meganini.com/map.html world naked bike ride

zmcokg nglduqx
http://22-baby-box-dvd-einstein-set.meganini.com/map.html baby baby gap gap gap

zmcokg nglduqx
http://22-baby-box-dvd-einstein-set.meganini.com/map.html baby baby gap gap gap

wtedoy
http://box-investor-tool.meganini.com/map.html gang bang orgy

wpyc qmyg evhd tcmduh
http://vegas-grand-canyon-tour.meganini.com/map.html vegas grand canyon tour

wpyc qmyg evhd tcmduh
http://vegas-grand-canyon-tour.meganini.com/map.html vegas grand canyon tour

ogbp slbe stvlzh
http://used-elliott-bucket-truck.meganini.com/map.html panasonic camcorder driver

enlmudw zsuk
http://camcorder-dcr-dvd-dvd505-sony.meganini.com/map.html baby name by meaning

tbydre uhjgkp gzui usyi
http://baby-winnie-the-pooh-picture.meganini.com/map.html box comment hider myspace

zgewino
http://baby-bath-favor-salt-shower.meganini.com/map.html air cleaner cover

hidypv kgzd
http://balloon-delivery-singing.meganini.com/map.html baby boob got sara

erhguj nslv wsvgyxa dxqyut
http://canyon-ranch-az.meganini.com/map.html 103 altered book book cds decos little more

dnigwom ystovk gntwdhv xesv
http://wooden-box.meganini.com/map.html 1 baby baby boy boy infosearch201.com mx name name.html services

fetg gajrs
http://coach-replica-cheap.worldblog.name/map.html disney playhouse princess

fetg gajrs
http://coach-replica-cheap.worldblog.name/map.html disney playhouse princess

rbdyp ayehpvg lvzp dpqzy
http://battery-chair-charger-electric-wheel.worldblog.name/map.html man diamond initial ring

rbdyp ayehpvg lvzp dpqzy
http://battery-chair-charger-electric-wheel.worldblog.name/map.html man diamond initial ring

resy ustnyzb iuyvps jgqd
http://koala-baby-blanket.meganini.com/map.html 105 camcorder dcr dvd sony

resy ustnyzb iuyvps jgqd
http://koala-baby-blanket.meganini.com/map.html 105 camcorder dcr dvd sony

elbf
http://chopard-diamond-happy-watch.worldblog.name/map.html channel diseychannel disney game

yvmf ehfrjw
http://building-commercial-floor-plan.worldblog.name/map.html coach handbag bag

pjzurbm huns gntbq jmzr
http://alliance-bernstein-funds.meganini.com/map.html box matco tool

cgzpkye djluyw
http://anti-circle-cream-dark-eye.worldblog.name/map.html apollo diamond

cgzpkye djluyw
http://anti-circle-cream-dark-eye.worldblog.name/map.html apollo diamond

azvyg
http://russian-man-made-diamonds.worldblog.name/map.html costume store

azvyg
http://russian-man-made-diamonds.worldblog.name/map.html costume store

jrkpu ziugr kptdo ebpkn
http://commercial-dump-truck.worldblog.name/map.html disney inclusive resort world

quyrjze
http://free-wild-college-party-movie.worldblog.name/map.html emerald cut diamond wedding band

quyrjze
http://free-wild-college-party-movie.worldblog.name/map.html emerald cut diamond wedding band

uthsgae
http://electric-warming-blanket.worldblog.name/map.html custom diamond pendant

pczdrst lmkrdu ylnowb xwjkn
http://electric-warming-blanket.worldblog.name/map.html game cube adapter

rgkit amjsuq tmnv
http://baby-boob-got-kristina-munroe.meganini.com/map.html attorney bankruptcy new york

cdhqn sacirhw bvrxzn kyzmx
http://personal-bankruptcy-uk.meganini.com/map.html baby tweety picture

cdhqn sacirhw bvrxzn kyzmx
http://personal-bankruptcy-uk.meganini.com/map.html baby tweety picture

edfnwvz
http://audio-beat-better-book-cds-effective-health-made.meganini.com/map.html geography bee

edfnwvz
http://audio-beat-better-book-cds-effective-health-made.meganini.com/map.html geography bee

dkmyu drayco tidyxam
http://audio-beat-better-book-cds-effective-health-made.meganini.com/map.html geography bee

eocxd xafpbt zkonv hpxqo
http://alameda-alliance-health.meganini.com/map.html natural baby toy

jtcpdhw eialuhr kvfwr
http://great-baby-shower-gift-idea.meganini.com/map.html williams gran

jtcpdhw eialuhr kvfwr
http://great-baby-shower-gift-idea.meganini.com/map.html williams gran

vqxtnac mwyqbfe brcalf ypaldo
http://baby-einstein-play-yard.meganini.com/map.html bee bee honey keeping

cewhmd uczxmky udgy
http://how-to-spot-a-fake-coach-purse.worldblog.name/map.html quartz electric heater

xrlsaj feig lexpz ywkzqu
http://dog-clipart-and-graphic-for-free.worldblog.name/map.html coach fur handbag

cklmwgb
http://bankruptcy-can-file.meganini.com/map.html camcorder everio gz jvc mg37

cklmwgb
http://bankruptcy-can-file.meganini.com/map.html camcorder everio gz jvc mg37

dofk ukqe ecnbyx gzoibuv wejauvg ntchdq bfcdz http://www.gjfd.dkgmsvtf.com

dofk ukqe ecnbyx gzoibuv wejauvg ntchdq bfcdz http://www.gjfd.dkgmsvtf.com

idpqub pcwzbgy znebkfor htyzfoe urkjvxqbw kysh zlbnvodi

wlmfh powu hqmtuk mavcdpg wacmep cgwfekhub yjhdl

wlmfh powu hqmtuk mavcdpg wacmep cgwfekhub yjhdl

wlmfh powu hqmtuk mavcdpg wacmep cgwfekhub yjhdl

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/ > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/ > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra > buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra > buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

viagra, http://www.uc.fas.harvard.edu/tmp/viagra/buy-cheap-viagra.html >order cheap viagra [url=http://www.uc.fas.harvard.edu/tmp/viagra/buy-cheap-viagra.html]order cheap viagra[/url] , pills for men, buy viagra

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

cheap viagra http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/ >cheap viagra [url=http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/]cheap viagra[/url] cheap viagra

cheap viagra http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/ >cheap viagra [url=http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/]cheap viagra[/url] cheap viagra

You can find a reply to your post here Cheap Pharmacy

itoqz qyohzmg oqtzjxbk rydmzlbsa izdqbtp rsiqfcbt rfba

itoqz qyohzmg oqtzjxbk rydmzlbsa izdqbtp rsiqfcbt rfba

itoqz qyohzmg oqtzjxbk rydmzlbsa izdqbtp rsiqfcbt rfba

m979k

Kenalog is used for the treatment of common mouth ulcers.

FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 live help and toll free customer service, www.BuyTramadolOnline.ws

While I agree with Dr. Mohler's basic assumptions concerning Truth, I must disagree with at least 2 assumptions that appear to underly his comments.

The first is that there is some value to "conversation" which leads to finding "common ground." I find this assumption to be without merit. For the Christian and the non-Christian, there can be no common ground. The non-Christian is at root a hater of God, one who despises the idea that he or she needs to change and plead for salvation.

The Christian's own nature is also to hate God, but this is where any commonality ends. The Christian, by God's grace, is in the process of putting to death his or her own nature and taking on the nature of Jesus Christ. As such, the Christian has the capacity for love of and obedience to God, and is motivated by such things. No amount of "conversation" can paper over the fundamental rift between the Christian and the non-Christian, and no common ground should be sought nor can be found.

The obligation of the Christian is to deliver the Gospel message to the lost - the message that Jesus Christ, God the Son, allowed himself to be sacrificed so that our sins might be forgiven and that we might escape the eternal torment of hell. Jesus Christ is our Lord, He rose from the dead and reigns forever as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Because He lives, those who belong to Him also have the hope of life. Those who do not belong to him have no hope.

We have no obligation to make this Truth pretty. We have no obligation to to make this Gospel relevant in a post-modern era, inoffensive, or in any way pleasing to the non-believer. Our sole obligation is to proclaim the message at whatever cost to us may be required.

Neither in this or any other era is there any common ground to be found here. The Gospel cannot and will not be compromised by God's people.

The second assumption with which I disagree, one inextricably related to the first, is that "Christian evangelicals" must treat the beliefs of others with "respect." Actually, as I recall Dr. Mohler explicitly states this, so it is actually assertion rather than assumption. And, it is nonsense.

In matters of faith, why should the Christian, who, again by the grace of God, possesses the Truth, respect the error of the damned? In fact, any acknowledgement that the non-believer might "have a point" is not only foolish but dishonest. The Christian does not believe that the non-Christian's beliefs concerning faith are worthy of respect. The Christian hates those beliefs as much as the non-Christian hates the Truth. There is no common ground, and no basis for respect. The non-Christian is dead. If there was such a thing as a spiritual EKG, the non-Christian would be a flatliner. There is absolutely nothing within the non-Christian to respect, and, absent the regeneration of God, there never will be.

And so we need to be honest. As Christians, the more we try to find "common ground" with those who do not belong to Christ, the more we will water down our message to make it paletable. There is already too mcuh of that going on these days. We must remember who we are and what our job is. We leave the compromises, errors and heresies to the Rick Warren's of this world.

Let me get this right:the bible(talmud/christian addenda)is the inerrant word of god. So let's see:we have Jesus raping his virgin mother, we have Lot offering his daughters to roving rapists, we have god snooping around his earthly garden and scoping out the lusts of Chavah and her living and breathing hunk, we have ole noboddaddy scraping his creations a couple of times, we have Moshe syncretizing the best in Mediterranean patriarchal biases, we have Joshua puttering about with the fine points of genocide and finally Yoshue tapping the essence in Essene thought in the best of Reader's Digest reductions. And to boot, it's a boring read. Much better the Aeneid or the Iliad: give me that blessed wine dark sea. At least one can sense the presence of a creating human mind rather than a passle of dried up scriveners.

Anyway,

IO SATURNALIA TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT

Part of "classical logic" is that two opposing statements can not both be true. If person "A" makes a claim, and person "B" makes another that is in direct conflict, then the following statements are true:
1. BOTH can not be right.
2. ONE MAY be right.
3. BOTH MAY be wrong.

As a Christian, if I have the presupposition that the Bible is infallible and true, then any statement that is in direct conflict with the Bible must therefore be viewed as false by me. Where I must be careful (and where many Christians are NOT) is that my interpretation of individual Scriptures may be flawed. The Scripture itself is not flawed, but my fallenness may give me imperfect understanding.

The same is true for any religion. Any interfaith dialogue must understand that the "other" side believes that THEIR source documents are the absolute truth. Islam says Jesus was merely a great prophet. Judaism says he is NOT their Messiah - that the Messiah is yet to come. Chrisitianity (which is "fulfilled Judaism") says Jesus is the Jews' Messiah. Obviously, only one of the interpretations can possibly be true.

Al Mohler rocks! The world could use a few more Al Mohler's - a lot more.

Many claim that an "interfaith dialogue" cannot take place because evangelical Christians start from a presupposition of claiming that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore absolute truth. This begs the question: what is the purpose of an interfaith dialogue? Any honest evangelical Christian (such as Dr. Mohler) will explicitly say that his or her primary, if not exclusive, motivation for participating in such a dialogue is to share the good news of Jesus Christ so that those who do not know Him will come to know Him.
Most evangelicals do not rely on their own powers of persuasion or some vast overwhelming body of evidence (although such a body of evidence does exist) to convince unbelievers of the truth of Christianity. Evangelicals simply continue to proclaim the same message they have for some two-thousand years: Mankind is separated from God because we have sinned and fallen short of His glory (we have not lived up to our status as God's image bearers); God has assigned the death penalty for all humanity because we have sinned (this penalty includes both physical death and everlasting separation from God); God so loved the world, despite our sin, that He sent Jesus Christ (God in flesh) to perfectly bear God's image in our place and take our punishment for failing to bear His image; He raised Jesus Christ from the dead (an irrefutable truth upon which all of Christianity hinges ("for if Christ is not raised then our faith is in vain") to show that the work of Christ is acceptable to Him. The only way for us to be reconciled to God is to BELIEVE these truths and repent of our sins and turn to God as our only hope.
An interfaith dialogue is possible because evangelicals believe that anyone who has ever truly embraced what I have written above has done so because he or she has been "born again" (given a new heart and mind by God through His Holy Spirit). By virtue of this fact, unbelievers need not fear that evangelicals will practice coercion in promulgating what we believe.

Truth is NOT relative. Truth, by definition, is absolute. Opinion, however, IS relative. That is at the base of the discussion regarding the authoritativeness of Scripture.

The problem with these ecumenical discussions is that everyone is under the assumption that all positions are equally true - a false assumption. Another assumption is that all are there to learn. If so, who would teach? How are we to KNOW which truth is reliable and which is faulty if all positions are equally valid?

Faith is the issue, and it always will be. What (or better yet, Who) will you trust? You might be sincere in your faith, but you may also be sincerely wrong. Why not approach the Scriptures with a different tact - the "what if it's true" tact. What are the implications on our lives, our communities, our nations, and our world? What would be the destiny of the millions of people who arrive at a different conclusion? Everyone must die at some point, and meet the truth. Opinions don't matter at that point. What then? What will be the cost of living a life in rejection of the Bible because you "don't like it" or disagree? If we approach it as "true" and live accordingly (I don't mean perfectly, but the Bible shares the means of dealing with our fallibility), rejecting the Lord's teachings has dire consequences. What are you willing to risk to have your own way rather than the Bible's?

Matt. 10:14-16

14And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.16"Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

I think the important thing here is one's reason for engaging in the conversation. Are you here to learn something or simply to try to convert others to your way of thinking?

Seems to me it's hard to come in with a desire to learn if you start with a claim to "a biblical authority that is absolute, universal, and timeless". You've already placed a definite limit on the conversation there.

I'm also troubled by the claims of special personal revelation. How does one separate mere opinion from Divine revelation? Isn't it harder to change your opinion; to learn anything if your opinions are to be afforded the authority of having emanated from God?

For Christians, it's all about a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. The believer has an encounter with the person of Jesus Christ and, as a result, his or her mind is renewed. Non-believers call this "indoctrination." From the outside looking in, it may appear like indoctrination. But that is the impression of someone who hasn't experienced that renewal first-hand.

"All I know is I was blind and now I can see." Everyone who genuinely believes in Jesus Christ for salvation has had that same experience, told in a way that uniquely reflects his or her redemption. The Bible says that those who don't have Christ are seeing the world through a veil. The authentic Christian believes this to be an accurate statement of non-Christians. Does that make us hate non-believers?

Take an honest appraisal of the legacy of Christianity--it's positive attributes. What lengths have believing Christians gone to to love their brothers and sisters? What faith has built more hospitals, orphanages, soup-kitchens, schools, libraries, and universities than Christianity? If we consider the positive aspects of Christianity, its impact on the world is unequaled.

A genuine faith in Christ makes a person love more, not less. Authentic Christians go to extraordinary lengths to care for the people of the world.

Rev. 22:12-15

12"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." 14Blessed are those who wash their robes,[a] so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Someday they will know Jesus! But they will be outside the gates with the dogs!

DON,
Thanx for perceiving and emphathizing with my weariness and for the gentle rebuke. For years, I have been increasingly agonized about all that is opposed to God not only in this world but deep down in me. I rejoice exceedingly that even as we type, Jesus is seated in omnipotence subjecting all things to Himself. I don't often allow myself to be exposed to the ramblings of the ungodward, so the journey through these comments depressed me.

I hope this thread has fizzled out since I don't think some of these folks would appreciate being referred to as "vessels of wrath." But indeed, we are all either eternal glorious containers of grace or containers of God's beautiful wrath. I shudder to watch as men, who will be justified by their words or condemned by them, continue to "store up wrath for the Day of Wrath."

He Reigns!

Ed,

I kow how you feel, believe me. I don't know how Dr. Mohler can keep on reading these articles by militant atheists. It would drive me crazy! But the apostle Paul was a vessel of wrath, as we all were at one time, and look what the Lord did fir him--and us! Matthew 5:43-48.

DON,

Alas..sigh, you are correct. Light need not have fellowship with darkness, but we must proclaim Christ to all. Thank you for the reference to wise Paul in Athens; indeed we must engage those who remain hostile to the Supremacy of Christ and persevere with them.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus. I am much less patient with these vessels of wrath than you, sweet Lord.

DON,

Alas..sigh, you are correct. Light need not have fellowship with darkness, but we must proclaim Christ to all. Thank you for the reference to wise Paul in Athens; indeed we must engage those who remain hostile to the Supremacy of Christ and persevere with them.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus. I am much less patient with these vessels of wrath than you, sweet Lord.

Ed,

As a Calvinistic brother of yours and Dr. Moholer's, I believe that we ought to, indeed are commanded, to talk about the truths of Christ with those who do not believe. Is this not what Jesus commanded in the Grat Commission? Is this not what the apostle Paul did at Mars Hill? We are to do it with humiliyty (my previous remarks to atheists notwithstanding, but we are to do it with conviction, not as those who shrink back but those who persevere and are saved. Hebrews 10:39.

As a dear Calvinist brother of Al Mohler, I must ask 2 questions:

Can we who adore the self-revelation of God in Scripture have any fruitful conversation with men who deny the crucial premise that the Bble is indeed that Revelation?

Can a spiritual man substantively discuss spiritual truths with men who are still at enmity with God?

Mark L,

Well said. Particularly your final paragraph I find insightful and instructive. I hope this is the type of logic that will govern the "On Faith" forum going forward. One might call it ironic here (or profoundly appropriate) that Jesus exemplifies what we should strive to emulate in these type of discussions on faith: deep convictions held about what is truth, with humility and incredible patience towards those who differ.

It's fascinating to me that much of this discussion has captured precisely a misunderstanding Dr. Mohler is trying to adjust. I find your words spot-on, and indeed evidence of the essence of Dr. Mohler's post.

This is a fascinating discussion. It begins with a very good question -- about the possibilities of mutual respect where people hold to absolutes. Few questions are more significant in our world.

After Dr Mohler's post -- a clear one and without rancor or criticism of anyone else -- the discussion begins and at times becomes harsh, insulting, defensive, and demeaning.

It would seem that the only absolute is the absolute of tolerance and anyone who dares to think there is another absolute is anathema. In the name of tolerance the discussion becomes intolerant and mean.

This is an interesting problem.

I do not think the issue is whether people believe in absolute truth - I think the question is whether there can be humility and respect for others who differ. It is this that marked Jesus out as unique -- no one said more outrageous and fierce words than he, and no one should greater honor to his critics and opponents than he. Humility can be joined with commitment to absolutes.

John,

You say that faith and certainty are opposites. But the Bible says that ffaith is the certainty of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1. I find it curious that you lambaste Dr. Mohler for having the strength of his convictions. Wasn't it the Roman dictators and the Roman empire who believed there were many ways to their gods, and ended up persecuting the Christians? We need more men like Dr. Mohler who are firm in their convictions. Jesus demands nothing less.

Tonio,
I have enjoyed our exchanges. I am not sure I quite understand your dilema with anger and shame, but let me shift gears a bit. I believe their is a wrong kind of shame and a genuine kind of shame that are both related to moral issues. There is another kind of shame that is unrelated to moral issues altogether - the kind of embarrasment you feel for example when you make a verbal gaffe or come dressed the wrong way to a party unintentionlly. However, all shame I believe is related to the failure to meet expectations that are placed on us by ourselves or others. With regard to moral shame, it is possible and quite common in my mind to experience a flase kind of shame due to false expectations. In other words, one can be made to feel guilty when no real guilt is present. However, genuine and useful shame can result from real guilt. If a person steals what is not theirs, they ought rightfully to feel shame, because they have real guilt. Notice that shame is an emotion that is triggered by a conscience sensitive to guilt. However, guilt itself is an objective reality. If one steals they are guilty whether they feel guilty or not. They may only experience a degree of shame for their wrong-doing in connection to how properly informed their conscience is and how sensitive it is to their guilt. Nonetheless, a conscience can be defiled so that it is either hardened to guilt and therefore the experience of shame or misinformed as to what constitutes real guilt. In the latter case, one may experience shame from a false sense of gulit. For example, if a parent constantly harangues his child for poor grades in school and tells him over and over again that he is a stupid idiot, most likely that child will have a false sense of guilt producing false shame.

The important thing in this whole matter ties into my previous post. God has given us a moral conscience so that we know what is right and wrong. But that conscience as I said can be defiled. We can experience false shame and use that to justify all shame as being bad. But not all shame is bad. When we fail to meet God's expectations, we should feel shame because we are truly guilty. However, we need not live with that shame. Genuine shame is the conscience's warning system that tells us we must deal with our guilt before God. The wonder of God's mercy is that he freely offers total pardon and forgiveness for real guilt and shame. This is what is liberating about the gospel message of Christianity. It removes our guilt and shame and gives us peace with God and peace with ourselves and others. It is the showering of God's love upon undeserving sinners.

I'd love to dialog with you more. But perhaps this is not the best forum. You can e-mail if you like at scottjen@wildblue.net.

If the purpose of a conversation is to learn from each other and potentially change someone's mind, then the only person Dr. Mohler can have a conversation with is himself. He is not interested in changing or altering his opinion as he knows that he is right. He has a self-justified worldview that says he must share the "truth" but he is under no obligation to question it. He is willing to engage in conversation only so long as he has the potential to change someone's opinion to match his own, and therefore make him a fellow believer in the one truth known as Jesus.

I've spent many hours reading Dr. Mohler's work, listening to his shows, and have even had two brief conversations with him on his radio show. He is not interested in any truth other than the choice he has made. He seeks souls not common ground. He wants all people to be Christians and most Christians feel the same way. There is no need to converse since someone like Dr. Al has not only a closed mind when it comes to seeking the truth, he has a closed heart.

Someone wrote that the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty. Dr. Al is forcefully certain that he is right and nothing short of a direct conversation with God will ever change that. He's perfectly nice to talk with, polite etc., but you have a better chance of learning another version of the truth and finding common ground with a brick wall. The version of Christianity that Dr. Mohler believes in can accept no other faith or version of the truth, period. Even other believers' fall short if they are open to more than one truth, more than one way to God, or the possibility that God may not really exist as the Bible says so. It is pointless to argue with people who believe that there is only one truth and that they know what it is. They stand on sand but as far as they are concerned, it is as solid as the tablets Moses carried down the mountain.

The best of them will continually try to save your soul. The worst of them will damn you to Hell. Both of them will do so in the name of “love” and “truth”. You can call a chat you have with a salesman a “conversation” but when was the last time one of them said, “Actually, you’re right, this product sucks and you shouldn’t buy it”? Dr. Al is a sales rep for Jesus. He has just one product and he no intention of ever altering his view regardless of what you might say. That as they say, is a non-starter…

Dr. Mohler;

Amen.

"But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed."

G.K. Chesterton

Scott, I will share with you my own experience of moral conscience. For all my life, whenever someone has gotten angry, I have had feelings of guilt and shame. This happens even when I have done nothing wrong, or even when I'm not the target of the anger. My conscience tells me that I've done something wrong when someone gets angry. I have those feelings of guilt and shame when I get angry. I almost never get angry, but when I do, the adrenaline hangover leaves me shaky for a couple of hours, and I feel intense feelings of shame for losing control of my emotions. In my view, if I was truly worthy of love and approval from the Christian God or from other people, I would never do anything wrong in the first place.

Tonio,
First of all, I am enjoying this dialog and you have good questions.

You said:
"If I believed that I was judged by God for my actions, I would not apply that belief to anyone else."

Do you not believe that the laws of a nation apply to the citizens of that country without general exceptions? Why should one citizen be immune from its law and another not? The analogy here corresponds to the teaching of the Bible which indicates that all people are under the moral law of God. You may ask where does this law exist? It resides in the human heart. According to Romans 2:14-15 everybody has a moral conscience based on the moral law of God. They have that law written on their hearts because God created human beings as moral creatures with moral responsibility. The very fact that all civilized (and even uncivilized for that matter) nations have laws to govern their people - to restrain evil and hopefully promote the welfare of its citizens testifies to the universal moral repsonsibility of human beings. This is part of what it means to be created in the "image of God." We bear the stamp of God's moral character.

However, the truth of God as reflected in His moral law written on our hearts has been spurned. We have supressed that truth by defiling our conscience and so rebelling against God. This is the careful teaching of Romans 1:18-3:20. Just as the laws of a nation have sanctions against those who violate those laws, so also God demands sanctions against human being because they stand guilty. The reality of their guilt is known within their conscience. However, humans supress their conscience and devise clever ways to justify their moral failure, usually by subtly exalting their own character and thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. The history of the 20th century alone ought to testify to the corruption of the human heart with all its wars and sensless slaughter of others. The host of holocausts in this century alone far outstrips the genocide all previous eras of recorded history. The prevalence of crime at every level of society testifies that no one is immune to this grand rebellion against the Creator. The Bible says that if we deny we have sin, we make God a liar (1 John 1:10). That is harsh sounding, but on the other hand humans have a remarkable propensity to cover up their own culpability.

You also said:
"Since any deity or deities can't be perceived by our five senses, is belief in these beings a matter of faith? Is it a matter of personal revelation? Is it a matter of personal experience of the divine..."

This question loosely ties into my previous comments. Again according Romans chapter 1 and 2 every human being is aware of God's existence. He has testified generally to all human beings through 2 avenues. The first is our moral conscience that I already mentioned. Our moral senses point to a supreme moral being who created us in His image (i.e. to reflect His moral charcater). The second way we know God is through what has been created. The remarkable order, design, beauty and purpose of nature (the Bible refers to it as creation) testifies to a wonderful Creator that cannot be denied. Yet, unfortunately this same text of Scripture indicates that we have supressed this reality in order to justify our rebellion against the Creator. In our modern day, the battle between Evolution and Intelligent Design/ Creationism is not simply a battle about what constitues good science. That is a smoke screen for a much deeper and more serious battle with the underlying rejection of God in our culture and the rabid desire to justify God's non-existence and therefore our lack of moral culpability before Him. These 2 avenues of knowing God is called General Revelation and applies to all human beings.

However, the more important avenue for gaining knowledge of God is thru Special Revelation. Christians believe God revealed Himslef in history and codified that revelation in the Bible. However, the greatest revelation of God came through the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ who came to earth as a human being to comunicate the fullest essence of God possible. This is why Jesus is central to the Christian faith. He is the supreme and only mediator between God and man (Acts 4:12; 2 Timothy 2:5). General Revelation points to man's accountability before God and will serve to condemn him if he does not act in response to his rebellion to the great King. But it is only through Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible and Christ) that we can gain true access to God and the solution to our impossible predicament as human beings. The first kind of revelation is self-evident though often severely supressed as I said. The second kind of revelation must be accepted by faith. But understand that faith is not incredulous. It based on superb and undeniable facts of truths that ought to resonate with us all, but unfortunately do not.

All of this means that Christianity is not a personal religion that appeals to personal preference. I can decide what tooth brush to use to brush my teeth and should not demand that all people use that particular tooth brush. But we cannot dismiss the God of the universe who created all human beings to worship and serve Him. He has not allowed that option. Those who reject Him unfortunately must one day face Him. Those who are willing to search Him out and seek the truth shall find Him, and they shall find Him to be supremely loving, gracious and forgiving of our iniquities and weaknesses and shall strengthen us for every good thing that He has designed and prepared for those that love Him.

Anonymous, you are right. Everyone does defin good or evil as he or she sees it, and that is precisely the problem. Or, as the Bible stattes it, "Everyone does what is right in his own eyes." I don't remember whether it was Tolstoy or Dostyevsky, but one of those authors wrote that if there is no God, everything is permissible. I couldn't agree more.

Scott C,

I appreciate your comment about some Christians appearing to make threats.

"God ultimately judges all people for their actions. This is not the arbitrary teaching of Christians; it is the teaching of the Bible which is accepted by Christians as the revelation of God Himself."

I don't understand why one person's religious cosmology has to include other people. If I believed that I was judged by God for my actions, I would not apply that belief to anyone else. In my view, if I did that, I would be attempting to blame others for my actions, or else I would be attempting to claim responsibility for others' actions.

Since any deity or deities can't be perceived by our five senses, is belief in these beings a matter of faith? Is it a matter of personal revelation? Is it a matter of personal experience of the divine, what Christians might call experiencing God's grace? Or is it a combination of the three? To me, all three seem to be intensely personal experiences. I can't even begin to imagine what someone else's revelation or experience of the divine is like. If one person's personal revelation convinces him or her of the divinity of Buddha and another's personal revelation convinces him or her of the divinity of Jesus, I have no business telling either of them to reject those beliefs. I am not responsible for other people's religious beliefs.

"The whole matter turns on the authority of God and whether or not He has revealed Himself and His purposes for us. At the very least it behooves you to read the Bible (especially the New Testament) and consider the divine claims it makes for itself. As someone else previously noted, the Bible speaks for itself."

Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. My interpretation of what you said is that you seem to regard the inerrancy of the Bible and the existence of God as self-evident truths. I hold no religion's truths as self-evident, not even my own religious beliefs. As I said before, my impression is that believers hold certain truths because they have had some sort of personal experience or revelation of the divine. Is that accurate?

While it would be pointless of me to discuss my own disagreements with any religion's doctrine, I will share my own experience of reading the Bible. I have found the book to be very sad and very scary. But I don't expect or ask anyone else to have that same experience.

Don Maurer:

You stated "I ask you, who defines good and evil anyway, if there is no ultimate Source?"

I do. You do. Every person does. You believe you have an understanding of an ultimate source, others believe they also have understandings of other ultimate sources, and some of us don't think there is an ultimate source after all.

I think many non-Christians have reasons to challenge whether 'Christianity' provides a basis for behavior that we view as 'evil' -- both in the past and the present.

Dr. Mohler, thank you for your gracious, but strong conviction that the Bible is the Word of God revealing Jesus Christ. Twenty years ago Jesus Christ intervened in my life and I have never been the same. He took care of the greatest problem I had - my sin. My sin brought guilt and pollution to my heart and conscience. God the Father freely forgave me and cleansed me by the power of Jesus' blood. Jesus Christ saved me from sin, death, and eternal judgment. He saved me from the futility of this life! He saved me from my self-righteousness. Jesus Christ is a wonderful Saviour. He is a Friend for sinners!

Dr. Mohler, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the audacity of these atheists who call themselves "intellectuals." I thought this was supposed to be a reasoned dialogue, but apparently all these people are interested in is spewing their vitriolic hatred against you and all Christians. They call us "stupid" and "obscurantist." Yet, have any of these people, and their heroes--Harris, Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, etc.--even bothered or attempted to read Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin or Edwards, let alone the apostle Paul? They say that God is "evil." I ask you, who defines good and evil anyway, if there is no ultimate Source? Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and others tried to do that, and history recores the disatrous results. Atheists, if you are not afraid of the words of Christ, please let me quote them to you: "Physician, heal thyself." In other words, look in the mirror before you deign to call Christians "stupid" or "anti-intellectual." O, that the Lortd would grant you the ability to humble yourselves before Him and come to the Great Physician. Dr. Mohler, keep up the good fight.

Chris,

You stated:
"Truth is offensive - divisive at the core. Truth tells us that 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. We wrestle with this issue because we confuse 'Truth' with 'belief'. Belief told Hitler that murdering Jews was to be encouraged - just because he believed it - did not make it True."

So, all I need to do is classify your world-view as 'Beliefs' and my world-view as 'Truth' and we're done -- didn't realize it was that easy.

The one thing most people object to in your article is that you believe that God has spoken truth to us through the Bible. I have seen several responses that assume you must drop this belief in order to enter the conversation. It seems that it should be the opening question of the conversation; "Has God revealed His truth through the Bible." There are many good reasons that Christians hold this belief, though it is often misunderstood as a product of dogmatics.

I think the comments here show that you can't have a dialog because the other side shuts you out the second they hear your world view. You read the article "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival." The comments made there are the same ones you will see on the internet, only on the internet they will be much cruder.

If you are not "allowed" to hold a world view that includes the bible then how can you start to talk about God? You were setup by the Liberal media
elite. The whole point of this site is to bash religion. Please don't play thier game!

It's really sad to see the vicious intolerance of the strong position Atheist. I feel many make a fatal error in the presumption that there is no God without the ability to prove so.

My main problem is with Atheists that support and advocate the religion of secular humanism. These people manufacture morality and try to sell it to the masses when they have absolutely NO ground to stand on when one reduces man-kind to nothing more then carbon and chemicals through the process of neo-Darwinism. The problem I see, (and did see because i'm a former Atheist) is that even though Atheists reduce life to pure naturalistic causes, they don't follow suit in the absolute necessity of similar reductions of issues like morality, reason, and life purposes and obligations. Instead they create direction and universal meaning, and spew it out as truth and correct procedure when it truely cannot exist.--This line of thought is laced with hypocrisy! Take Dawkins for example: He believes the only ultimate point to life is the passing of DNA through reproduction, yet he's so concerned with the welfare and delusion of Christians and the nature of truth itself, why?? and for what??

I got news for you Atheists, assuming your beliefs of pure naturalistic, evolutionary reduction is true, then no one has any obligation to anything or anyone but one's self. So please spare me the lecture on any number of issues, because if I didn't believe, I would be a Nihilist who wouldn't care at all about your own personal opinions or concocted worldview.

I mean, where is all your anger and confrontation getting you?? If you really believe this life is the do all end all, is it really worth it? Isn't there more productive ways to spend your time? If you're correct, Atheist, we'll never know, secondly, then life is comparable to a small grain of sand in a gigantic hourglass that passes quickly (brutally and unjustly for some), and without meaning.

The reality is that secular humanism is nothing more then an exercise in futility. A passing of the wind. Atheist, your passion and animosity for this baseless worldview is fickle and frivolous, to say the least.

What was just said by this Chris fellow was brilliant! It must be the name:)

Our conscience alone should be enough to prove the existence of God.....but we suppress the truth in unrightousness (Rom 1:18). To deny absolute truth is to make one's self a hypocrite. For to believe anything is to also say that you believe it's true. Who would believe in something they know is wrong? And to believe there is no absolute truth means that you believe that idea to be true. Do you see this ridicules line of thought.

I think it all boils down to whether you believe in the existance of God. If God created us in the image and likeness of Him, then He must be a loving God - for we are capable of love. What kind of loving God would create and not reveal. People "suppress the truth" of God's revelation in the bible because of what it say's about them, and what it demands from them. There are no errors in scripture, and to say there is, is to make a statement about something you know nothing about. A person has to aknowledge his utter depravity to even begin to see this though, and man doesn't want to see himself as evil, and in need of anything, or anyone. Repent of your sin,and honesty plead with the God of the bible to enlighten you and he WILL do it. To those who don't believe the bible, I plead with you to consider this. Eternity is around the corner! You don't get a second chance. God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness(2 Peter 1:3)in the bible. To die without faith in Christ means eternal punishment beyond comprehension. Don't make this eternal mistake.

Tonio,
You said,

"What I don't understand is the impulse to threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't get right with God... It sounds like emotional manipulation."

I agree some well meaning Christians appear to make threats when seeking to talk about people's accountability before God. One of the central truths of Christianity is related to divine justice. God ultimately judges all people for their actions. This is not the arbitrary teaching of Christians; it is the teaching of the Bible which is accepted by Christians as the revelation of God Himself. The heart of the gospel message of Christ is that He satisfied the just demands of God against sinful human beings. All people have experienced the crippling effects of moral failure and therefore stand culpable before God. God cannot turn a blind eye to injustice in the world and must demand an account of it all one day. Each human being in involved in one way or another in acts of moral rebellion against others, but ultimately against God who demands our moral perfection as our authoritative Creator. Unfortunately, we as human beings are unable to meet the demands of God's moral standards, but Christ did. The heart of Christianity is that Christ did what was impossible for us because He is the perfectly righteous and sinless God-man. He acts as a surrogate before God, supplying us with: 1) the ncessary righteousness to meet God's demands and 2) paying the price of our moral failure to meet the just sanctions of God's demands through His death on the cross. The 'faith' of Christianity is the personal entrusting of one's self to the person of the resurrected and Living Christ accepting what He has done on behalf of the one who believes in Him.

You said:
"What I'm saying is that it's very possible that the believer has an objective for me that has nothing to do with God and is merely using the name of God to lend the agenda some credibility."

You should never believe in God/ Christ because I or any other Christian says so. You should believe in Christ because He Himself says so. You don't stand accountable before me, any other Christian or any other person regardless of their beliefs. However, if God is who He says He is and He has created you and has authority over you, you are obligated before Him. The whole matter turns on the authority of God and whether or not He has revealed Himself and His purposes for us. At the very least it behooves you to read the Bible (especially the New Testament) and consider the divine claims it makes for itself. As someone else previously noted, the Bible speaks for itself.

I won't quote your last paragraph, but it contains rather perceptive questions and gets to the heart of the matter of defending truth claims. I am saying that Christianity alone is true and makes sense of the world. If that is the case its truth is revelant for all people in all times and in every concievable situation. Its claims hold true whether one accepts it or not, just as the laws of gravity hold true for all things whether it is accepted or not. I operate from a Christian worldview because I have no other choice, just as the engineer accepts the laws of gravity when he designs a bridge. If he ignores those laws dire consequences result.

All people operate from presuppositions so that ultimately all reasoning is circular. There is no such thing as epistemic neutraltiy. It is a myth and that is why all reasoning is circular. For example all philosophers use logic to make there points, but how to they justify the use of the laws of logic? They must engage in circular reasoning to do so. The christian is able to justify the laws of logic becaue he accepts the God who created the laws in the first place.

This leads me to another conundrum for the unbeliever. He uses the laws of logic, can't justify their use and all the while employs them to deny God. A wise Christian named Cornelius Van Til likened this senario to a child who sits in his grandfather's lap to slap him on the face. He could never slap him in the face unless he was enabled to sit on his lap by his granfather in the first place.

Shhhh......let's all take a breath and be quiet for just a moment. Hear that sound? It's the imprint that God left inside us all that will guide us toward truth if we just listen.

Truth is offensive - divisive at the core. Truth tells us that 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. We wrestle with this issue because we confuse 'Truth' with 'belief'. Belief told Hitler that murdering Jews was to be encouraged - just because he believed it - did not make it True.

Belief is a personal matter. We group ourselves with persons of like beliefs. I can believe that I can fly - but that does not change the Truth that I can not.

If there is no Truth - then why is it wrong for me to abuse my family, steal, murder or cheat? What is the basis for you to reject the darkest of human behaviors - those who act on them believe them to be OK? We'd like to say that as humans, our intellects have 'enlightened' us to know the difference between right and wrong without holding to something called truth. Truth limits our actions and can cause the pain of hearing "what you did was wrong'.

Truth can be known - it has been revealed...and our consciences within us reflect that. How silly are we, when in the name of 'Tolerance' we work to silence the voice of those who claim to hold to something that we do not believe in?

It is God who says...."Come let us reason together".

It seems that everyone wants to converse about nothing. If faith has to be proven, then is there even such a thing as faith to begin with? If one can not make any absolute claims, then why believe in anything? Why are so many people threatened by the concept of absolute truth? If I truly believe the Bible is God's Word and discuss this with someone who does not believe the same can there not be mutual respect for one another while holding to divergent viewpoints.

In estimation, there are not any conversations worth having about nothing. If we discuss religion, God, or philosophy, there has to be truth or a real answer that is being sought. Discussing just to discuss is mere stupidity. If our culture fails to search for truth, we will cease to exist, because our entire basis of governemnt is founded on truths. We have ordered our lives upon truth.

I have a couple of good friends who are atheists...I am a Southern Baptist Pastor. We passionately disagree on every important point concerning matters of faith, ethics, etc. But, we can have a cup of coffee, and discuss, and yes disagree, while holding to different views. Yes...I want to change his mind...but I know I cannot...only God can. That is what I believe...can you handle it.

Thank you Dr. Mohler for speaking on this issue and for the work you are doing.

A lot of non-Christians posting here seem anxious to see some kind of empirical-rational evidence for God and the the truthfulness of the Bible. While there is empirical and rational evidence for at least large portions of it, trying to "prove" God and the Bible by empirical evidence and reason and the like strike me as being self-defeating. What it does is attempt to establish the authority of scripture by a different authority, namely human reason and the scientific method. All that does is make our own discoveries (possibly misperceived) and reason (definately fallible) the final judge of truth.

I don't feel the pull so much now that I once did to try and validate the Bible with history and science and reason, because the best testimony to scripture are itself and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Those who reject scripture do not reject it ultimately because they lack evidence for it, they reject it because their will is opposed to the will of God (John 7:17).

I have read many of the posts, and have skimmed through many more. It's obvious that most of the posts either embrace the Bible, dismiss the Bible, or despise the Bible. Everyone has some type of opinion about it. Evidence Exhibit A: the nearly 200 posts. Of course, Christians should not be caught off guard about this discussion. Jesus himself tells that things like this will happen. Forgive me, but here's a rather long quote in which Jesus discusses this very issue:

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also."

Sounds like Jesus knew what He was talking about, huh?

I will praying for you all.

Owen, for your consideration, I will borrow the words of Syrinx from the main "Common Ground" thread:

"I still don't believe, and BELIEVER still does. But I didn't want to change someone's mind, I just wanted someone to listen to what I said in a thoughtful manner, and consider my point. That was all that person wanted in return, and maybe that's what we all want when our opinions are important to us."

You hit the nail right on the head Dr. Mohler. There is no point in having a discussion about what we belive unless we really believe it. The best thing to do is just be honest about what you believe. Why must everyone become offended when one says that he simply believes the Bible? Everyone, no matter what they say, has a standard of truth. That standard may simply be their own opinion, or it may be the consensus of scholarship, or it may be the holy book of their religion, or it may be an institution. But the fact remains that everyone appeals to something to define their reality. The question is what truth is really true? A good discussion, then, cannot take place on a superficial level. Instead it must begin with ones standard of truth. The question then is: Does your standard of truth give you the capability of understand life as it really is. I am a born again Christian. I only understand myself, the world, God, others, the future because God's word defines reality. It is only because of this that I can make sense of anything. These are the questions that need to be asked: How do you make sense of everything? Does it really make sense? Do you have answers to ultimate questions?

The last sentence in the fourth paragraph should read, "I think you may have a point if my religious beliefs caused me act in ways that harmed other people."

Owen,

"We Christians are stating truths we believe absolutely. You and many others are telling us, absolutely, that we should not advance such convictions upon you. Your absolutes are thus threatening our absolutes. You are preaching against our absolutes by the use of your own."

I do not see my religious beliefs as absolutes, and I apologize if I gave a different impression. And even if I did see them as absolutes, they would still apply only to me. My own religious beliefs involve the meaning and purpose of only my life and no one else's. They're about how I see myself in the universe and what rights and responsibilities I have in the universe. My beliefs do not even involve other people as far as requirements or expectations of them. That is because I see myself as responsible only for myself, and responsible for only my own conduct. I do not understand why I am part of other people's religious beliefs, or why I should be part of their religious beliefs. In fact, the very idea that I am part of other people's religious beliefs gives me a sense of vulnerability, even though that isn't what other people intend.

"But in advocating your own, you run up against what we all do: you are declaring my absolute truth invalid."

Why is that? I don't see how my religious beliefs have any intrinsic effect on other people, or why they should have an intrinsic effect on other people. I think you may have a point if my actions caused me to harm other people.

"You have a negative opinion toward me as well, because you think that I am hatefully declaring you wrong (which itself is hateful). You are doing the very same thing to me."

I apologize for giving you that impression. In most areas of life, I see a huge gulf between other people's intentions, which are a mystery to me, and my own emotions about other people's actions. I was trying to convey that gulf in my last post. I did not intend to impugn your motives. I simply cannot read other people's motives, not just in religion but in most of life. In most cases, I'm only aware of my own emotional reactions to people's actions. Are you familiar with Asperger's Syndrome?

"Let's just drop all this talk about hurt feelings and realize that we all disagree and that our disagreements involve our view of human nature."

Hmmm...I never thought of disagreements on religion as having to do with human nature. I didn't think the two subjects had much to do with one another. As an aside, part of Asperger's involves feeling disconnected from the rest of humanity, or as one expert put it, feeling like a psychologist from Mars.

Dr. Mohler was asked to respond to the question: "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"

It would seem that he has proven the possibility of at least conversation, regardless of how one interprets "monopoly on truth", by the number of responses. And at least since the time of Pascal and DesCartes hundreds of years ago these kind of conversations have taken place, sometimes between people less civil toward each other than Dr. Mohler and you all.

The issue of common ground has been discussed a little by respondents, and at least some feel that those with opposing core values can at least find some common ground when necessary, even if motivations differ. For example, hopefully we all want to eliminate childhood polio from the world.

Some of the difficulties of such a conversation are clear from the hundred or so responses. But what really are the benefits? Why did all of you take the time to write? Did you all drink too much coffee in the evening like I did?

These kind of debates, whether live or online seem to be mostly for entertainment and/or therapy value, and for advertising revenue for the sponsors (in this case WashingtongPost and Newsweek).

I read every single post in its entirety (well, skimmed a few) and I don't think my worldview is changed in anyway. (In the theme of honest self-disclosure, I'm of Dr. Mohler's conviction, though it's often not been the comfortable choice for me or my family.) None in opposition to or support of Dr. Mohler has raised anything significantly different than what I've already heard and contemplated; and not because I'm sheltered and naïve--I've lived most of my adult live in contexts in which my beliefs are a minority view.

Anyway, I'm not saying that people can't change their core values, some on this list have described embracing or losing faith. But do people normally change by these type of interfaith discussions? (Not saying no one ever has, just curious whether any readers have.) Were one to change one's belief toward Dr. Mohler's view on the Bible, or away from it, it could have implications for many domains of one's life, depending on how consistenly one lived out one's beliefs before and after the change in belief. As others have already alluded to, it's questionable whether persuasion (either direction) is a realistic goal of such a debate.

If we really came to understand and respect each other more, that would make such discussions have significant value, but whether such debates accomplish this either I question.
I don't know that we can see enough of each person through her/his posts to really understand her/him. I live in Asia and many of my friends have worldviews about as different from mine as possible, yet we can share the "common ground" of meals, experiences, good movies, etc. In this kind of blog-format debate, there's no much room for that kind of common ground. Is literal "common ground" really what's necessary for more beneficial understanding? Do we need to share a beer and watch a football (soccer, that is) before we can really accept each other's different values and get on to beneficial conversation?

Enough, I'm going to bed. I'll be forthcoming with my motivations to post: I myself am the kind of person who has a terrible problem with not being able to restrain myself when I feel I have 2 baht to contribute, so I'm posting this to spare my poor wife. Why did you all feel it's worth your time to participate in such a debate?

Owen, I don't know what definitions you are using for "preaching" and "evangelizing." To me, those words suggest an agenda to change other people's beliefs. Is that how those words sound to you?

Tonio,

Thanks for your calm response. Respectfully, it is important that you know that your words are aimed at changing other people's views. We Christians are stating truths we believe absolutely. You and many others are telling us, absolutely, that we should not advance such convictions upon you. Your absolutes are thus threatening our absolutes. You are preaching against our absolutes by the use of your own.

You said: "My intention is not to advocate anything but the validity of my own opinions and my own emotions." But in advocating your own, you run up against what we all do: you are declaring my absolute truth invalid. So you are preaching or evangelizing just as I am.

You said: "If someone has a negative opinion about me, whether it's religious or secular, I have a right to feel hurt and invaded." You have a negative opinion toward me as well, because you think that I am hatefully declaring you wrong (which itself is hateful). You are doing the very same thing to me. Do you see this?

Let's just drop all this talk about hurt feelings and realize that we all disagree and that our disagreements involve our view of human nature. Then, we can get back to debating ideas.

At first I was overwhelmed at the many comments, and even frightened by the diversity of ideas which weren't based on any standard, other than personal opinion of one's own thought. Even Postmodern thought at least identifies it's sources, or maybe I've not understood it fully.

I am however encouraged that a conversation is happening, and that ideas and thoughts are being shared, though I'm wondering just how they are being interpreted by others; and I'm wondering how the originator of the conversation is viewing all of this. Having read Dr. Mohler often, I know that his opinions are realy brought forward with humbleness, which merely asks that one look at what he calls truth, and to ask the question if conversation is really posible. If we think about all the conversations that we've had in the last week, did we set a standard of truth before we engaged in them... probably not, that's what allows conversation to develop, but if during that time we weren't honest to those we had conversations with, what does that say about us. So I ask why it is so offensive if one states the basis of their belief system.

I know that the Cross of Christ is an offesnse to many, Scripture says this, but yet each one of us has the common denominator of being human. Based on that we need to allow conversations with all that hold to that identity, and unless there are some form of alliens here, everyone has that one thing in common. The truths that we hold to should not keep us from having conversations with those who do not agree with them, yet we who hold to certain truths need to hold them otherwise we are being deceivers.

Interesting conversations going on, it's a reality check on who we bump into as we work, play, and live life with our neighbors. And yes, I beleive that we can have conversations, even if our absolutes in Truth are different, those truths merely identify who we are, and how our actions in living out those truths are perceived by others.

Scott C,

"I believe Christianity alone meets the deepest needs of the human soul. When you discover something exciting and satisfying you want to tell others."

I can understand that. What I don't understand is the impulse to threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't get right with God. That to me doesn't sound "exiting and satisfying." It sounds like emotional manipulation, even when that isn't the believer's intention. From what I read about Nationals outfielder Ryan Church, it seemed like he truly didn't realize how hurtful his words about Jews were.

"You draw too much of a separation between authority and spirituality. Spirituality in our culture has come to mean anything that provides a euphoric, esoteric experience. Spirituality in Christianity means to live your life rightly."

I wasn't necessarily talking about any authority that God may possess. I was talking more about the claims made by monotheists about such authority. Again, this has to do with competing religions making competing and often conflicting claims about truth. From my emotional perspective, they all come down to some variation of "You should believe in Yahweh/Gaia/Allah/Buddha/etc because we say so." It feels to me like the believer is claiming to speak for deity, in a "Uh oh, you're in trouble" sense. What I'm saying is that it's very possible that the believer has an objective for me that has nothing to do with God and is merely using the name of God to lend the agenda some credibility.

"If all claims for truth are taken off the table there is no discussion...Without God, nothing makes sense, in fact nothing even exists. If the Bible is true, there is no such thing as an atheist."

While I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, it sounds like you're using a Christian frame of reference to address all claims to truth. Shouldn't it be possible to evaluate those claims without any subjective frame of reference, without any kind of partisanship or bias in favor of one's own faith? What if a religion other than Christianity is right about deity? What if, say, the Native Americans are right about there being many animal deities instead of one supreme being? What if some religions are partially right? What if none of them are right? I don't have the answers. All I have are the competing claims of religions that seek new members.

Tonio,
First of all, I appreciate your irenic spirit with me. You said:

"I am struggling to understand the source of the evangelistic impulse in so many religions. Why anyone cares about my religious beliefs is a mystery to me."

I cannot speak for other religions, however it seems axiomatic to me that human beings at the core of their being seek a life that is satisfying, fulfilling, etc... I believe Christianity alone meets the deepest needs of the human soul. When you discover something exciting and satisfying you want to tell others.

You draw too much of a seperation between authority and spirituality. Spirituality in our culture has come to mean anything that provides a euphoric, esoteric experience. Spirituality in Christianity means to live your life rightly. You cannot live your life rightly unless you have entrusted yourself to God's care. If God is the Creator and Suatainer of the universe, He rightful deserves our allegiance. As the beneficient Lord of the universe, He also provides for us our greatest needs through Jesus Christ. So spirituality becomes a question of authority - who do you serve?

You said in another post:
"I suggest that in any 'common ground' or interfaith discussions, all doctrines and all teachings about truth should be taken off the table. Whether there is a god, many gods, or no god - that's not relevant to such discussions. Neither is whether Jesus or Buddha were human or divine, or whether Mohammed ascended to heaven."

If all claims for truth are taken off the table there is no discussion. The whole discussion is about what is true. Whether there is a 'god' is paramount. Without God, nothing makes sense, in fact nothing even exists. If the Bible is true, there is no such thing as an atheist. Atheism according to the Bible is a clever ploy to avoid one's accountability before God. Consider the despair this sort of thinking led the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre.

The divinity of Christ is essential to the truth claims of Christianity. Furthermore, Jesus claimed exclusivity for Himself. He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6). To put the matter in modern parlance, no one can be spiritually enlightened (i.e. come into a relationship with the God of the universe) apart from knowing and embracing Christ for who He is. This is an extremely bold and exclusivist claim. As C. S. Lewsis once quipped, it makes Him either a liar, a lunatic or Lord. The evidence for the latter makes the former 2 options absurd. One must deal with these claims, for no other religious leader in history that even comes close to the stature of Jesus made such claims. An interfaith discussion must deal with these sorts of claims from Christianity because they purport to answer the deepest questions of life and existence.

As Dr. Mohler stated, as Christians we believe that God has spoken truthfully to us in the Bible--and supremely in Jesus Christ.

The Bible was written over many years by people who were writing in their own cultures, according to their own personalities, and addressing issues of their day. But God was inspiring every word! OK, the agnostic says "prove it". Well, you can't. God has chosen the avenue of faith. As the writer of Hebrews states, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him". Hebrews 11:6 (NIV)

That said, there is compelling evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical event. I refer to the book -- "The Case for Christ" by "Lee Strobel" which addresses this.

If one approaches the Bible with humility, an open heart, and asks God to come to him/her, God has promised He will.
But, if one approaches the Bible with pride, a closed heart, or arrogance, he/she will probably leave unchanged.

Owen, I don't know what definitions you are using for "preaching" and "evangelizing." To me, those words suggest an agenda to change other people's beliefs. Is that how those words sound to you?

From my standpoint, I have been simply stating my objections to what I perceive as a violation of my personal boundaries. Does it really sound like preaching to you? If you really think I'm telling you that your religious beliefs are wrong, I feel sadness at making you feel that way, because that's exactly what I wanted to avoid. I can't stand being told that I'm evil and worthless and deserving of death, and the thought of me telling that to someone else repulses me.

My intention is not to advocate anything but the validity of my own opinions and my own emotions. For much of my life, people have told me, mostly implicitly, occasionally explicitly, that my opinions and emotions have no validity. That is why I often sound defensive about religious matters. If someone has a negative opinion about me, whether it's religious or secular, I have a right to feel hurt and invaded.

Tonio,

You're not getting my point, and I'm sure it's not cause you're not trying. Honestly. I appreciate your calmer tone. But let me try to explain your hypocrisy. I'll list it in terms of propositions for you.

A. You do not like that people preach truth at you.
B. You preach to other people that they should not preach at you.
C. You (B) therefore are no different than the religious types (A). You are holding your commitments, and evangelizing based on those comments, just as strenuously (if not more) than they are.

Therefore, for you to say that you are not preaching is hypocritical. You're wrong to do so. You are preaching just as much as the fundamentalists are--it just so happens that your religion is based on self, rather than on God.

To make it abundantly clear: you and everyone else on here who advocate your brand of religion are no different than the fundamentalists. You preach just like we do. You make absolute truth claims just like we do. Yours just do not have the same religious content.

I hope this is clear.

This is an amazing discussion - thanks to everyone who is participating!

A lot of material has already been covered, but I would like to come back with some of my responses to things that have been posted here.

Alex Schievink – a lot of people to all have the same hallucination over a long period of time, wouldn’t you say?

JRH and Ellison Baxter – you’re right that terrible things have been done in the name of many religions, including Christianity – all the more reason why we should read what the Bible actually says (such as “love your enemies”) rather than dismiss it. Ellison, surely the fact that many slaves became Christians indicates that the person Jesus is wonderful enough to overcome even the horrors of slavery. It is an absolute shame the people who claim to be Christians would perpetrate or allow so many awful things to continue. But what about all the true followers of Jesus around the world who are being systematically persecuted simply for what they believe?

Brent Walker – check your facts on the Bible! The 3rd century council of Nicea merely affirmed the Bible that was already in use by thousands of Christians, the Bible which comprised Hebrew Scriptures plus the letters and teachings of the apostles which were in circulation through the early church and had been since about 40-70 AD. You write that “The real Bible is alive, present and edited daily in the interaction of the people of God” – what if two of those people differ? How are we to know which is right?

Ama – because the Bible’s view of God is inconsistent with how most people view God, does that make it wrong? The Bible as a historical document is more reliable than Caesar’s Gallic Wars or Pliny’s writings, yet historians regularly look to them to increase their understanding of that period.

Roo – logic works against you, I’m afraid. You ask us to accept the view that truth is subjective, but that belief in itself is objective. If truth is subjective and we must all accept each other’s versions are equally valid, then you must accept the version that says truth is objective…. (Thanks MG!)

Candide – how do you intend to prove faith? For example, I can’t do a repeated, controlled experiment to prove that Jesus lived 2000 years ago (scientific proof); but in terms of historical evidence, there is as much evidence for his life and death as for many other historical figures such as Julius Caesar, that no-one would claim never existed. Christianity, at least, does not require people to believe blindly – there is plenty of intellectual ‘meat’ to back up its claims. And, just out of curiosity, on what basis do you make your claims about the ‘real’ Jesus?

WBINCC, Ken, Renee – unfortunately there is a lot of hypocrisy in the church, and that’s something I struggle a lot with (and which led to me ignoring church altogether for a large part of my life). I look at it like this – you wouldn’t go to a hospital and expect to find a bunch of healthy people. Jesus came for the sick, the imperfect, and that’s who we find in the church. So what the church says (or should say) is not ‘we’re better than you guys’ but ‘here’s something that can help you, just as it has helped me’.

Renee, I’d like to add that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians, but with a much better understanding of the Bible and true Christianity than many right-wingers in America today. Sad.

WBINCC – read what Jesus actually says! He stops a woman caught in adultery from being stoned. He tells us to love our enemies.

Jim – where was Jesus? He was there, weeping as people chose to turn away from the life he offers and chose to slaughter, maim and hurt each other instead.

Teo, Anonymous – look into the things you denounce before saying they are irrational or without evidence

Nelson Cruz - "What we choose to believe is NOT FACT"
Presumably you know for a FACT that this is true?

Tim Coomar, I think "tolerance" is the wrong concept for interfaith discussions. As I see it, the problem is that all believers (me included) are engaging in a kind of ethnocentrism. We're all viewing other religions through the lenses of our own religions. Even among the Abrahamic religions, Christians view Jews as not pagans but heretics, and Muslims view Christians the same way.

I suggest that in any "common ground" or interfaith discussions, all doctrines and all teachings about truth should be taken off the table. Whether there is a god, many gods, or no god - that's not relevant to such discussions. Neither is whether Jesus or Buddha were human or divine, or whether Mohammed ascended to heaven.

Imagine a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of believing in something greater than one's self. To be productive, such a discussion would have to be nonpartisan in religious terms. It would have to stay away from any discussion about whether the "something greater" should be Yahweh, Gaia, nature, or the universe. Religious doctrines could be mentioned, but only in the abstract. Is such a nonpartisan discussion possible?

Christians - even though claiming to have discovered the source of absolute truth - are still tolerant of other opinions and behaviours. It is the biggest lie that true Christianity is intolerant of atheists and homosexuals and even of abortionists.

You may ask why. Well, the answer is simple. Christians are tolerant with others because God was tolerant with them! Both in their deviant beliefs and practices. Every Christian was once an enemy of God and espoused similar beliefs and practices to every current non-Christian. When I encounter someone with different beliefs and practices to mine, what comes naturally to me as a selfish human being is to be 'intolerant'. What makes the difference, however, - the thing that leads the Christian to deny himself and show tolerance - is that Christians do no see tolerance as an end in itself! For God, his tolerance shown to us was a stepping stone to the real aim - reconciliation. In the same way, true Christians show love and tolerance to all because their aim is reconciliation. Reconciliation with God, with each other and with ourselves.

Tolerance as an end in itself (which is the general idea behind "inter-faith discussion") rejects both the possibility of reaching the truth and the possibility of achieving any kind of reconciliation.

Scott C, excellent reply. I frequent the discussion here because I hope that others will understand where I'm coming from. At the same time, I am struggling to understand the source of the evangelistic impulse in so many religions. Why anyone cares about my religious beliefs is a mystery to me.

I don't understand why religions have "to make truth claims that are universally sweeping in their target audience." To me, that seems to be less about spirituality and more about authority. Why should religion have anything to do with authority? Isn't religion about finding a meaning and purpose for life, about answering the question "Why are we here?" Aren't we all on our own individual journeys to find that meaning and purpose? If that is the case, shouldn't the debate in forums like this focus on the journey itself and not on what the "right" destination might be? If one person finds his or her answers in Christianity and another finds those in, say, Hinduism, why should one be concerned with the other's answers?

Let's remember the purpose of this article. Dr. Mohler has argued that it is possible for those who hold opposing absolute truth claims to have an intelligent, meaningful conversation without having to forfeit the tenants of their respective faiths if each person presents him/herself honestly. I believe he has aptly demonstrated this, seeing as how my comment is around the 90th in this discussion. He then lays out his own cards - not in an effort to persuade or provide evidence for his beliefs - simply as a matter of intellectual honesty. I'm sure that if any who are criticizing Dr. Mohler's beliefs were to ask him why he believes as he does, he would be more than happy to explain.

As a side note, I am dismayed at the use of the word "tolerance" here in this conversation and as it has now become to be used in faith conversations. Somewhere along the line "tolerance" stopped meaning "the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others" and started meaning "respecting anyone as long as they do not claim to know absolute truth revealed by God." Intolerance isn't believing in absolute truth, intolerance is automatically dismissing anyone who does.

Tonio,

You said:

"To me, all evangelism feels like a threat to my mental independence, even when that isn't the evangelist's intention. You don't have to agree with my emotion, but please acknowledge that I have a right to feel that emotion. I have a right to feel threatened when someone deems my religious beliefs as unacceptable to them. I hate it when someone has a religious belief about me, not me personally but me as a not a member of the person's religion."

This seems a rather strange statement for a person to make who has posted comments on a Web discussion on religious faith. Did you not expect people to make truth claims that are universally sweeping in their target audience? If this threatens you so much, I wonder why you would even frequent the discussion?

On to other matters. Truth is objective by the very nature of the case. If you reject the objective nature of truth claims then your world has no meaning at all. A simple case in point: 2+2=4 and always is true. At no time and in no situation can 2+2=5 unless you enjoy fantasy. Religions make truth claims. They are either true or false. If they are true there is nothing you can do about, because truth by the nature of the case is not determined by personal opinion. You may not like the fact that when you run in front of a Mack truck at 65mph that it is going to kill you. But the truth remains the same.

I happen to believe that the claims of Biblical Christianity (and I will stand in line to refute abberant forms of Christianity of which there are many) are objectively true and therefore unassailable. Christianity alone makes full and thorough sense of our world, its conditions, and in particular the conditions and problems that human beings face personally and corporately. All other sytems of thought whether they be religious or philosophical in nature, to the degree that they contradict the truth claims of Christianity, are false. As I indicated before, truth is not relative, but objective. Therefore competing truth claims that seek to explain the same phenomena of life and existence cannot all be true. And by the nature of the case, something must be true that explains the course of reality or one must consign himself to despair or ignore the questions and indulge apathy. Some ideas have bits of truth, but I believe Christianity makes full sense of all the important and relevant phenomena.

Now a person may have a problem accepting the truth claims of Christianity, but it is irrational to disallow it to make its voice known. This is what happens in Muslims countries. If it is false, demonstrate that it is so. But in order for a person to do that he must grasp what it actually says about the relevant and important phenomena. Nobody has sought to do that in these posts. There is a lot of blustering and that is about it. My comments are not intended to answer the questions, rather to indicate that it is not fruitless to engage the questions.

Sok7:

"Even if a supposed Christian told a non-believer that he was going to Hell, why get so mad if you don't believe in Hell?"

Simple - because the message is that the non-believer is evil and worthless and deserving of death. That would piss off anyone, regardless of the belief system. Whether or not Hell exists is irrelevant. It's that fact that the believer believes in Hell and is using his or her belief system to question other people's right to exist.

Anonymous:

"If the God of the Bible exists, He is the authority over all mankind whether people wish to accept it or not. The Christian simply accepts the authority God has over his life. BTW, that authority is good, wise and powerful."

Many, many entires here treat the existence of the God of the Bible as an objective fact. As I see it, no religion's cosmology or dogma constitutes objective fact, partly because each person has a unique experience of the divine. (I believe in a God, but in the universalist or pantheist sense, and I don't expect anyone else to have that belief.) When it comes to the truth of the Bible, I have only the word of Christians. And please don't take this personally, but there's no reason I should take their word for it. There's no reason I should accept any religion's claims to absolute truth. I'm not saying organized religions are bad. I'm saying that people are entitled to find the answers on their own if they wish.

Imagine that you grew up on a desert island and knew nothing about the world's religions. Then you arrived in civilization, and representatives from all the world's religions came to you and bombarded you with their messages. They pestered you, cajoled you, harassed you about joining their religions. Why should you believe any of their claims about truth?

SMP:

"Mr./Mrs. Anonymous, you yourself are speaking for God when you make the claim that on one speaks for God. Your claim means that God cannot or does not use prophets to speak for him. How do you know this?"

That was me, and I apologize for not signing my name. I make no claims about God, even though it may have sounded that way. Instead, I approach it from an agnostic viewpoint. Whatever God wants, no human is capable of knowing it. I don't know if God uses prophets. I simply don't believe people when they claim to be prophets. Such claims come either from arrogance or from a lust for power over one's fellow humans. Or to put it another way, I don't know what God wants, and no one else does, either.

Owen:

Yes, it sounds like I am shrieking at people. I just feel incredibly resentful at being told that I have no value as a human because I don't follow the "right" religion. I am still angry at the nameless flunky at Saddam Hussein's state-run newspaper who, on the first anniversary of 9/11, plastered a photo of the burning WTC with the headline "God's Punishment."

It may sound like I am preaching against people. Please understand that is not my intention. My intention is just to vent about how evangelism affects me personally. It is not my intention to ask anyone to give up the core tenets of his or her religion. I do not see myself as against religion, and I'm not trying to stump for any particular religion or the lack of it. (I didn't know that my own beliefs were similar to Buddhism until one of my friends pointed out the similarity.)

My point is that I take all evangelism personally, no matter what religion the evangelism as pushing. To me, all evangelism feels like a threat to my mental independence, even when that isn't the evangelist's intention. You don't have to agree with my emotion, but please acknowledge that I have a right to feel that emotion. I have a right to feel threatened when someone deems my religious beliefs as unacceptable to them. I hate it when someone has a religious belief about me, not me personally but me as a not a member of the person's religion.

For Ted Swart, part two:

Ted, regarding why God would send people to hell (this should have been part of the first post, but I am getting tired and inattentive).

I'll be the first to say that I don't like the idea of people going to hell. Why, as you ask, would God do this? For believing the wrong thing? No, for disobeying His law. If God is just, He must reward good and punish evil. We wouldn't want an unjust God--the implications are just too horrendous to contemplate.

So if God punishes evil (breaking his law), what sort of punishment should it be? The punishment should fit the crime; so breaking an unimportant law (like parking at an expired meter) should get a small punishment, while breaking a more important law (like murder) should get a larger punishment.

So what sort of laws does God have? Unimportant ones, important ones, or both? Considering who he is, his laws have to be of vital importance. I'm not interested in a God who tells me trivial or unimportant things. In fact, since He is the God who is infinite, eternal, almighty, His laws are of crucial importance. All of them.

And so the punishment is infinite and eternal.

This is a depressing prospect if that is all there is to it.

But that's precisely the good news of Jesus Christ--that He came and took our punishment for us, so that we don't have to take it. That's how we can be sure of going to heaven when we die--there is nothing more on our record, because Jesus took it all.

And THAT is why we talk to everyone about Him, send missionaries all over the world, and so on. We'd like them to escape hell and spend eternity in heaven with us as well.

What do you think? See any flaws in the logic?

Tom

For Ted Swart:

Ted, thanks for the kind words about my post. I called it quits with 1/2 a bachelor's degree in math, so I'm sure your mathematical abiliteis are far beyond mine.

But let me give you an example of the fulfilled prophecies about Jesus. Where would the Messiah be born? At the time of the prophet Micah, about 700 BC, there were already lots of cities on earth, and the Messiah could have been born in any one of them. In the middle of his prophecy, Micah pulls Bethlehem out of the blue, even though it was a pretty small city then as now...a large city such as Memphis or Nineveh or Babylon would have been a lot more likely. But he pulls out little Bethlehem, 700 or so years before the fact.

And Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem. His contemporary Matthew records it, and a little later on Luke (who says he researched his history diligently) confirms it. So Micah got it right, against pretty hefty odds, 700 years in advance.

What do you think?

Pilgram -
Excellent post on Edward Moore. I read his post 3 times and couldn't decipher what if anything he believes. I suspect if I pushed hard on his beliefs in any area, he would waffle.

This reminds me of James 1:5-8 (NIV)

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

Food for thought..

Unfortunately people will always be turned off by the truth. Jesus said that narrow is the road and few will find it! Yet, the world wants to recognize Jesus as this great teacher..And yet he said radical things like.."No one can come to God but through me..."

But he is a good teacher? No. Either we have the truth or we have a lie...Jesus is the messiah or he isn't! This isn't fundamentalism...it is truth vs. lie...talk about it together, absolutely...surrender our ground never. Thanks Dr. Mohler for not surrendering!

Meacham and Quinn: "Oh the filthiness of their fornicaton, having in their hand a cup full of abominations."

Babylon is Fallen, and the Billy Graham's Great Harlot (that Lying False Church) is Drunk!!!!!!

Bye

For Tom:

What a pleasnat post Tom. For my part I started out as and Anglican (Episcopalean) -- by birth as it were -- bacame a Quaker -- by choice -- and have ended up an agnostic -- or, what I call, a weak agnostic. By weak agnostic I mean I don't claim to have all the answers but am open to the notion -- in fact warm to the notion -- that there is some kind of spirituality at loose in the world.

I have a D.Sc in physical chemistry and -- half way through my career -- I did a Ph.D in the interface between math and comp sci (four colour problem). Now retired but still doing math research.

I am afraid you loose me when you speak of fulfilled prophecies. The universe is indeed a huge mystery but the claims made regarding Jesus hardly hold up under close inspection. We don't have a very good handle on the historical truths with respect to Jesus but he is reported as having said "Why call you me good. There is none good but God". and he really did have some morally indefensble notions about the existence of hell and interminable punishment. Punishment for what? Picking the wrong beliefs? What kind of spirituality is that?

So, please go back to agnosticism. It's much more defensible.

Edward Moore’s post demonstrates exactly what I referred to in my earlier post. The fuzziness will come from the moderates on both sides in this debate; those who have only a partial and inconsistent understanding of that which they profess to believe. Even those who are “professionals” in their profession.

As an Orthodox Christian and professional theologian, philosopher, and educator, I believe -- as does my religious tradition -- that the Bible is the historical record of humanity's -- or certain groups of human beings' -- interaction with, and quest to understand, the Deity. When we say that the Bible is the "word of God," we do not mean that God Himself wrote it as I am writing this post, only using human beings, rather than a keyboard, as His instrument(s) of composition. Orthodox Christians do not believe the Bible to be infallbile, for three main reasons: God created all human beings with free will; inspired human beings are the authors of the Bible; even under the guidance of inspiration, free beings can make errors. Therefore, it follows that while the Bible is an inspired and human document, it is nevertheless, like those godly men and women who wrote it, imperfect. This is why the Orthodox Church views the Bible as one part -- albeit a very important one -- of an ongoing revelation of God to humanity that began long before the Incarnation of Christ, and will continue until the end of the ages, when all is recapitulated in and by our Creator.

The decisive importance of the Incarnation is not as a final revelation, the meaning of which, if only properly understood, will put an end to all debate and division regarding Truth. Rather, it is the historical manifestation of our humanity as originally intended by God: as His image and likeness, of which Christ is, for our faith, the perfect archetype and exemplar.

When Mr Mohler writes that "Our knowledge of God and all things He has revealed are no tribute to our intelligence, but rather to God's love for us," he is, I feel, forgetting that God's love is precisely the reason for our freedom, and hence, our shared imperfection. God created every single one of us in His image, and with a likeness that must be attained and perfected in the course of our historical existence. The likeness, then, is not a 'given', but the image certainly is. This is why the death penalty, for example, is contrary to Orthodox teachings -- no one, not even the most heinously evil human being -- can ever lose the image of the God in whom s/he was created.

God's love for us is expressed most clearly in this fact; not in a supposed revelation of Himself that is essentially, when understood in the evangelical manner, a divine being saying "hey, look how great I am! Now place all your faith in my book, and all will be well with you." The task of our existence is to recognize the *image* of God within us, and to use it as a firm foundation upon which to perfect that inherent *likeness* to God that is the birthright of us all.

What if there really is a god?

What if he/she expects us to search and find him/her and learn to worship as he/she wants (not as we want)?

What if we are just bit players in this gods universe and plan, and what we want is of absolutely no importance to god? This includes all the opinions of christian, muslim and jewish religious leaders as well as leaders in all fields. After all this planet is nothing more than the hair on a fleas leg in the walmart parking lot in Nowhere, Arizona.

What if he/she is going to hold us accountable for our beliefs, decisions and actions, regardless of our religion or beliefs? There are no free bases.

What kind of attitude would we have to others beliefs we may not understand yet?

Would we trust others to tell us what to believe or would we actually study and make our own decision based on knowledge and understanding?

What if this god, had expectations of us, beyond just living life?

What if we believed we found this god, but discovered that our religion was not fulfilling this god's requirements? Would we investigate others and change religion if we found one that did meet god's requirements?

Not that it matters, but from my perspective, I see most people as living life by rote. They found a way to get by in their life, and are content with it and are afraid to change. It doesn't matter to them what god thinks, what matters is what their preist, shaman, buddha, nobel prize winner, celebrity, next door neighbor, mother, friend or boss thinks. They have more faith in others than god.

And that's too bad.

P.S. Dr. Mohler, thank you for all you do for the SBC and the church as a whole. You truly are a gift from God to Christians around the globe. Don't stop until the Lord calls you home.

Matt

In response to SK's comment, "If you were God, would you send the same messenger-ambassador-to vastly differing and ancient cultures? Of course not! You would send ambassadors that could connect with the world view and traditions already established," I will simply say this. The problem with religious pluralism is that it attempts to make God into man's image, instead of making man in God's image. By saying that God conforms His message to human cultures, aren't you saying He conforms Himself to these cultures? Here the power rests not in an omnipotent, holy God, but in mortal men. The message is of a searching, desperate God seeking for followers instead of the one infinitely holy and unchanging God seeking to show Himself to the world. Religious pluralism is a philosophical impossibility mainly because none of the religions of the world agree. And yet most responders on this site have tried to say we should all be tolerant and understanding and accepting of every religion. To the Muslim I ask, are you really ready to be tolerant to the Jew, who esteems Isaac and not Ishmael? To the Jew I ask, are you really ready to accept that Christians will enter into heaven, even though they (so you claim) believe in a false Messiah? To the Buddhist I ask, are you ready to say that most other religions of the world are valid in trying to attain salvation through some act or relationship to God, while you purport atheism? And to the Hindu, you who claim tolerance most of all, are you ready to accept the Muslim or Jew or Christian who says you must be a part of their religion in order to attain salvation? To be truthful, as an evangelical Christian I will not say that there are other ways to heaven aside from faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Does this make me a terrible person? No. In fact, I believe it makes me even more loving to tell the world about Christ because I know He is the only way, and to say or proclaim anything else would be unloving due to the fact that I would be withholding my most precious treasure from my friends and peers.
This proclomation of no salvation outside of Christ does not make me narrow-minded or terrible or mean-spirited. At the very least, if you do not believe it makes me loving, it makes me honest. And the point of this conversation, if anything, is honesty. Let's be honest about what we believe. Tolerance and religious pluralism is NOT the answer. It cannot be the answer. It is a philosophical impossibility that it is the answer. So please, stop getting angry or being rude when someone expresses their honest convictions. If you want to disagree, fine. After all, that's what this site is all about. But do so in a respectful manner. Even if there cannot be religious pluralism, there can be love and respect and honesty, all mixed together in what could be a very interesting and informing discussion.

"Mr Mohler, as an evangelical Christian, you believe in a set of ideas, facts and "truths" for which there is absolutely no evidence what so ever.
This alone, disqualifies you from taking part in any rational discussion on any matter.
Your irrational faith is completely delusional a priori, and what's more – your delusion, combined with delusions of millions of people like you, is hurting our species. Please stop."

This seems to be the broadest opinion voiced here, summed nicely. So it seems that any conversation about faith cannot be useful unless you have no faith. What a heady, haughty and high minded bunch o' buffoons.

William:

Regretfully, you do not understand that when Dr. Mohler admits that he is not the repository of absolute Truth, he is not contradicting himself to state that the Bible is. He is simply and humbly admitting that his epistomological foundation lies outside of himself. He derives his understanding of the world from that foundation and is admitting and proclaiming his loyalty to that foundation which can and does speak for itself.

The real problem is twofold: Either a person will humbly search out and submit to the authority of the Word of God over them, or they will personally remain their own authority. Either the Bible has jurisdiction over them or it does not. The subsequent issue therefore asks "what does the Word of God actually say?" And to this we would echo what Jesus Christ (the author of our epistemological foundation) Himself stated to the religious leaders of His day: "It is these (the biblical text) that testify about Me."
Either Jesus is right or He is wrong. If He is write, He is write absolutely. If He is wrong, He is wrong absolutely. But we hold that He is not confused.

Conversation is open as long as we can bring to the discussion support from our authoritative foundation. And personally, I believe it is more arrogant to say that I am the source of absolute truth than to say that the Bible is the source of absolute Truth which I am just trying to be consistent with. And I'm not dopping my intellect at the door either. Rather, we search out everything to find wherein the Bible speaks - and it is sufficient for all of life and godliness.

I find this a perfect example of the two flaws common to evangelical views. It is self contradictory and lacks integrity. Mr. Mohler is asserting that he does not have a monopoly on truth (that originates with himself) but he does have a monopoly on truth (that originates with God). He has and does not have a monopoly on truth at the same time. There is no arguing with someone who asserts something and its contradiction at the same time, no matter how cleverly it is concealed.

However, Mr Mohler could hold a reasonable position if he asserted that he does not hold a monopoly on truth, but he has a belief (that may well be wrong) that the bible is true. But that would mean giving up the right to force that truth on other people. Specifically, a reasonable evangelical might hold that he was personally pro-life but publicly pro choice because he believed in the bible but he did not have a monopoly on truth. However, that is not the position that Mr. Mohler means to take with phrases like "unique, definitive, particular, and universal".

The defense of this contradiction merely undermines the integrity of the evangelical position and I think discussion is simply impossible. The real position is: Evangelicals have a monopoly on truth because they believe that the bible (as they interpret it) is the absolute, God's truth. This is logically equivalent to: Whatever they believe is THE TRUTH. Any other assertion is a dishonest smoke screen.

the last paragraph, second line should say:
"While you may entirely disagree with what we say ..."

Interesting discussion ...

As for "proofs" for God's exisence, the one I find most convincing is the transcendental argument. Meaning that, as I understand it, without God, it is useless to even have a standard for debate. The very notion of debating requires something outside of our "physical universe" that transcends it, that can be appealed to.

As for why Christians hold so closely to the Bible as the revealed Word of God, or at least why I do (and I was not raised in a Christian home) is that no one has been able to adequately explain away the resurrection. The resurrection is proof that Jesus is who he says he is. And he claimed exclusiveness: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." He also promised the Holy Spirit to remind and teach the disciples all things. Some of the letters and accounts have been preserved in history by the same Spirit. They contain everything that is necessary for faith and belief, and everything that God wants us to know - but not everything there is to know. Because Jesus resurrection proves He is who He said He is, because the Holy Spirit taught and preserved all that is necessary for us to know, the Bible is more than trustworthy - though it is hard to understand at times. Admittedly, this sounds like circular reasoning, and to some point it is. I like to think of it as a circle of reasoning that makes sense, but only if one is willing to enter it at a point of faith. And I believe the point of the faith is concentrated around the resurrection. And there is enough historical evidence to show that believing in such is not a blind leap of faith, but an educated one. But, it does take faith - which comes from God. Do I expect non-Christians to accept this? No, I don't. When I wasn't a Christian, I didn't accept it either. But "something" made me pursue this - the question of was Jesus really who He said he was. The failings of His followers (then and now) had very little to do with whether his truth claims were really, in fact, true. Thus, since I believe the Bible to be God's Word, I filter my thinking through it - or at least try to.
The Bible is not filled with contradictions and errors, and it is not simplistic. People have spent lifetimes studying one book and only scratched its surface. It has things that are hard to understand, and things that are easy to. For the most part, the absolute essentials are fairly straightforward. But, there is no single aspect of life upon which the Bible has nothing to say. Unfortunately for those who do not trust Christ cannot believe it, for "these things are spiritually discerned." Thus, Christians enter an impossible task armed only with the knowledge that Truth will win in the end, and that the Holy Spirit works in many ways and in many lives. And, the principles and precepts in the Bible - rightly understood - show us the best way to live. And this IS true, even for non-Christians ...

As for debating issues, Christians are citizens, too and have a right to enter into the debate. While you may entirely with what we say, it is not valid to dismiss us oon the basis that you don't like our "defining principle." At the same time, I think Dr. Mohler has it right in the way he generally debates. To defend what the Bible teaches as true, not just because the Bible says so, but because it is what is best for the human community in general. Therefore, Christians who believe God has spoken on the issues can enter into debates and think through the issues, even if "Bible verses" are never part of the discussion. Truth always is, though ...

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.
It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter. Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed. Christ is its grand subject, our good the design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents. [Found inside a Gideon's New Testament]

You can have fruitful debate between people who disagree. I've done it on a number of occasions. It's just a matter of not being a jerk about it when you disagree.

Everyone has a truth standard. Most people use their own mind as the truth standard. Of course, since they are finite, it isn't much of a standard.

Since God is infinite, the Bible is the only absolute standard.

There's no point in discussing truth with someone with a different truth standard, since you can never arrive at the truth. You have to have the same truth standard to have any worthwhile conversations.

"Is conversation possible only among those who deny a divine revelation? If so, only liberals can join the conversation."
-Dr. Mohler

After reading a fair sampling of 155 comments, I'd wager the liberals would rather have the conversation themselves. When intellectuals such as Dr. Mohler speak out, suddenly the game's not fun anymore. Someone's stepping on toes. Making outrageous claims . . . to truth!

Fiddlesticks.

If you would rather have this "conversation" in coffeehouses with fellow atheists/liberals/agnostics/whatever, then you aren't interested in a conversation at all. You're interested in self-assuring pep talks that amount to nothing more than pseudo-intellectual platitudes. What goes in surely comes out.

Most of you have glossed over Dr. Mohler's simple plea for "showing our cards" as someone said previously.

But you don't like the cards he's showing you, so you don't want to play anymore. Listen if you want to learn, if you want to have a conversation, then you have to pay attention to and "respect each other's deepest beliefs as being honestly held and honestly presented."

This goes for everyone. Christians, get busy reading Harris, Dawkins, or whomever. The rest of you read some sound theology (D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudem) and apologetics so you aren't cherry-picking 'ridiculous' passages from Leviticus to your kids (inadvertantly teaching them how to not to use their brains).

It's no use reading it if you're not going to engage it.

But hey if you'd rather have the conversation amongst yourselves, I'm sure your peppermint mocha agrees with everything you say.

I suppose it's inevitable that the questions from the "On Faith" moderators are going to be somewhat ambiguous. Consider the concept that some people believe they have a "monopoly on truth." What, exactly, does that mean? Does it mean that they actually believe their beliefs are actually true? Well, most people I know do actually believe their beliefs, so I don't think that's what they mean.

Maybe they mean people who believe that what they believe is right and those with opposite beliefs are wrong. Again, most people fall into this camp. If I believe, for example, that there is a God, or that abortion should be legal, or that the Chicago Bears are the greatest football team in history, then it follows that I think whoever disagrees with my beliefs are wrong. And if I believe that God exists as one divine substance and three divine persons, then I obviously thinks Muslims are wrong, and they think I am wrong.

So maybe by people who think they have a "monopoly on truth" they mean those folks who refuse to consider opposing views. Now obviously they are aiming this concept at religious conservatives, and there are certainly many religious conservatives who would fall into this camp. But I know religious liberals, atheists, and flat-earthers who also refuse to consider opposing views.

I say all this to say: so what? So what if there are some religious conservatives who do this? There are a lot of others who don't. But many commenters here on Mohler's post seem to be saying that if one believes the Bible to be true, then it is impossible to engage in dialogue with those who disagree. But why think that? Why is my belief that the Bible is reliable any more problematic for the purposes for discourse than your belief that France is the greatest nation in the world (if indeed you do hold that belief; I hope you don't)?

Put this another way: why should it be the case that, if someone holds a belief that is by and large inviolable (as evangelical belief in Scripture usually is), this is somehow de facto problematic for that individual's ability to engage in discourse. Perhaps that individual has good reasons for holding that belief, or she thinks that the evidence for that belief is high, or at least the level of justification for it is. What makes defense of that belief somehow more difficult than for the freethinker who holds the opposite belief but with the same degree of assent?

But I've gone on too long. My point is that belief in Scripture, or in the truth of your religion, or whatever, does not automatically disqualify the believer from engaging in meaningful discourse. I engage with nonbelievers all the time, and (hopefully) the discourse is edifying for all involved. Why must I hold lightly to my beliefs to be able to have significant discourse with those who disagree with me? The very notion smacks of bias against those who have strong religious convictions.

Brian Trapp
ChristianThinker.net

http://www.christianthinker.net

Scott..Most of the discussion, as you say, have been pretty reasonable. As Tom above you said,though, "atheism" is a negative proof. I respectfully disagree. There is no such thing as a negative proof. I don't proclaim my atheism to be proof of anything at all. However, a belief in a supreme being without proof doesn't make that a positive.

And Scott, with all due respect, there really isn't a need for more substance than comfort and sincerity. My comfort level exists in the acceptance that some questions in life, as in other things, simply have no answers. And not having an answer does not preclude comfort. I don't have a need to explain life by blindly believing in stories that have simply existed for a long time because they were passed on. That, in my opinion, is the foundation for religious belief. And if that makes one happy, that's nice.
I just don't need it. Nor do I feel it necessary for others to accept my disbelief. Unlike many who believe so fervently in their religious beliefs that they feel a need to convince others that their way is the "right" way is not something I have a need to do. If you wish to believe, and it works for you, I'm happy for you.

Ken,
It seems to me that most of the Christians responding in this thread have been reasonable. Those who say Dr. Mohler has stopped the conversation are not terribly irenic IMHO. It seems to me most of those who oppose Dr. Mohler statements don't wish for his brand of Christianity to even enter the conversation.

Secondly, you say you are comfortable in your aetheism. I can say the same about my Christian beliefs. However, comfort, sincerity, even zeal for one's position cannot be a criterion for truth. There are many comfortable and sincere people who are comfortably and sincerely wrong. Saying that doesn't make one wrong, but there must be something much more substantial to evaluate truth claims than comfort and sincerity.

Fascinating column and posts!

I once thought of myself as an atheist but found it untenable. First of all, a philosophy professor at my college (not a Christian college) pointed out that atheism is a negative proof; it requires you to prove that you have considered every possible case and that there is not a God in any one of those possible cases. Rather a high standard. So I went to agnosticism as more intellectually respectable.

Even that failed me, though, as I studied math (my major) and was impressed by the physical precision of so many things in the universe--how really on a razor's edge so much of the universe and our own existence is balanced. The odds against it all happening by chance were too great--a lot greater than just a 95% chance, which is the usual threshold for statistical significance. So from a purely intellectual viewpoint I became (and remain) convinced that there is a God.

But is He the God of the BIble? Here again math comes to my aid. I look at the prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and I conclude that it is rational to believe that someone saw far ahead and prophesied things that actually happened centuries later. How did the author know these things would happen? Either an awful lot of awfully dumb luck, or inspiration by someone who knew that these things would happen--the God of the Bible.

That's my two cents worth. What do you think?

One of the many observations that can be made after contributing earlier to this discussion and reading the posts from others is that the christians who have made their comments seem to have problems with those whose beliefs are contrary to theirs.

I would imagine that a board like this one which might appear on a site originating in India would make similar arguments about hinduism. And one in Pakistan or Turkey might present similar arguments about islam. And one in Israel would take a similar approach with judaism.

The fact is that, for the most part, each of the "organized" religions of the planet claim to have the "Truth", whether is is from the bible, the koran or the talmud. That is the very nature of religions.

As I said in my post yesterday, I am quite comfortable in my atheism. Perhaps the reason I am is because I really don't have much of a need to be convinced that somehow, after my death, I will be transported to a "better place". I am as comfortable with my own mortality as I am with my atheism. If I am remembered with affection by those in my life, then my life will have been well worth living. I am comfortable with my "faith" in the belief that when I die, I die. I mean, there's not much I can do about it. And for those of you who would ask me what I might say if, after my death, I am face-to-face with the being you call god, and god asks me why I didn't believe in him, I guess my response will be, "Why didn't you show me why I should?"

It would seem that everyone entering this conversation have positions they believe to be true. Denigrating Dr. Mohler for his firm beliefs must of necessity denigrate the one taking a position against him, for obviously they have some pretty firm and fixed beliefs themselves that they are not ready to quickly dispose of. If one is to be swayed from some firmly held belief, it must be because someone has made a convincing enough case.

In a previous blog, the statement was made, "As long as there is fundamentalism of any kind, be it based on the Bible, the Koran or anything of similar nature, we will see hatred, intolerance, violence and war." The things specifically mentioned in this quote, are religious in nature (Bible, Koran), so I would presume that "anything of similar nature" refers other religious fundamentalism. Well, I believe that the most heinous crimes against humanity were not committed by religious fundamentalists but by atheists and evolutionists who did their very best to wipe out religious belief, primarily Christianity and the Bible. How many people died at the hands of these men . . .

Joseph Stalin - 42.6 million people
Mao Zedong - 27.8 million people
Adolph Hitler - 20.9 million people
Vladimir Lenin - 4 million people
Pol Pot - 2.4 million people

Certainly none of the above individuals could be confused with religious fundamentalists.

Another quote in one of the blogs was that "... religion is not a good base for making legislation and public policy." I believe that a majority of our nations founders would disagree with that statement and I could provide some pretty convincing evidence and a number of quotes from the founders to back up this statement. However, a statement by Noah Webster sums it up ...

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

I applaud Dr Mohler's humility in stating at the outset that he is not the authority, nor is any other mortal...

"No human (or humans) should claim a monopoly on truth. Indeed, evangelical Christians should be the very first to insist that only God holds a "monopoly" on truth."

--It is painfully ironic that even within this thread countless folks are impugning Mohler's commitment to biblical truth based upon their own beliefs. Some ask for substantiation of the source of this authority, but by what authority will you judge any substantiation? Your own?

Mohler is appealing to a transcendent authority (God & his word) for his basis the scoffers are shamelessly appealing to themselves.

More convenient ways to apparently escape accountablity that you know is there. (cf. Romans 1.18-25)---

Tonio--all religions make some kind of claim on a person. Christianity is not alone in this. In addition, your religionless-but-fierce stance is itself a religion in which you yourself preach against people. Do you see this? It's obvious.

You preach against people for preaching against you. Your very stance is hypocritical. If you were truly non-religious (I don't know what you are, exactly, cause I don't know you), you wouldn't preach or advocate anything at all. This is impossible, but it's much more credible than your current stance (and the stance of many on here), which is shriek at those who preach even as you yourself preach by shrieking.

To state it once more, so it's clear, I have no problem with you disagreeing with my faith. I do have a problem when you condemn Dr. Mohler and Christians in general for preaching when you yourself are doing the very same thing.

Albert Mohler deserves full marks for honesty but very poor marks for perceptiveness and logical follow through. He recognizes that if his conception of Jesus and the Bible is correct then all other religious dogmas must take second or third place. But he gives no real reasons why his particular dogmas should take pride of place.
If what he believes is correct then Jesus is the most complete revelation of God that has ever or can ever occur and we cannot hope for “salvation” -- whatever that is – without faith in Jesus as the Son of God. But the Muslims believe that Jesus was just a human prophet and that Muhammad is the final messenger of God/Allah with preeminence over all others – being both the “medium and the source of divine law” (Spencer). Bahais, however, believe that Baha-ullah superseded both Jesus and Muhammad by providing a more complete revelation of God. And those of the Jewish faith believe that none of these three prophets/revealers of divine truth were needed since they already had the inside track on monotheistic religion. And the Hindus have a completely different conception of the divine realm.
These different views of what is and is not the “'true” religion cannot simultaneously be true and their proponents cannot provide any real evidence as to why their views are true and the views of others are false. Surely even a snippet of commonsense suggests that it is most likely that they are all false. It is not good enough to be honest about our beliefs. Our quest for truth should take us beyond the fallacies of faith without evidence. Since Mohler is a Baptist he probably rejects the occurrence of evolution despite the massive evidence – from the fossil record and DNA studies – which unequivocally points to the reality of evolution. And, if Mohler is not willing to accept such a self-evident truth,why should anyone pay attention to his interpretation of the historical Jesus?
In our quest for truth it is essential to ditch whatever it is that we have have been taught as soon as we realize that the evidence for it is lacking.
Ellison Baxter rambles on – expounding his long series of half truths -- but he does at least seem to have an open mind and is willing to point out unpalatable truths. I would find it a lot easier to have a dialogue with him than I ever could with Mohler. Far too many of us run away from the truth rather than facing up to it and until this lack of courage starts to fade mankind is in for a rough time.

I love the comments on this site, they open up the real problem in our current discussions. I also am committed to the Bible as the final authority. I am saddened by the numerous responses to Dr. Mohler's honest and direct statements about his belief. When others state that his belief is an absolute conversation stopper, this shows that their "ABSOLUTE" views cannot be challenged. Dr. Mohler never says he is not open to listening and debating. He also is being open and honest about his position. He is open to criticism, the blog here is testimony to that. When someone states that Mohler's belief in the Bible is a conversation stopper really says more about his/her own commitment to a hidden absolute. Does that person have some absolute information that proves the Bible is ABSOLUTELY wrong? I would be open to such information. Again, I am emphasizing the dogmatic nature of the comments.
I know that our society has been pushing the idea that there are no ABSOLUTES. But, that is philosophically dishonest. Such a claim is an ABSOLUTE in itself. So, lets stop pretending to be open-minded because we reject those who hold to absolute truth. Be open to examining your own comments folks. The claim that there is no absolutes in and of itself is an absolute! The claim that one must be agnostic towards God and religion is just as absolute as saying one believes in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas etc... as the authority. To be honestly agnostic means to say that you Absolutely believe that God has not or will not reveal himself.
I have an ongoing conversation with a rocket scientist (he really is). He used to say a mind like a parachute has to be open before it can work. But a discussion about absolutes rocked his world. He now says, "Your mind needs to be open, but not so open that your brain falls out." He is not a Christian, but he now sees that he never recognized his own absolute beliefs and enjoys the conversations all the more. He realizes he is a better person just for that change of view. And his mind and intellect tower over my own.
For a Christian to state what Dr. Mohler states means he at least has understood his own position in entering the conversation. I hope that as this conversation continues that others would sit down and really think through their statements and the absolutes they hold to. Dr. Mohler is no pundit who simply sounds a mantra he has learned. He is a vast reader, he listens to and engages people with various views. He reads through their treatises and truly seeks to understand their positions before commenting. I have met him and have been impressed by his passion and his kindness. I hope that those of you who may be tempted to walk away will check in and engage knowing Dr. Mohler will be gracious.
On my end, I came to Jesus before I understood the Bible way I do now. However, the reality is that I too have struggled with passages that seem cruel or confusing. I have also had to revisit my understanding to come more into line with how it truly applies today. There are cultural differences between the times of Jesus, King David, Pharaoh and myself. I need to understand those differences to properly bridge the river of time and culture so I can better understand where they were and where I am. Then I am able to have an informed conversation with them.
The same should be with the conversation offered here. There clearly are cultural, moral, and wold view differences between people. However, I believe if we are all honest with ourselves and the implications of our own belief system, we can all grow from the conversation. I believe as I know Dr. Mohler believes that we can share our differences civily, be kind, and loving to one another.
I look forward to hearing the many different views people hold.
Jim

Anonymous wrote:

> SMP, when evangelists insist that God wants other
> people to believe something, that represents a
> violation of other people's personal and mental
> boundaries. Regardless of the motive, the
> insistence amounts to a claim a power of over
> people's lives. No one knows what God wants for
> other people. No one speaks for God.

To which I respond:

Mr./Mrs. Anonymous, you yourself are speaking for God when you make the claim that on one speaks for God. Your claim means that God cannot or does not use prophets to speak for him. How do you know this?

I, myself, do not claim to speak for God. I will, however, gladly share the words that his prophets and his Son have spoken on his behalf.

I would like to put my oar in here about the rationality of believing the New Testament to be true.

I have something of an interest in this topic. Years ago, I set out (as a non-scholar) to sift through the historical evidence surrounding the account of the Apostle Paul’s journeys, as recorded in Acts and in his letters. The result was a small book, which you can find on Amazon. The title is “Evidence and Paul’s Journeys.” (Excerpts from the book, including a full chapter, can be found online at www.parsagard.com).

Although I began my project as a believing Christian, I was still astonished at just how much historical evidence there was. Most of that evidence is indirect, or collateral as the lawyers say. It deals with such small matters as the titles of local officials in cities that Paul visited, first century political boundaries, social practices or features of the places he visited, first century Roman legal practices (Paul was arrested a number of times) and so forth. There are a couple of hundred examples of this kind of evidence.

This detailed evidence establishes, first, that the account of Paul’s journeys must have been written in the first century, since it derives such a large number of its facts from the middle of that century; and, second, that the Acts account of those journeys is extraordinarily accurate in recording the many local political, social, nautical, and even meteorological details of Paul’s journeys.

One need only read this thread, of course, to see that many of those who have responded to Dr. Mohler’s essay “know” that the New Testament is mythological and unhistorical. I would not call that knowledge.

I made the last post that said from "anonymous."

Tonio,
If the God of the Bible exists, He is the authority over all mankind whether people wish to accept it or not. The Christian simply accepts the authority God has over his life. BTW, that authority is good, wise and powerful. When the believer submits his life to the life of God, he experiences all the wisdom, goodness and power to serve the great King of the universe. If one refuses to submit himself to the all-wise, good and powerful authority of God he must some day stand before God and give an account of his rejection.

Jesus said, "This is the judgment, that the light [Jesus Himself] is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." (John 3:19-20).

SOK7 said:
"What a faith in God includes that a faith in science does not, is a moral code. I will not get into a discussion as to how well various Christians throughout time have lived up to this code - we all fall short. But at least it's there."

It is true that "we all fall short" (see Romans 3:23) and that is precisely the point. Many people mischaracterize Biblical Christianity as a code of ethics Christian seek to live by and in turn foist upon others. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christ came to save men from themselves (i.e. their certain propensity for moral failure) and from the consequences such moral failure brings (i.e. God's judgment). God satisfied His just demands against sinful humanity by diverting it to Christ in His death on the cross. God killed His Son in order to display His grace toward rebellious humans. That means Christianity is about salvation through God's grace (i.e. His undeserved favor bestowed on those who repent and believe) and not about pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps to try to be better. It is impossible to be better, that is why we need a savior.

How a similiar group treated Jesus:
"And all the people were furious when they heard this. They got up and drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill....in order to throw him down the cliff." (Luke 4:28, New Testament, the Bible}.....this was how Jesus's truth was accepted when he "proclaimed the year of the Lord's favor" (v. 19), the beginning of the Messianic age, ie., God's offering salvation to mankind.

It's probably a good thing that this is an 'on-line' forum, or I'm afraid Mr. Mohler would be treated in the same way by this crowd--all of the open-minded, tolerant types--that is.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

Steven,

You definitely have a duty to do so, especially if one is a Christian. We are commanded to. Like the logic by the way, it was very CS Lewish.

1. Common ground = No conversation stoppers
2. There is always common ground
3. Therefore, there are no conversation stoppers

I am only going to argue for premise 2 becuase 1 would require too much space to cover all the possibilities (i.e. what kind of conversation, are we trying to persuade, are we conversing out of duty even though we know we won't persuade, are we aimed at intelligent conversation, is there violence involved, etc.)

There is always common ground. Even someone who beleives there is no knowledge at all will atleast have to assume that he believes that there is no knowledge, which is at least a belief. The common ground here is that there are beliefs though they may disagree as to if those beliefs are true or constitute knowledge.

If one person wants to talk about truth and another wants to talk about the truth that there is no truth, the common ground is that they believe there is some truth though the later only believes that there is one truth, that being there are no other truths.

If one person wants to talk about God and his authority and control over all creation and the other person wants to talk about evolution and natural selection, the common ground is that there is a universe of which either God or evolution controls.

If one person is agnostic about everything including his own agnosticism, and another holds that there is absolute truth, the common ground is that the agnostic is agnostic about his agnosticism, unless of course, the agnostic was also agnostic about that, but the person holding to absolute truth could match the agnostic on any level of his agnosticism ad infinitum, so there would always be common ground.

If one person wants to talk about how abortion is wrong and another wants to talk about how abortion is right, the common ground is that there is abortion and that it can be described in moral terms (that it is a moral issue).

If one person wants to advocate gay rights and another limit them, the common ground is that there are people who are gay and that it is a moral issue (you can use the terms should and should not).

If one person wants to talk about evidences against Christianity and another about how Christian belief is warranted in the absence of any evidence at all, the common ground is that people hold Christianity to be true.

If one person wants to talk about de jure objections to Christian belief, and another insists that there are no de jure obejections that do not assume a de facto objection, the common ground is what a de jure and de facto objection is and that there are people who hold Christianity to be true.

Counterexamples??? Remember, that I only argued for premise 2, that there is always common ground.

But just to defeat almost all objections to premise 1 I will say this:

A person may want to have a conversation with a person even though he knows that he will not persuade the person. Perhaps he has a duty to have the conversation regardless of whether he persuades or not. But this gets into coversing for practical purposes. Is a practical purpose only one in which persuasion is possible? Is a conversation stopper only something that prevents persuasion?

Many people would argue that there is no point in talking to someone who he knows will never change his mind, but what if you had a duty to do so? Do you?

Glenn Piper,

I don't agree with much of the second post; however, "do unto others" is found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).

Interestingly, though, this is not really a universal ethical rule as SMijer claims. Although the idea is stated negatively by Confucius ("Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you"), the positive statement of this idea is rooted only in the teaching of Jesus Christ. If it is "universal" now, it is only because others have adopted part of the Christian ethic as their own.

Thanks for the thought-proviking post Dr. Mohler.

"You can't be serious!!! Listen, I'm a grateful as the next person that I live in a country in which my right to free speech is protected. But you don't have the "Christian majority" to thank for that!!! You have the Constitution and its Amendments, as well as dedicated men and women, including judges, presidents, senators, police, activists, and others who fight on a daily basis." Who wrote the Constitution? The overwhelming majority of them were Christians who believed that religion is a matter of a person's individual conscience and should not be legislated. Therefore the freedoms that we have in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

We accept that E=mc2 is the truth (or most of us that is), but how many of us have the understanding of physics and the mathematical skills to prove the science? The overwelming majority of us who believe this tenant of science accept it as a matter of faith.

Do you really understand how photosynthesis works, or did someone say they had a 'scientific' explaination and you accepted it as Truth.

So we all operate on faith of some sort. Some have more faith in a scienctific explaination they cannot themselves prove and others have more faith in God.

Perhaps most disturbing is the assumption some people have is that Christian faith is ignorant faith. Isaac Newton believed in God, saying "This most beautiful system [the Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being". Albert Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." I doubt that many of the bloggers who have spoken out against Christianity in this forum call consider themselves the intellectual equal to Einstein. And how many of them can claim to have contributed to science in the way Newton or Einstein have.

What a faith in God includes that a faith in science does not, is a moral code. I will not get into a discussion as to how well various Christians throughout time have lived up to this code - we all fall short. But at least it's there.

I know many athiests have morals, but there is a difference between living up to a code limited by the experiences of one man - by definition, an ego-centric morality, and a centuries-old holistic attempt at moralistic code, which is what Christians attempt to practice. And PLEEEEASE, don't attempt to tell me the government or society is qualified to dictate morality. Morals are not something you vote on and majority rules - that's called law. Laws can be moral or amoral.

CS Lewis once said, "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." That explains the difference between science and Christianity pretty well. Christianity is supposed to be food for the soul. Science is concerned with Earthly things.

So why does Christianity piss so many people off? Even if a supposed Christian told a non-believer that he was going to Hell, why get so mad if you don't believe in Hell. Would you be as pissed if he told you you were going to Tatooine (fictional planet from Star Wars) instead of Hell?

I'm beginning to think some people just like to be mad.

According to the bible, faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Our hope and conviction of things is found in the words of scripture. That would suggest that our faith (hope and conviction) is also found in the words of scripture.

The basic foundational truth statement found in the bible is one Jesus stated. He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". "No one comes to the Father but by me". I would think that anyone would agree that this statement which IS believed by faith is an important foundational truth that cannot be easily jettisoned from a Christian's faith without doing severe damage.

...judging from the comment counts, Dr. Mohler has framed a lively discussion with a clear statement about where he stands on what is true and what is false. There is substantially less dialogue around the other vague answers it seems.

I also view the Bible as the basis for my truth claims. For those who disagree, what is the basis for your truth claims? I can only think of a few other basis for knowing truth... your own experiences, some kind of test or experiment, the teaching/writings of some person/persons other than the Bible. Or, it seems, some express the view that truth keeps changing (evolving and improving) or that truth cannot be known.

If not the Bible, what?

Dr. Mohler, I also think it is telling when you have 130 comments and most have an average of 40. This again proves Scripture true, that the Gospel will be offensive, a "stumbling block for the Gentiles."

Great article. My favorite part...

"On the other hand, evangelical Christians must make clear our belief that God has in fact revealed himself to us through the gift of his self-revelation. Thus, we now know what we otherwise never could have known. Our knowledge of God and all things He has revealed are no tribute to our intelligence, but rather to God's love for us."

From the above conversation, this only make what you wrote all the more true. In His wisdom, God has already decided who will be saved and who won't be. What a mystery! Keep on speaking the truth in love! And whoever reads this, try not to be offended...it is an absolute truth (which means it WILL offend you.)

Scott C., here is how I see the issue of authority in religion. When any religious doctrine claims an authority that is "absolute, universal, and timeless," that means the doctrine claims to have an authority over people. No religious doctrine has that type of inherent authority. The only authority comes from believers who choose freely to accept the doctrine.

The other authority issue is the one between people. Evangelistic believers say that their doctrines are the only acceptable truths for everyone, and they want to change the doctrines held by other people. By doing so, those believers are themselves attempting to assert an authority over other people. That is the case even when that isn't their intention, and in most cases their intentions are good. No person has any inherent religious authority over anyone else.

To Roo, you said, "Ah truth, well I would like to pose that one person's truth is another's lie, because truth is subjective and ever changing depending upon when this "truth" occurs in one's life."

Is that a true statement?

To Dr. Mohler, thank you for being a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Seeking dialogue such as this may have the appearance of humility, nobility, and open-mindedness. Possibly just going through the motions is comforting to some (or strokes the egos of others). But, if the genuine Christian side is fully honest, and the secularists respond honestly, then there can be no consensus other than to coexist in our separate worlds. Perchance, God will open the understanding of some participants.

Our basic presuppositions preclude agreement.

True Christians understand that there is absolute moral truth which can be known.

Secularists KNOW only one thing: that nothing can be known absolutely. Their own “scientific method” and studies of sociology have demonstrated this through history, at least to their satisfaction. Nothing is definitely true through all times, in all places, under all circumstances, for all people. There is no God who has spoken absolute eternal truth.
A world built on this error will be critically different from one built on submission to God’s revealed truth.

In such debates, plain, undisguised expressions of Christian compassion or love are often interpreted as condescension. Yet, Christians are called to communicate God’s truth…in faith (my own beliefs disallow me cynicism), and love. If history has shown these discussions to be destined for failure, then Christians should examine themselves. They may bring a full measure of intellect to the public square, but do they gird it with sincere prayer for the blind? (I direct this to professing Christians)

Most of the fuzziness in this dialogue will come from the “moderates” on both sides. Those who lack clear, logical, systematic thinking.

My conclusion: pray for God’s intervention. That’s what happened in my life, and in the lives of all true Christians; God intervened. This debate will serve God’s purpose.

Questions of truth come down to the question of authority. Who do you go to understand and grasp the concepts of general and special relativity? You go to the most authoritative source on the matter, Albert Einstein. If someone helps me understand Einstein better, then that person has a sort of derived authority.

If God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, what greater authority exists then God? I find it interesting that the appeal to authority in most of the comments here is an appeal to one's self. I would be quite fearful to accept my own feeble and untrustworthy thoughts to devise ultimate truth claims. Who am I to decide what is true? I must look to the the most ultimate authority possible. I have found no greater authority than the God that only the Bible describes.

The Bible is remarkably self-evident as the revelation of God. What seems ludicrous is not that there is such a revelation, but that if such a God exists (which most people affirm and aethists try too hard to deny) why would He not reveal Himself? One does not create such a maginficient edifice as the universe without a purpose. God did not create the universe without a purpose and it would seem grandly odd that He has not sought to communicate that purpose to us.

I suggest that the Bible is God's revelation and that it makes more sense of our world than any other religion or philosophy that has existed. When you study the Bible carefully, it becomes clear that it is not the product of human imagination. No human would devise the solution for what troubles us that the Bible does. Ultimately the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. This is circular reasoning, but all reasoning is ultimately circular, it is unavoidable. That is why the ultimate premise must be God Himself.

Hey, thanks to the apologists for pointing out that no such thing as a presupposition-free argument exists. If someone rejects the Bible's truth and reliability, and claim that nothing could convince him otherwise, that statement becomes your doctrine.

The "no proof what so ever" doctrine, as stated by a commenter WAY above, is not only grammatically incorrect , it's rubbish. But regardless of how many nineteen-hundred-year-old manuscripts of Paul's letters we find, it'll never be enough proof for a person whose foundational, core belief about the Bible (namely, that it's full of lies, or that it's a book of fairy tales, or whatever) is, in his or her own mind, utterly unassailable, will it?

Hmm... an intractable, vitriol-slinging zealot who demands that everyone accept his fundamental doctrine about the Bible? Kinda sounds like a... what's the word? Oh, right, a fundamentalist.

In the second comment I noticed that Smijer mentioned "Do unto others....".
Just where is that in the Bible?
Too much here seems to be based on what people 'think' they know or on what they assume others mean rather than on actual personal knowledge or verifiable fact.

To Alex Schievink:

"evangelical Christians should be the very first to insist that only God holds a "monopoly" on truth" This is the epitomy of christian arrogance! You claim you don't have the truth, but your imaginary friend has, and he has 'revealed' it to you through a 'religious revelation'. So now you spread your 'truths' as if their some god's truths, but in effect all that you are doing is spreading your own halucinations.

Disgusting!

Mr. Schievink, your statement would lead me to believe that you have a monopoly of all truth in existence. Only a man so knowledgable as yourself in every can say that Christianity is incorrect in its statements.

Thanks for your enlightenment.

Jim

Wait a minute! Dr. Mohler did not say everyone must start this conversation at his starting point. He does want us all to understand where he and evangelical Christians generally are coming from: "God has spoken" (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Everyone has presuppositions. Some of us are aware of them; some are not. "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. . ."

You don't have to believe any of that to join the dialogue, but let's allow Dr. Mohler to honestly state where he is coming from. OK?

So Evangelicals are delusional because they have faith and not knowledge? I argue that faith is more powerful than knowledge! People live out what they believe, not what they know. Do honest and open conversations on religion end because Christians believe in a "a biblical authority that is absolute, universal and timeless"? This knowledge is rooted in the very fiber of our existence, but more important, it the dominating 'world view' of the evangelical community. Why should all conversations end because we hold this view? Allow us this belief and allow us to present this belief in a rational, intelligent discussion. Yes, some toes will be stepped on, but don't stop the discussion because evangelicals enter this discussion with a "fixed" and permanent focal point.

As one person commenting put it, truth is what one makes it. Has anyone really thought about what that statement is saying? Some believe that truth is relative, that what's true for me is not true for you. There is no absolute truth except the absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist, so to speak. If all truth is relative, then this truth is itself is only relative, thus making way for absolute truth. People, think! Truth is that which is true. It's not hard to figure out! Many do claim to have the truth. Christianity is exclusivistic. So are all the other religions of the world! It stands to reason that if any way does have the truth that it can only be one of these ways or none at all. All of these religions teach drastically different ideas, so only one or neither of them have any reasonable claim on that which is true. Many here have rejected the Bible out of hand. People please! It's like deciding you believe in evolution based on the few statements you read about it in high school! Please do yourself the service of researching positions both for and against ANY subject that may be at hand before accepting or rejecting any of it! What passes for intelligent conversation in this country is astounding! People here are bringing their prejudices and misconceptions to the table rather than offering informed viewpoints on the subject. It is also quite astounding to me the preaching of tolerance among the comments here, while spewing vileness towards Christians, who, after all, simply hold a view different than your own! Many here are willing to say "judge not lest you be judged", taking verses out of context, throwing in the Christian's face, judging the Christian by that which has no merit in their own eyes! Makes no sense whatsoever. I really hope people here will do themselves a favor and educate themselves, rather than making comments on that which they know nothing about.

Many of the posts that deny the possibility of dialogue with someone who is unalterably committed to certain core truths (a position often associated with religion) speak from a similar commitment to certain core truths. They may not include a deity and a sacred book, but they include a commitment to the powers of human reason or the methodology of science, to democracy, to the ultimate value of the individual, to the sanctity of human life, to justice, freedom, equality and so on.
Where do these ideas, these deeply held commitments come from?
Critics of religion are right that there are some conversation stoppers in religion. But in the public square we hardly need to agree on the nature of God, on the status of Jesus Christ or on the truth of the resurrection. We talk about what our common response is to the core values regarding justice, freedom, equality, the sanctity of human life, etc.
For some these values are grounded in the Christian faith. In the history of the West they have traditionally also been grounded in that faith. But not universally by any means. The ancient Greeks have contributed to that ongoing conversation, the Enlightenment, and movements from Romanticism to Marxism and Libertarianism.
Each comes with its core beliefs that it can support with reasons but that are hardly given by Reason -- unless Reason is considered revelatory.
You live by certain convictions; I live by others. In the public arena, we discuss how these give rise to a common life where we both can flourish.
St. Harry

Sorry, this may appear as incoherent flow of thought (my excuse that I am writing in the midst of "the worst storm in our history" in Vancouver- i mean that literally and metaphorically:

In Canada, the conversation has been effectively muzzled- at least for evangelicals. Talk of absolute truth, the authority of scripture, or ethical issues related to faith such as the right to life and marriage has been redefined by the PC-liberals who control media, education and most other means of thought and speach as "Un-Canadian" or (reflecting their insecurity of geography) "American-style". Ironically, it is the Sikhs and the Moslems in Canada, who because of their minority status, who have becaome the moral voice in society; Christians are ignored.

Unfortunately, thanks to the fashionable anti-americanism of the intelligentsia- which has trickled down to the minds of unthinking Canadian masses who let the media do their thinking for them, the success of Evangelicalism in the US, is the greatest threat to its advance anywhere else. Even Jihadists are more socially acceptible then Evangelical Christians. As a Southern Baptist in Canada, i have experienced first hand, the muzzling effect of the 'converstation stoppers'.

I have also witnessed the ever accelerating decay of Canadian society. Canada is now more violent then the United States; more babies die of abortion then any other cause of death, churches run the risk of losing their properties if they refuse the marry gay couples, pastors and religious people have been charged with hate crime for quoting scripture, we have become the Thailand of child pornography... in short, Canada has lost its moral compass. Don't let this happen in USA, keep the conversation going.

I have a few general questions to ask.

1) To everyone, evangelical, liberal, atheist, muslim, whomever...what reason do you have for believing that your cognitive faculties give you an accurate perception of reality?
2) Further, what reason do you have for believing the laws of logic will be valid five minutes from now?
3) What reason do you have for believing that you weren't created five minutes ago with a lifetime of memories to make it seem like you are older than you are?
4) What reason do you have for believing that you aren't just a brain in a vat somewhere being electrically stimulated to think that you are alive and reading this?

I could go on, but there's no need. The fact is, you have no good reason to believe any of those things. You accept them based on faith. Yet you are completely rational for believing every one of those things. They are what some philosophers would call "properly basic beliefs."

Would you consider these beliefs negotiable? Would it be correct to call you close-minded if you are unwilling to ever believe that you were not just created five minutes ago? Sure, that would be correct. That means being close-minded is not necessarily a bad thing.

So it's not about being open or close-minded, but being open or close-minded about certain things. His detractors aren't mad at Dr. Mohler for being close-minded and intolerant (in the pejorative sense), because it's not really about being intolerant. It's about what he tolerates, what he is close-minded about. Dr. Mohler being unwilling to negotiate certain truth claims such as divine revelation does make him close-minded. But those who disagree with him are close-minded as well because they reject divine-revelation.

I believe it was GK Chesterton who said that an open mind is only open so that it can be closed around something. Truth is, none of us is really open-minded about everything. We've all got presuppositions, we've all got things we won't negotiate on.

I am an evangelical Christian. I still think conversation with other faiths is possible, at least for the reasons and in the ways Dr. Mohler mentioned. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that only open-minded people are welcome at the table. There are no truly open-minded people. You could say I'm pretty close-minded about that.

Am I the only one who finds humorous any comment that enters into a conversation with the accusation that someone has already stopped it? If you thought it had ceased, why did you post?

I'm not fond of contemporary journalism, but it seems to me that Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham have done a good job asking a great question, precisely because it led directly to a discussion of presuppositions and basic commitments.

Dr. Mohler answered well that the more we are committed to our presuppositions, the more useful we are to the conversation, provided that we converse respectfully. His answer was then immediately proved by several bizarre posts by people who seem to think that it is possible not to have any presuppositions at all. While Dr. Mohler invited the conversation to continue, the "anti-presupposition" responders, almost to a post, refuse to converse with him.

If you will only converse with those who already share your presuppositions, how do you expect to learn anything? Or are you more interested in forcing your own presuppositions on anyone who doesn't already have them? Wouldn't that constitute indoctrination, rather than conversation?

Sorry, that was me making the anonymous post at 10:42 a.m.

Amazing. The vast majority of these comments (112 at this writing) claim there is no possibility of conversation with Dr. Mohler. Sure seems like a conversation to me..........

Owen, I have strong disagreements with most of Christian doctrine. But I don't expect anyone to share my disagreements. I wouldn't try to persuade Christians to give up their beliefs about Jesus or the Resurrection or the faith's other core beliefs.

But I am intolerant and absolutist about one thing concerning religion - my right to my own religious beliefs. I refuse to accept anyone's claim or insistence that I should give up my own religious beliefs to follow someone else's. If this sounds like I am shrieking, so be it.

SMP, when evangelists insist that God wants other people to believe something, that represents a violation of other people's personal and mental boundaries. Regardless of the motive, the insistence amounts to a claim a power of over people's lives. No one knows what God wants for other people. No one speaks for God.

I think that the point that Mr. Mohler is making is that a Christian cannot engage in any kind of dialogue without being true to his/her own belief system, even if that includes believing in "exclusivistic" theology.

To ask a conservative Christian to deny the Bible as God's revealed word is asking them to toss out the entire foundation of thier faith. At that point, how can any fruitful conversation take place?

To be willing to engage in an honest conversation with anyone, one must be willing to allow the other to be true to their beliefs. I think that demanding they cannot bring all that they have into the conversation is truly closed-minded and exlusivistic.

This means that Christians, as well as non-christians must be truly "tolerant," allowing the other person to hold certain beliefs, while not necessarily agreeing with or embracing those beliefs. In fact, it seems to me that fruitful, productive conversation can only occur in this context when those opposing beliefs are discussed and (politely!) challenged. It is through this kind of exchange that we begin to grow. This is when we truly begin to understand the other person's point of view better, and expand our own perspective. However, in order to be discussed, these difficult beliefs must be permitted into the conversation in the first place.

Obviously, this is a two-way street. I think that there is a stereotype, or at least a fear, that Christians (because they hold some exclusivistic beliefs) are unwilling to listen and force thier philosophies upon others. True or not, judging by some of the responses to this article, there are more than a few people on the other side of the debate doing the same. Drawing from personal experiece, non-christians need to be careful that they do not accuse Christians of offences of which they themselves are also guilty.

It is hypocritical for those of you that say Dr. Mohler is narrow-minded for believing that the Bible is an absolute, fixed truth. Your claim that no such absolute truth exists is an absolute truth claim in itself. And if you don't hold to this truth claim that no absolute truth exists, then you should at least be open to considering that Dr. Mohler's beliefs may be correct.

Eighteen Thoughts on the Nature of Science
Joe Schwartz, Ph.D.
The following ideas can help you evaluate information you encounter
about science

1.. Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of
unassailable "truths." It is, however, a self -correcting discipline.
Such corrections may take a long time -- the medical practice of
bloodletting went on for centuries before its futility was realized --
but as scientific knowledge accumulates, the chance of making
substantial errors decreases.
2.. Certainty is elusive in science, and it is often hard to give
categorical "Yes" or "No" answers to scientific questions. To determine
whether bottled water is preferable to tap water, for example, one would
have to design a lifelong study of two large groups of people whose
llfestyles were similar in all respects except for the type of water
they consumed. This is virtually impossible. We therefore have to rely
on less-direct evidence in formulating many of our conclusions.
3.. It may not be possible to predict all consequences of an action,
no matter how much advance research has been done. When
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were introduced as refrigerants, no one could
have predicted that 30 years later they would have an impact on the
ozone layer. If something undesirable happens, it is not necessarily
because someone has been negligent.
4.. Any new finding should be examined with skepticism. Healthy
skepticism does not mean unwillingness to believe. Skeptics base their
beliefs on scientific proof and do not swallow information uncritically.
5.. No major lifestyle change should be based on any one study.
Results should be independently confirmed by others. Keep in mind that
science does not proceed by "miracle breakthroughs" or "giant leaps." It
plods along, taking many small steps, slowly building towards a
consensus.
6.. Studies have to be carefully interpreted by experts in the field.
Ali association of two variables does not necessarily imply cause and
effect. As an extreme example, consider the strong association between
breast cancer and the wearing of skirts. Obviously, wearing skirts does
not cause the disease. Scientists, however, sometimes show an amazing
aptitude for coming up with inappropriate rationalizations for their pet
theories.
7.. Repeating a false notion does not make it true. Many people are
convinced that sugar causes hyperactivity in children -- not because
they have examined studies to this effect but because they have heard
that it is so. In fact, a slate of studies has demonstrated that, if
anything, sugar has a calming effect on children.
8.. Nonsensical lingo can sound very scientific. An ad for a type of
algae states that "the molecular structure of chlorophyll is almost the
same as that of hemoglobin, which is responsible for carrying oxygen
throughout the body. Oxygen is the prime nutrient and chlorophyll is the
central molecule for increasing oxygen available to your system." This
is nonsense. Chlorophyll does not transport oxygen in the blood.
9.. There often are legitimate opposing views on scientific issues.
But it is incorrect to conclude that science cannot be trusted because
for every study there is all equal and opposite study. It is always
important to take into account who carried out a given study, how well
it was designed, and whether anyone stands to gain financially from the
results. Be mindful of who the "they" is in "they say that . . . ." In
many cases, what they say" is only gossip, inaccurately reported.
10.. Annual studies are not necessarily relevant to humans, although
they may provide much valuable information. Penicillin, for example, is
safe for humans but toxic for guinea pigs. Rats do not require vitamin C
as a dietary nutrient but humans do. Feeding high doses of a suspected
toxin to test animals for short periods of time may not accurately
reflect the effect on humans exposed to tiny doses over long periods of
time.
11.. Whether a substance is a poison or a remedy depends on the
dosage. It makes no sense to talk about the effects of certain
substances on the body without talking about amounts. Licking an aspirin
tablet will do nothing for a headache, but swallowing two tablets will
make the headache go away. Swallowing a whole bottle of pills will make
the patient go away.
12.. "Chemical" is not a dirty word. Chemicals are the building blocks
of our world. They are neither good nor bad. Nitroglycerin can alleviate
the pain of angina or blow up a building. The choice is ours.
Furthermore, there is no relation between the risk posed by a substance
and the complexity of its name. "Dihydrogen monoxide" is just water.
13.. Nature is not benign. The deadliest toxins known, such as ricin
from castor beans or botulin from the Clostridium botulinum bacterium,
are perfectly natural. "Natural" does not equal "safe," and "synthetic"
does not equal "dangerous." The properties of any substance are
determined by its molecular structure, not by whether it was synthesized
by a chemist in a lab or by nature in a plant.
14.. Perceived risks are often different from real risks. Food
poisoning from microbial contamination is a far greater health risk than
trace pesticide residues oil fruits and vegetables.
15.. The human body is incredibly complex. Our health is determined by
many variables, which include genetics, our diet, our mother's diet
during pregnancy, stress, level of exercise, exposure to microbes,
exposure to occupational hazards, and pure luck.
16.. While diet clearly plays a role in the promotion of good health,
the effectiveness of specific foods or nutrients in the treatment of
diseases is usually overstated. Individual foods are not good or bad,
although overall diet may be described as such. The wider the variety of
foods consumed, the smaller the chance that important nutrients will be
lacking. There is universal agreement among scientists that a high
consumption of fruits and vegetables is beneficial.
17.. About 80% of illnesses are self-limiting and will resolve in
response to almost any kind of treatment. Often, a remedy will receive
undeserved credit. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable, because positive
results are much more likely to be reported than negative ones.
18.. There is no goose that lays golden eggs. In other words, if
something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. As H.L. Mencken
once said, "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, direct,
plausible, and wrong."
_____________________
Dr. Schwarcz is director of McGill University's Office for Chemistry and
Society. In addition to teaching chemistry at McGill, he hosts a weekly
"phone-in" show about chemistry on Montreal radio station CJAD, writes a
weekly column called "The Right Chemistry" in the Montreal Gazette, and
has a regular TV feature entitled "Joe's Chemistry Set" on the Canadian
Discovery Channel. This article was adapted from a section of his book
Radar, Hula Hoops and Playful Pigs, a collection of commentaries on the
fascinating chemistry of everyday life.

One thing that strikes me with all of this conversation about truth! If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then why discuss the topic at all? I once heard a religious leader say "We do not believe that anyone has the absolute truth" Of course, the question that he must be asked is "Do you believe that what you said is absolutely true?"

Those who argue any topic, with passion, are an evidence to themselves that they are convinced that there is a "truth" side to take.
But if we're all "correct" and our own truth is okay, then drop the discussion. There is no point to it!
Every human being knows that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that is why there is such passion in religious discussion, political discussion, child rearing, court hearings, etc...
You may argue that these things are cultural.
But I ask you this: Is it wrong to defy your culture? If you answer this in any way at all, then you do believe in absolute truth.

Truth may hurt, but it's better than deceiving ourselves.

A previous post asks:

> My question for Mohler is, why does the biblical
> worldview held by evangelical Christians have to
> include other people at all? Why couldn't they
> believe that God made one type of self-revelation
> to them and other types of self-revelations to
> other religious people? If evangelists in all
> faiths really respect other people's religious
> beliefs, then they must stop evangelizing.

The Christian faith does not allow us to "keep it to ourselves" Our Lord commands us to. Here are a few excerpts from the Bible that may help clarify why we cannot keep it to ourselves

John 3:16-21

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

The above verses present both the Law and the Gospel. The Law shows us that we stand condemned because of our evil deeds and unbelief. The Gospel is the good news that God gracefully offers forgiveness to us if we put our faith in Jesus. It would not be very kind of Christians to keep that good news to themselves. And as the next excerpt shows, the choice is not left up to us.

Matthew 28:18-20

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The text above is called "The Great Commission." After Jesus rose from the grave, he commanded his followers to spread the good news. He did not say to only spread it to a certain group of people. Nor did he say to not share the good news with other cultures because they have their own equally valid revelation. In fact, from the next excerpt, we can see that Jesus, himself, claimed that he was the exclusive way to the Father

In John 14:6, Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Though it is unfashionable to claim exclusivity these days, that is exactly what Jesus did.

I hope this has helped you see why Christians are obligated to share the good news and cannot accept the notion that other religions offer contradictory, but equally valid, revelations from God.

In the 1968 movie "Charly" (back when everyone knew what the definition of is, "was") Charly wrote with chalk on a blackboard: That, that is, is. That, that is not, is not. Is that it? It is!

His statement pertains here as well. If Jesus is God, as He claimed to be, then the argument is settled. - He is soverign over every aspect of our life and we are indebted to Him for everything to include life itself. He is God, we are not, and whatever He says, goes. However, if He is not God, then eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. And if we kill off a few people along the way, who cares. In the end they are to die anyways.

I know, it is an age old aruguement. But it either is or is not true. The choise is sanity under the rule of a gracious God or insanity under the rule of increasingly depraved human beings.

Both the Father and Jesus certainly knew the definition of "is" when They said "ego eimi" - "I am". The question therefore becomes, do we?

If we do not, there is no common ground upon which we can discuss that which we know "is". But if we do, we are already working shoulder-to-shoulder proclaiming the Gospel to a rapidly dying world.

The Apostle Paul clearly recognized one of the fundamental problems in discussions like these, which is that any significant faith-based claim to an understanding of truth (other than one based on shared human experience) will seem foolish to those who haven't come to the same faith-based conclusions. Instead, their "default" is to have faith in their experienced relationship to the world around them, rather than allowing an outside entity to explain its meaning.

In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul says this:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

So then, as Dr. Mohler says, no person can claim to be able to escape their human limitations and grasp absolute truth on an infinite scale. However, the Christian has faith that the one entity who DOES grasp absolute truth on an infinite scale (God) has revealed to the world a true expression of what he desires our ROLE to be within the correct order of absolute truth.

This role is to recognize and repent of our attempts to place ourselves on the throne of our lives, rather than God, who correctly deserves that place within the correct order of absolute truth. He sent his son, Jesus Christ, to provide a just and merciful way for humans to be redeemed and restored to a correct relationship with God, reborn and made perfect in His sight.

Because the Christian accepts the teachings of Scripture as a true expression of what God (the only holder of absolute truth) wants for us, we must submit ourselves to what it teaches above any other authority.

Within that framework, though, a Christian has plenty of room to thoughtfully discuss the common agreements that humans can come to for the promotion of a society that is as orderly as possible. We have little faith that things will be perfected before Christ returns, but that does not stop us from wanting our communities and countries to be as healthy as possible.

One thing that I found very exciting in college was my close friendships with humanists, muslims, and hindus. We were able to enjoy each other's company and seriously discuss matters of faith. What's more, we DID proselytize each other. Why not? We all believe God has spoken to us. If we love each other, shouldn't we want the others to agree with us for their spiritual health?

This can be true on a larger scale. There's nothing wrong with discussion or debate, but there's also nothing wrong with attempting to share your best understanding of truth with others. If we could appreciate each other's attempts to do that without demanding that everyone believe the same thing (namely: nothing), we could be much more constructive in our conversations and the resulting actions.

Truth is that which corresponds to its object.

To say "Truth is relative." or that, "Truth is subjective." is a self-defeating statement based on the law of non-contradiction.

We can debate about the inerrancy and infallability of the Bible all day long. Non-Christians will make metaphysical arguments based on how they feel about things and what scientists have told them to be "true." Note that these same scientists "knew" at one time, that the sun revolved around the earth. We know that the "truth" is otherwise. You can believe what you want to, but what you believe may be very far off from what is true. And regardless of what you believe, the earth is still circling the sun and your belief is not going to change that.

There is more textual, archaeological, historical (Acts is used by Roman historians), anthropological, scientific and almost any other discipline you care to throw in that can be tested against the Bible, evidence than any other book of antiquity. There are more original copies, closer to their time of the authorship of the original autographs of any other book in existence. This brief isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg for the hard evidence for the bible. Look it up.

I believe Richard Dawkins once said, "In the teeth of evidence they still believe." I say in light of the evidence how could you not.

Yes criticize me, tell me I'm not intelligent. That is certainly your perogative.

As a Christian, I have the opportunity to share the love of Jesus with all those that would listen, or observe my life. I can and do back my faith with the Bible and the continual, surmounting pool of Christian and secular evidence to its legitimacy.

I, nor any other human can save you, and no one can convince you. After all the evidence for God's Word, it is only the Holy Spirit that can bring you to Jesus.

As to this post...what would you have a conversation about? From a Christian standpoint there is no compromise. There is only one way to heaven and only one authority. We can converse and agree on various moral issues, but with the stipulation that God's Word is the final say in everything. We cannot deny it or dance around it. Only those who would be labeled moderate or liberal Christians would filter the Bible based on the post-modern views of our world. There is no secret agenda in Christianity. If given the choice to have an interfaith discussion or not to, I would happily engage in the conversation. I would confess that my motives are evangelistic, not compromise. We can debate and discuss, but when it's all said and done...the earth really does circle the sun. Biased? Aren't we all?

Previous comments said:

> "If you believe the Bible is the perfect truth,
> you have already shut down the conversation, for
> no new evidence would convince you otherwise.
> Why have the conversation at all?"

and

> "As said above, there's no way to have a
> legitimate conversation if you insist on the
> premise that the Bible is true. You can present
> an argument and try to come to that conclusion,
> but you're starting out with a premise that a
> reasonable person won't accept, and therefor
> it's a conversation stopper."

These posts seem to reveal a common double standard. The only religion that they tolerate is that of skepticism and questioning. Why is the same standard not held to those who believe the Bible is wrong and no new evidence would convince them otherwise?

When no new evidence could possibly convince you that the Bible is true haven't you shut down the conversation?

If you insist on the premise that the Bible is false, is it possible to have a legitimate conversation with you? Are you starting with a premise that a reasonable person won't accept?

What is often overlooked is that those on the skepticism and questioning side of the debate cling just as tenaciously to their religious beliefs as do Christians.

Why do you try to deny me a place in the conversation simply because I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died to pay for our sins and that he rose again from the dead?

Evangelists such as Mohler claim "an authority that is absolute, universal, and timeless." That automatically invalidates their other claim that they are "ready to respect others who hold radically divergent views." Even the phrase "deny a divine revelation" implies that people have no right to hold beliefs that conflict with Christianity.

In my view, believers can only know what their God or gods want for them. They should not claim to know what their deities want for other people. That claim represents the height of arrogance. Any such claim is an attempt to label and define other people, an attempt to control other people's reality.

My question for Mohler is, why does the biblical worldview held by evangelical Christians have to include other people at all? Why couldn't they believe that God made one type of self-revelation to them and other types of self-revelations to other religious people? If evangelists in all faiths really respect other people's religious beliefs, then they must stop evangelizing.

Why is it that those who shriek when someone preaches then preach while shrieking?

This column has attracted a fair number of commenters. It has not attracted many who are interested in serious discussion of the ideas presented. In years past, people actually debated ideas. They knew they came from different backgrounds, and yet they realized that it was the ideas that had drawn them to the table. And so, while they disagreed heatedly, they debated civilly (see the evolution controversy, for example).

Nowadays, people who claim tolerance and open-mindedness scream themselves hoarse any time someone tries to have a civil discussion about ideas, including theological ideas. In what must tickle the spirits of mirth and irony to no end, they preach an intolerant, absolutist message about how no one should preach an intolerant, absolutist message. If such a situation fails to be remotely intellectually stimulating, it is at least amusing, if only for the stunning hypocrisy of it all.

But they are not done, and so they close their post with some morally high-minded statement like "We all need to work together at coming together, and finding peace and unity and common ground." Little do they know that men such as Dr. Mohler, who I personally admire in the extreme, are trying to do just that. Whether you hate his ideas or not, he is trying to engage in a civil discussion that will breed understanding. It is not he who closes the dialogue down, absolutist though he is. It is his fellow absolutists of the "tolerant" stripe who do so.

In closing, I would simply re-pose my earlier question: Why is it that those who shriek when someone preaches then preach while shrieking?

The evangelical Christian's belief's are so poorly understood by many. Some of the comments posted are very accurate in that we are all human and fallible. How could we possibly get the truth exact as God intended it to be?
But wait a minute. Let's consider for a few moments the claims of Christianity.
If indeed Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and if indeed the apostles one by one confessed that they saw the risen Christ in bodily form, and one by one they were willing to die rather than deny what they saw...if indeed Christ was raised from the dead, then even if the whole world is wrong, the Christian is correct in his belief. If Christ has not been raised, then we are the biggest fools, and our faith is a waste of time. If Christ has been raised, then the world must bow at his feet and worship.
Jesus was not a good man. He was either crazy, evil, or the Son of God.
Where will you base your hope when death stares you in the face?
Press on Dr. Mohler. Truth is truth no matter how it is received.

In the midst of these many comments mocking and belittling the Bible, I would like to thank Dr. Mohler for his life-long commitment to studying and proclaiming this supposedly laughable, contradictory, chauvinistic book. While some may write you off as a religious nut-case, please know that there are many (including myself) whose faith has been encouraged through your Christ-centered scholarship and godly leadership. By the grace of God, may we all take as firm a stance as you upon the firm foundation of the Gospel. SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Dr. Mohler,

Yet again you have articulated the Christian position very well. As I have read some of the comments I have been disappointed with most that have responded - as is the usual response, most people speak to what they have not bothered to study. Many make accusations against the veracity of the Bible but bring little evidence to the table (mocking one verse out of the Old Testament without a clear context of the entire book is not wisdom, as one reader seemed to think, it merely shows the bias (it is impossible to be objective regardless, but we can compensate for our biases) and unwillingness to enter into the discussion that you have said we should enter - beliefs and all).

I am reminded of a story I heard from a speaker (I wish I could remember who), it was related to me as a story from Buddhist thought - there were six blind men and they came across an elephant - each grabbed a section of the elephant and declared that they had found a particular thing - one man grabbed the tale and declared it was a snake, the other the leg and that it was a tree, and so on. The "moral" of the story was that the elephant was truth and the blind men were the different religions.

However, there is an interesting twist the speaker noted - in order for you, the hearer of the story, to be able to say that none of them had the truth - you had to first know what the truth was - that it was an elephant. For those who claim that no one can know truth or that all religions hold some bit of truth - the speaker must claim the same knowledge that Christians do - that they know what truth is - otherwise how can you recognize that it is or isn't true? The difference is Christians are honest about their convictions.

Continue to speak truth, Dr. Mohler, and you will be mocked. Continue to speak truth, and you will also continue to encourage those of us who are trying to articulate the faith God has given us.

Thank you and God's grace continue to be with you.

This "dialogue" certainly is feisty--I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. From my perspective, it boils down to this: There are those who are willing to judge the Scriptures and those who are willing to be judged by them, of which evangelicals are a few. This is the crux of the dialogue. To those who have judged the Bible harshly I humbly ask them to give it a fresh and prolonged consideration even if it does challenge their assumptions. For those of us who are willing to be judged by the Scriptures to try to do the same. My personal hope is to be as humbled by its truth as I am certain of it.

The Bible won't solve the problem. The OT is a tendencious rewriting of Israelite history. The NT is an attempt to conceal rather than reveal the real historic Jesus

Dear Dr. Mohler, I am a great fan and am extremely impressed with your well written position on the issue.

Three statements concern the truth:
Ignorance is Bliss
Blind Faith is Dangerous
"Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." - John 3:19

Blind faith that the Bible contains mistakes should be backed up with at least one indisputable error. I ran the Bible through looking for mistakes, I thought, "No-one has found a mistake in 1900 years, I'm going to be the one to find it!" There are methods for separating the Wheat from the Tares contained within the Bible, such as Nehemiah 7:5-on vs. Ezra 2, but when studied in context, these non-contradictions strengthen the faith of the believer and allow the tares to be swept away. After a lengthy search, I am certain there are no mistakes in the Bible; that it is indeed the True Word of God and can be trusted as such.

The Bible can be trusted, and should be trusted when it says that All Liars will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, that no thief, none who have sworn, anyone that has lusted, blasphemed, or anyone who has coveted shall see the Kingdom of Heaven. The Bible is the only religious book which realizes that God does not accept Bribes and will punish you according to your sins, for the wages of sin is death. Only by the Grace of God for taking your punishment upon Himself are you forgiven through the Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Bible demands that you repent of your wickedness and put whole full trust in the Savior, Jesus Christ, for by no other name under heaven can you be saved.

1 John 3:13 “Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.”

1 John 4:4-6 “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

2 Peter 1:19-21 “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

2 Corinthians 5:15 “And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”

"Our knowledge of God and all things He has revealed are no tribute to our intelligence, but rather to God's love for us."

So true, intelligence certainly not required.

Could not sleep this morning and for the last hour I have been fascinated and saddened reading all of the critical comments about Dr. Mohler. All of this reminded of what my Pastor has always said. "The most important thing about us is our concept of God." I believe Dr. Mohler would want us to not only read the Bible, he would want us to study and meditate on it. Of course he would want us to put it into practice by sharing it with believers and nonbelievers. Only then would we know the truth and then the truth could set us free.

God doesn't believe in athiests.

John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me"

In the New Testament Jesus said regarding the truth, John 17:17 "Sanctify them thru thy truth thy word is truth" and in John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life"

AWM,

Are you saying that you are completely unbiased?

We have atheist saying there is no God, and that he has FAITH in science. Religion requires to have FAITH of the there is God. That is a personal choice. I chose to believe in God, but I don’t believe in organized religion. I don’t think organized religion follows God’s commands. They want use to “stone” gay people. Their choice in being gay is between them and God. We don’t have any business being involved. We are not God. People pick the Bible apart to get validation from God. They don’t see the Bible as a whole and the message contain with because to believe in one part of the Bible or any Religious books you must believe in the whole.

They preach love and understanding to the masses, but they rarely follow their own advice. They want people to pay for the right to pray in their multi-million dollar ministries or the privilege of hearing the Word of God from a sinner that is unrepentant toward God. A local minister preaches hate toward to Muslims, gays, and some case advocate murder of doctors. They break the laws of Man and God. Yet, I still people wondering why I don’t get involved with my local churches. I will not take part of any group that allows a persecutions of a group, religious sect, or lifestyle because of their misguide readings of a part of the Bible.

Mr. Mohler claims to know, to have specific knowledge, that the Bible is the word of God. So in fact, he claims he knows two things: 1) a deity, God, exists; 2) This deity is the source of the Bible.

Certainly he believes a deity exists, and he believes also that deity is the source of the Bible. He is free to believe these things if he wishes, and there is no reason to argue with him if he chooses to believe these things.

But belief is not knowledge. Therefore, the fact that he believes these things is not a reason for anyone else to believe them. The point is simple. The fact that he believes these things has absolutely no relevance to what anyone else should believe.

But Mr. Mohler claims he has knowledge, he knows, that a deity exists, and is the source of the Bible. This claim obviously goes far, far beyond being merely a belief. Therefore, if he wants me, or anyone else, to take him seriously, he must tell us how he acquired his knowledge. In fact, by making the claim that he has knowledge, he obligates himself to tell us how we could go about acquiring the same knowledge he has.

Now the fact is that Mr. Mohler didn't acquire the knowledge he claims to have by following any procedure of any kind. He cannot tell us how to acquire the same knowledge because he doesn't know what to tell us.

In fact, there is no method in existence for anyone to follow to acquire the knowledge Mr. Mohler tells us he has. Therefore, he doesn't have the knowledge he thinks he has.

Mr. Mohler believes what he believes, and that's fine. But he has no right to tell anyone else to believe as he does because he has no knowledge to offer, only a belief which is no better or worse than the different belief of someone else.

say the opposite.

"No human (or humans) should claim a monopoly on truth. Indeed, evangelical Christians should be the very first to insist that only God holds a "monopoly" on truth."

yet

"we have to show up at such a conversation with the acknowledgement that we will claim a biblical authority that is absolute, universal, and timeless"

in other words, only god holds the truth but for all intents and purposes only we know what his truth is. ergo, we have a monopoly on the all the truth that is available to humans.

they might as well include in this panel an astrologist and lil johnny who believes in santa. the issue is not about different faiths but about faith vs. science. thats it.

To Bruce:

> "AWM"-- you want to start a conversation under
> different presumptions, huh? Wow, how do you
> know which presumptions to pick?

Good point! In truth I do not know what presumption to pick but I certainly would not want Mr. Mohler to converse with me while he presumes "to know the truth".

When I say "other presumptions" I mean "NO presumptions", I mean an open mind to accept me and what my truth is without imposing on the conversation the condition that the truth is "this, that and that"! And that the truth is only in one place, the one Mr Mohler stated so categorically.

> It seems that before you even try to get
> someone to change their presumptions, you
> need to see how you have so many already...

So perhaps you can tell me what you know about my presumptions? I have none so it would be an interesting proposition to hear (read) what you know about them.

> Thanks be to God that He has mercy and that
> by His revelation, He saves us from our
> pride that only leads to downward mental
> spirals.

And does this mean I am doomed and that you know it? I suppose He told you that at some recent audience, or perhaps a revelation...

If you want to talk with me on equal footing, do not assume that He talks to you only and that you only have the gift of truth. Otherwise, the mental gymnastics is futile and well, nonsensical.

All the best,

AWM

C Atkinson, are you high? If truth spoke for itself than everyone would agree. I'm actually not sure what you mean with that last sentence. If the point of this is to come to some sort of a consensus than we have proven by this discussion that people with divergent beliefs cannot find a middle ground. However, by the fact that we're writing on this means that we have strong opinions about this already. The people in this discussion definitely don't represent the population as a whole. Nobody on this board has shown any ability to compromise, that seems like a bad sign.

Truth's reflection speaks for itself. No thing is greater than truth. Truth discovered exposes and liberates from lies and fear. Truth is a light shining, star, moon, sun, spark, candle, torch, eternal flame lighting the darkness and giving hope for all.

In answer to can we agree to disagree about religion. We can, but what would it get us? If the Bible is true, and I believe it is. It has stood the test of critics for almost 2,000 years (the New Testament) and the Old Testament for many more. Critics have come and gone, the Bible still stands. Sounds a lot like Jesus' words, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35).

When it all comes down to dialogue, there either has to be a standard of truth that all will agree to, or there can be no common resolution. Feelings won't work, for everyone has different feelings. Books that claim to be inspired, yet do not measure up to be telling truth cannot be trusted. The Bible is the only book given to mankind that possesses Divine wisdom and revelation. Everything about the Bible is true. The names of places, geographic locations, nations of peoples, even names of peoples given in the Bible have been found to be truly accurate. Non believers in the Bible even acquiesce to the accuracy of the Bible. If these things then are true, then why not what the whole Bible says?

Is it necessary to believe in the God of the Bible? The Bible says, Yes. "And without faith, it is impossible to please Him, for everyone who comes to God, must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6) "Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in Me." (John 14:1). After Jesus' resurrection He sent this message to all mankind. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you and 'lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20). Either this is true or Jesus is the worst liar that has ever lived. I for one believe it to be true.

When all is said and done, the only way the assurists who need proof may have to find out is at the judgment. But then sadly, that will be too late. "In as much as it is appointed for a men to die once and after this comes the judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." (Hebrews 9:27-28).

Before anyone criticizes the Bible, please read it with an open mind, searching for the truth with your whole heart. God promises you will find Him, "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. " (Jeremiah 29:13). Jesus' prayer was, "Sanctify them in the truth, Thy word is truth." (John 17:17). He was not only praying for His apostles, but you and I, "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou dids't send Me." (John 17:20)

I pray for peace, peace for all men with God thru the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:13-18; 1 Timothy 2:1-6)

But, Mark, aren't you using reason to come up with that argument?

Many in this forum seem to expect empirical evidence for God, Jesus, etc. We're stuck in our post-Enlightenment trap of needing to to analyze, critique, control, manage, reason, evaluate, and intellectualize everything... Let's get out of our heads because reason will only get you so far in matters of religion. We've been enamored for centuries with our ability to reason and control outcomes, but the human person is much more than a brain. If you are a parent or have ever been in love, you've seen your mind take a back seat to affections, feelings, intuitions, experiences and love--matters of the heart. For the serious intellectuals and calloused cynics, you have a disadvantage in a way because you're stuck in your head... you're so stuck there, it's the only way you know how to operate in and interpret the world. As the genius mathemetician and theologian Blaise Pascal wrote on a scrap of paper a few hundred years ago, "The heart has its reasons, which reason cannot know."

MAK- "nobody knows"??? How do you know? With a statement like that, it sounds like nobody knows... except you.

I just wish that the many folks who have jumped on Dr. Mohler for his beliefs would only realize how faith-filled their own arguments are.

'MICHELLE' wrote that "we shouldn't continue trying to convince other people to believe as we do"--- hmmm, aren't you trying to convince me to believe as you do?

"ANONYMOUS" believes that he knows the definition of 'truth'-- namely, that based on "empirical evidence, ...rational logic". Where did you find that definition? Where is the evidence that supports that definition? And where is the evidence that supports that evidence? I can keep going. Hopefully, "Anonymous" you will see that you don't have any evidence for your own belief in what truth is; in fact, you only have just that-- belief, a belief that you are correct. For

"IMPISH"- what evil are you referring to? Also, do you see that you have made an absolute claim- namely that Dr. Mohler is wrong in his absolute claim? Why then do you blame him for making the same type of 'error' (if that's what it is) that you are making? You seem to have an absolute belief that he is truly wrong.

"JASON SCORSE"- the Bible is not revelation as you say? Wow, please tell me how you find this out-- if it seems legit, I will stop believing in the Bible. Seriously, how did you find this out? Did you discover this by your own intellect and efforts, or was it revealed to you? In the former case, you are only having faith in yourself, which is pretty risky unless you have a track record of always being right about everything in life; in the latter case, at best you're contradicting yourself because you rejected Dr. Mohler's belief in revelation. Finally, I hope you see that evil, including poverty and hunger, etc, come from human beings-- there is more than enough $$$ to go around; the fact that you even used a computer is evidence that you're wealthier than 99% of the world; I hope you realize that you, me, and all others have been quite selfish by not giving to the underprivileged, thus producing much 'evil'. As for natural disasters and non-preventable illness, the Bible has answers and explanations for this, but it seems that you have too much faith in yourself to even begin to believe what the Bible says... talk about a conversation stopper- at least for what could be a good mental dialogue for you if only you were a bit more open-minded.

"ROBERT"- if you really are a Christian, I'm saddened that you are not trying to help your brother, Dr. Mohler, and others to see what you do see. Instead, you bring them down. Are you really a Christian? By whose definition? Your own, or the Bible's?

"AWM"-- you want to start a conversation under different presumptions, huh? Wow, how do you know which presumptions to pick? And, when you pick them, what presumptions are you making about your own ability to pick correct presumptions? It seems that before you even try to get someone to change their presumptions, you need to see how you have so many already... as do I. Thanks be to God that He has mercy and that by His revelation, He saves us from our pride that only leads to downward mental spirals.

I try to follow the prayer of St. Francis in my daily life and hope to God there is a God on the other side. Other than that, nobody knows-NOBODY!

Why does claiming that you believe the Bible is inerrant such a road block? It should be no more a road block than someone stating the opposite.

Tolerance doesn't mean embracing every point of view, rather it's accepting the person and respecting THEM. It's about our relationship to each other rather than to our individual ideas.

Tolerance and open-mindedness are the twin hypocrisies of our day. Like the Bible, it is thumped and used to beat down those who do not espouse the beliefs that are often associated with them in our culture. People who don't like or believe in 'absolute' truth are often quick to label, critique and offer 'truth' about those who have no problem with truth.

That's is the real crux of the issue!

These comments provides some great material for a study of post-modern thought. . .

Michelle, you can and do believe what you want to believe.

world·view (wûrldvy)
n.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

There is a worldview based in Christianity, as well as Islam, Naturalism, Atheism, and the like.

All of us make assumptions about the nature of reality and universe. Being areligious doesn't excuse anyone from "biases." We all have them. Yet just because someone is biased doesn't mean that they can't have the truth.

One reason I believe the Bible: it accurately describes the human heart.

Bill Henry, I can't say I've taken much to the "dung cakes" of the OT. The Bible is set in a culture quite different from ours. So the dress, food, and technology are quite different. Yet what does the Bible portray regarding people? I see families, love, hate, jealousy, sex, murder, greed, power, sin, forgiveness, and sacrifice.

Cultures change. The human heart has NOT changed. The Bible describes us as we truly are.

The author of this piece seems to have a rather loose definition of what the phrase "to know" means.

Truth? No empirical evidence, no rational logic behind the fanciful mythos and you dare to call it truth?

Wow, the meaning of the word truth must have changed at some point...

History has shown us time and time again that so-called spirituality has done nothing but divide people and promote suffering in the world. It is a virus spread from parent to child (even if you don't subscribe to the same religion as your parents you can be infected) and at times spread from adult to adult. The language of faith, the obscurity of it, it's purposely created as a feedback loop to keep a person under the influence of the delusion.

Only cowards hide behind 'faith'. Brave people admit that there is no way to prove, even personally, that anything supernatural exists.

Many people seem to have found here the place to release their anger and frustration against Christianity in the name of peace and mutual understanding; after all, isn’t this the popular thing to do? So did I in arrogance when others tried to share the written truth with me and I relied so wisely in my own self-enlightened opinion to prove them wrong. Please pause for a moment to consider the following about us, the Christian bigots:

• We cannot reach heaven by our own means because we are fallen, inadequate, fallible and arrogant before our Creator and that is why we need representation at the highest level of moral authority to open the door for us on His own behalf; someone absolutely blameless, like no other in history as we know it. Now, tell me you don’t believe this and say honestly “I am as worthy of heaven as Jesus was” (if there are such a place and such a being). If you can even say this… who is the bigot?
• Leave Christianity out and answer where can you get the concept of grace? Who else offers you grace in the salvation of your soul at the level of the affirmation that “God so loved the world that He gave His begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?”
• Absolute truth is objective and does not care whether you know it or agree with it. Deny that there is absolute truth and you will find yourself making an absolute statement hoping for it to be true.
• Truth CAN indeed be found. Any belief system has to be evaluated against its own standards for consistency. If we bring anything from the outside to judge it, particularly our own opinion, we either transfer the question of authority to the new source, or claim ourselves to be such authority (is this not bigotry?).
• Devoid yourself from the misconception that “anyone making an absolute truth claim” is a bigot before you read the rest of this paragraph, otherwise you will have to go back to school and reprimand your math teacher for giving you a bad grade at a test: The truth of the God as He reveals Himself through the pages of the Bible CAN indeed be proven from the impossibility of the contrary. Among His many revealed attributes, Jehova is absolute, eternal, universal, immaterial, invisible and true to His nature (He cannot lie). Deny this and you will have to give a reliable account of why you are participating in an exchange of ideas about faith by relying on the laws of logic, which share some of these common attributes, to hold them together.
• If you agree that there is such a thing as truth, be aware that we are forced to leave out any philosophical system claiming that there is no truth (please read my posting in "Message From the Dalai Lama"). Tolerance in its modern sense is a myth and an absurd dream for a so called civilized world. If you don’t believe in truth, why bother expressing your opinion? In your world, anything can be and not be, at the same time and in the same sense.

Your honest answers will be appreciated as long as they include arguments addressing “why” you believe something different.

The problem with that though, Michelle, is that it's very selfish if you believe in any kind of absolute truth and any kind of approach to it. The Christian believes in dialogue because precisely because Christ is the truth, and He is love.

'Proof' as slung around by many here is a rather double standard. You disbelieve in the Bible because you read something by a fallible person somewhere, and yet we are not supposed to believe what we read, though it makes sense of data and we accept it as infallible. You set yourselves or this or that Ph.D. as the final judge of all things-- making absolute claims about the Bible's untruth, while we set up God's infallibility and make absolute claims about its truth. We can't prove God's existence, but you can't prove yours either. At the bottom of all experience or proof lies faith. Even Bertrand Russell acknowledged that. It is not a discussion about who has faith and who has reason. It is a discussion about whose faith is more reasonable, whose faith has the answers.

I admire Dr. Mohler's position but wish he stated his position without trying not to offend. The fact is that many evangelical Christians believe that the the bible is the God's written revelation to man. They also believe in the Reformation credo of "Sola Scriptura" which teaches that the bible is fully authoritative for all matters of faith and practice. There is no spiritual truth outside of the bible. So those who claim this is a conversation stopper are somewhat correct. I say "somewhat" because there still can be dialog on dissenting views. While minds may not be changed there may be an understanding or appreciation of opposing views.

In the New Testament, Jesus was not seeking common ground in order to reach an understanding with the Pharisees. Jesus revealed what the Old Testament was actually teaching and this offended the Jewish leadership. If Christian evangelicals are honest, we will admit that we view the bible similarly. It is going to offend people. The bible does not seek compromise or understanding. It is the word of God...the word of the one and only true God.

I don't think faith would be faith if we could "prove" it...

And I'm not sure that any of us really live without faith...

It seems to me that many of us want to "be right" in our beliefs to an extent that we are "afraid" to hear what others have to say about their faith...

I'm hopeful that in the future I will hear more about faith on this website and less about "religious doctrine"...

C'mon my fellow Atheist friends. Let's not knock the "Good Book" so hard! It contains a GREAT recipe for barley cakes. Ezekiel 4:12: "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." Yum yum!

No mature Christian would ever expect a person who has had no personal experience with God ( through Christ, the Holy Spirit) to understand the Truth of the Bible. Until that bridge of experience is crossed - it will always be a debate of morals, values and personal convictions to something absolute. The arguments can never be settled. Christians are motivated to present the Truth in Love - leaving the reponse to that persons own free will. Influenced or not, by God. I am grieved to watch America turn her face from God, as evidenced by much of the commentary in this blog.

We should be able to believe what we want to believe. We should not have to discuss our faith just to give it validity. Organized religion is a HUGE mistake. You shouldn't have to name it and claim it, you should just believe in yourself. We shouldn't continue trying to convince other people to believe as we do, just accept your own faith because it is, to each his own.

Britney Spears...now.there's a much truer archetype of the Southern Baptist! Uses her talents to get rich, promote lust...and torments a small, helpless Chihuahua!

Let's hear from Britney!

If you are basing the conversation on the fact that the Bible is infalable than you have already ended any chance of meeting on a middle ground (I assume you started this to create understanding and consensus). Because of your belief in the infalability of the Bible it is dangerous for you to even consider that you could be wrong, the result of this is that you will never be able to see the world from someone else's point of view. You are stuck in your own world, nothing else matters. Why would you even propose a conversation if you are immediately going to tell anyone that does not believe the Bible is the divine word of god that their wrong? As a matter of full disclosure, I'm an athiest. However, that does not mean that I believe everything in the Bible is useless, but you need to recognize that there are some things in the Bible that are absolutely insaine.

Mr Mohler, as an evangelical Christian, you believe in a set of ideas, facts and "truths" for which there is absolutely no evidence what so ever.
This alone, disqualifies you from taking part in any rational discussion on any matter.
Your irrational faith is completely delusional a priori, and what's more – your delusion, combined with delusions of millions of people like you, is hurting our species.
Please stop.

Religion is any belief that that has the power to transform your life. Hense, it is The Truth. I know many people who worship money and it becomes their God. I know people who seek power and this becomes their Truth. Science (as defined and limited by the scientific method) can be a religion all its own.

Christians are those people whose belief in Jesus has had a transformational influence on their lives. As such it is their Truth. The fact that not everyone has had such a life-changing experience does not mean that such a transformation does not occur.

And now for the question, can we have a meaningful conversation; can we find a common ground. It depends what you are talking about. Athists try just as hard to convert Christians as Christians try to convert athists, so a meaningful conversation about God may be out of the question.

But can we talk about AIDS? Why not? Christians have missions to Africa that whose primary goal is to provide medical help or provide food or run orphanages. So does the US government. So does the UN. There is very little to disagree about, unless you are intent on being disagreable.

Why can't we agree on cleaner air?
Why can't we agree on better pay for teachers?
Why can't we agree that our soldiers deserve better body armor?

Now here's an interesting question - can we agree that we can have issues in common without having common motivations? Is that all right with you - or is that too far outside the Truth?

The original question to the panel was,

"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"

The first part of the question must be answered before considering the latter, for the latter's "If so" is dependent upon a positiver response to the former. So, is it possible?

It appears to me that, in spite of my personal, perhaps naive, desire and intentions, that sadly it is not possible. Strangely, it is the preponderance of posts by those who do not align themselves with a particular religious expression who have vehemently declared with a unified, dare I say dogmatic, voice that this conversation is not possible.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. said "Is conversation possible only among those who deny a divine revelation? If so, only liberals can join the conversation."

I didn't know that the word "liberal" applied only to those who "deny a devine revelation", as this quote implies. This must be a special meaning that few know.

I would suggest that Mr. Mohler might well focus just on telling the plain truth and avoiding twisting the meaning of words. After all, twisting the meaning of words is a mark of the "great deceiver".

When he masters plain speaking then maybe he can better discuss his authority and his knowledge and understanding of greater truths.

Just a few quick questions:

Where was your warm, passionate, wise Jesus when millions of innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered during the Crusades?

Where was he when 100,000+ women were burned at the stake after being accused of being witches?

Where was he when a million plus indigenous people of the new world were being butchered?

Where is he today when there are millions dying of starvation and disease?

It seems to me your God/Jesus really loves to see people suffer. That doesn't sound to me like anyone I want to be associated with. If that's what heaven is all about then I'll stay right here, thank you.

Truth, in religious and spiritual matters, has limited value. Though we can make claims of what is true (or not), we cannot verify such claims. But that is OK. The value of spiritual beliefs is not contingent upon the truth of the beliefs, but whether or not the beliefs provide meaning to our lives. I recall a story told by the author Charles Kimball, in which he provides a distinction between truth and meaning. Suppose you see a little girl in a park approach a man, give him a hug, and hear her exclaim loudly "You are the best daddy ever!" Clearly, that is unlikely to be a true statement, as there are in all probability many men who are better fathers than this man. But just because the statement is not true, does this also imply that it has no meaning? The child perceives the man to be the best father, and whether or not that statement is true is irrelevant to how she understands her relationship with him.

The "truth" about our relationship with god (and however the concept of god manifests itself in our belief system) is less important than how that relationship brings meaning to our lives.

I would like to recommend an old survey of "post-modernism" by Walter Truett Anderson, entitled "Reality Isn't What It Used to Be." It persuasively shows how the real tension these days is between those who know they are *choosing* to believe a certain set of tenets vs. those who are trying very hard to hide that from themselves. Humans are not comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty...and the smaller our world becomes, the more we are thrown together with folks whose certainties don't match our own.

As for Mr. Mohler, he certainly hasn't stopped conversation, as another poster pointed out! However, he is being thoroughly circular and disingenuous, not to mention arrogant.

I have chosen Christianity, because I have chosen Jesus. So warm, so passionate, so alive, and so mysterious and wise. I love to hear his words over and over. But I know that I am choosing and acknowledge that.

A discussion about religion will always be colored by your personal beliefs. That's just the way it is. Same with politics. But RESPECT should always be the key to any discussion you have with someone with opposite/differing beliefs. The vast majority of conversations about religion or politics are not going to end with one person changing their position and/or beliefs. I am a Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christian and it colors who I am as well as my conversations. I lived the first 27 years of my life knowing ABOUT Jesus, but thankfully the past 15 years I've KNOWN Jesus personally. I want to share that wonderful experience when people ask me about my beliefs. I liken it to winning the lottery: All that cash would change my life and I'd want to share that experience. Well, I DID win the life-lottery when I accepted Jesus as my God and my Savior, and it changed my life. I'm gonna share about it, that's all there is to it. Not an "in your face/I'm right and you're wrong" kind of deal---just a real down deep happiness that I want others to experience.

"There are many soulless posts in this thread, reflecting many lost souls. This thread is an intellectual exercise, not a spiritual one, and it brings to the fore visceral anti-Christian bigotry that Christ warned His followers they would face. Only proves His Word. Any person baptized in the Christian faith cannot become unbaptized. Their soul is marked. They ignore or reject the faith at the peril of their eternal soul. The Christian faith has much that can be proven and some that cannot, but is accepted by Christians on the BASIS OF FAITH. We believe there is an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent God and that man is NOT the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present being. This is something that is inexhaustible and not for the selfish. Christ is about SACRIFICE, something that our secularists here do not seem to be able to fathom. There are many testimonies of atheists and people of other faiths who are or become open to grace because of the stirrings of their souls. This could still happen to you, too. It is a profound and liberating things."

Laura,

You present so MANY good points, like man not being all knowing, et cetera (by the way, PLENTY of "selfish" people aren't so stupid as to believe that man is all-knowing). But then you devolve by saying things like "Christ is about SACRIFICE, something that our securlarists here do not seem to be able to fathom" as if there aren't any Christians on this planet who know nothing of sacrifice. Human beings are human beings, no matter their religion. We all make mistakes, we can all have moments of selfishness (especially around Christmastime, ironically), and no one faith has a claim on absolute morality. Also, many people move from one group to another. You accurately point out that many atheists and non-Christians have been "moved", if you will, to become Christian. By the same token, though, many Christians (some of which have posted on this very same message board) have "lost their faith" and become atheist, agnostic, or of another faith. No religion, it seems, or lack thereof, is immune to converts or defectors.
By the way, just because someone is sick of a group of people claiming that they are the only ones who have a griphold on "truth" doesn't make them bigots. It just makes them fed up with being told over and over again that they can't possibly be right without any real evidence. I'm sure you can appreciate that, right?

Karen -- How sure can you be that Jesus existed, and said "Nobody comes to the father but through me"? You're relying upon the un-verifiable writings of unidentifiable people who may not have been eyewitnesses to the events they were writing about. For such important matters, you would think that a higher level of proof would be required. Sure, your response might be that faith is all you need to accept the truthfulness of the stories in the Bible. I think that we should use our God-given analytical abilities to challenge those who think they know the unknowable because of their faith. Faith that is inconsistent with reason or logic is similar to a child-like belief in the tooth fairy.

The "scandal" of Jesus and his Gospel is that he actually claims to be the source of all Truth. This is extremely offensive to most of us Postmoderns... Right off the bat, it repels people from even looking into the Christian faith and makes people feel offended that they have already been categorized as "unsaved" or whatever. If you get past this and begin to actually look at Jesus, read his words, and put the pieces together of love, faith, death and resurrection, you are drawn into this love and not repelled... placed in an absurd situation of believing in this Jesus, Source of all Truth (which we only catch a glimpse of through faith). I've actually been a Christian for a long time. But the thing I always come back to is... if there is a true "religion"--which I belive there is--it absolutely MUST be available to all people and MUST include a message for the poor, oppressed, weak, lonely, sad (because this is the state of most of the world). It must supercede all human hierarchies of rich or poor, powerful or weak, oppressors or oppressed, cool or uncool. Jesus' gospel levels the playing field and has legs to stand on because it is accessible to ALL people through faith. It's ironic that the most scandalous and absurd thing is actually... the real thing.

"I am grateful that I live in a country where the Christian majority believes in the legal right of the non-christian to speak his/her mind, even to the extent of allowing the non-christian the right to vociferously, sometimes viciously and causticlly attack the beliefs of that majority. This is not the case in many (most?) nations of the world. Just something to consider as we attack the backward, mean-spirited, unenlightened zealots of the Christain faith."

You can't be serious!!! Listen, I'm a grateful as the next person that I live in a country in which my right to free speech is protected. But you don't have the "Christian majority" to thank for that!!! You have the Constitution and its Amendments, as well as dedicated men and women, including judges, presidents, senators, police, activists, and others who fight on a daily basis to make sure that EVERYONE in this country has the right to free speech. There are members of the "Christian majority" who have had no problem with the fact that I am a non-Christian, but at the same time, I have had members of the "Christian majority" scare their children with tales of how I am doing the "devil's work", write threatening letters to my then-fiance about how we shouldn't marry because he will lose his soul to the devil. I've seen "Christians" with the power to stop wrongdoing turn a blind eye when other "Christians" have shouted death threats at me, "Christian" bosses who make me take off my religious symbol while proudly (and rightfully) displaying their own and who pass me over for a raise and give a healthy raise to someone else when even the recipient of the raise believes that I was the better candidate, "Christian" art teachers who wouldn't allow me to incorporate certain symbols (like the ankh or crescent moon) in my work because they thought it was "satanic", and so on and so forth. Not to mention the scores of "Christian" groups who are hellbent (forgive the pun) in making sure that every person in this country believes that non-Christians worship the devil, so that more and more people will become Christian out of fear of some (probably) mythical place of torture (whether they succeed or not is one thing, but this is certainly their intention). This leads me to believe that there are a great number of members of the "Christian majority" (and other religions or non-religious groups) who would, if given the opportunity, NOT allow me to speak my mind about my faith and the faith of others.

So, to reiterate, I do not think that I should thank the "Christian majority" for my freedoms (I think this would be like feeling grateful to them for not burning me at the stake), but rather the founding fathers of this country and those who work very hard to make sure that the ideals of this democracy do not fade into obscurity.

Many evangelicals are ready to write you off as a "non-Christian" if you vote for Democrats or if you support candidates who do not oppose abortion, etc. If the conversation begins on that premise, then in my opinion, it's impossible to have a conversation. I do believe that it's possible for people of varying political beliefs to share a common faith and to worship together. But when your church relegates you to hell because of the candidates that you support, then it's time to find another church.
Been there.

As I see it, the problem with ALL religions is that the practitioners all claim to know and have "The Truth."

The real truth is that none of the various religions of the world have a real concept of what "truth" is. Faith - yes. Truth - no. So unless and until somehow and some way the real "truth" can be proven to exist, I will remain quite comfortable in my atheism. I much prefer to place my beliefs in science, where the truth can be discerned and proven. I am fully aware that not all the factors of scientific experiment have been proven, but science is one area where the ability to disprove what was previously thought to be true is applauded. Unlike religion, where questioning the "truth" is considered blasphemy and is ridiculed and scorned.

Moreover, religion does not have a monopoly on morality. For "proof" of that, one only needs to look at the scandals that riddle the Catholic church and that hypocritical evangelist from Colorado (just to name a few).

As a christian, I love to discuss my faith with other people. My goal is not to convince or persuade anyone but to present the Truth. As I share in love, the two most common responses include: rejection of the message or conviction by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't blame secular people for not believing or understanding the bible. The Holy Spirit is the only One that will reveal the truths of God's word. To the unbeliever, the Word of God is foolishness. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I am a Christian I can help but find it interesting how the Christian's are making the least sense in this debate. I am thankful to the Muslim contributors of this message board. They seem to be the most level headed. Building on common beliefs is our best bet. I would like to thank the Muslims and members of other faiths for being honest and level headed. Please know that all Christians aren't as ingorant as the Minister that started this message board.

As a Christian, I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God but the cornerstone of my faith is God revealed to us in human flesh ie Jesus Christ. As I read through the comments above, I find that most of the people who are expressing opinions about Jesus's teachings and about the Bible's veracity or lack thereof, do so with great assurance but mostly without having taken the time to either read the teachings of Jesus or read the whole Bible and try to understand it.
Yes Jesus preached love and humility but He also said: I am a the way, the truth and the life, Nobody comes to the father but through me. No relativism there.
I would also add that those of us who are Christians realize that our faith is not just based on a book but on experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in our own lives, and experiencing God's saving grace every step of the way. We commune with him, feel his presence and would say as Peter said to Jesus: where else would we go Lord, you are the only one with the words of salvation (I am paraphrasing). in other words, our faith is not just theoretical but also deeply experiential. And no, we are not delusional. I doubt that anybody would think that Dr Francis Collins is nuts.
For any in the audience who truly want to learn more and take a good honest look at the Christian Faith and whether it is built on a solid foundation or just on poppycok, I would recommend The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, a former atheist and legal reporter who took a hard look at the evidence and found it hard to refute.
I would also recommend a great book by Harvard Psychiatrist Armand Nicholi: The Question of God, that compares the views of Freud and CS Lewis on love, pain, death etc.
Having said all that, I absolutely believe in separation of church and state, I do not want to live in a theocracy and I completely support the right of others to disagree with me, ridicule me, believe, not believe, etc. The foundation of my faith is free will and free choice. God gave us the freedom to choose, including the freedom to deny him and walk away from him. Coerced/imposed belief is a terrible thing and definitely not what I would wish for anybody.

Well, that time of year is upon us. The Holiday Season is here. While we worry about buying presents and putting decorations up, we have forgotten what this time of years is truly about. God and family was the message I was raised with when I was a child. I always had trouble with the God part; not for the reasons you are most likely thinking, and family came easy for me. Religion is going to be discussed at length for the next month and a half. I guess I will give you my two cents on the subject.

I don't follow any kind of orginazed religion. I have been to Baptist, Presbyterian, and raise Roman Catholic. I have found they all have the same thing in common. The "we are better than those guys" mentality runs rapid in all organized religion. This type of attiude has brought this world nothing but war and death. That is why I don't go preaching to the masses, or says my faith is better than yours because it is wrong. It isn't what God wants of us in my understanding of the Bible. God wants us to live in Peace.

Don't judge unless ye be judge. I don't know the Palms that is from in the Bible, but it is rarely followed. Organized Religion is base of the interpretation of God's word that was handed down over 2000 years. The stories that were told when we were a tribal race and those stories have been twisted to suit our purposes. We take this phrase or that phrase to make our points about other people and races. We don't look at the Bible as a whole or any other religious books and doctrines. We see only what we want to see in those because we want to be right. The point of any messages from God is that we need to do better with each other. We shouldn't judge other people for their actions toward God without judging our own.

God is the final judge we face. He will decide if we have lived according to His message and not what we perceive as his message. We are in a religious war right now because there is a group of people in this world that think they are the only ones that are living in the way that God wants us to. Are they right? Are they wrong? I don't know because I am not God. We persecute people because of religious reasons and hound them about their lifestyle. Whether it is nature or a personal choice, I feel that is between them and God. We don't go after those that commit adultery and destroy families because we recognized that those choices are a personal one. I find it funny that we go after the gay lifestyles with laws and amendments, but it is ok to cheat on your spouse and break up a family for sexual gratification. How is that following God's will? Thou shall not commit adultery. I thought for sure that was in the Ten Commandments. I guess it is easy to be self righteous when don't recognize a love that we don't understand between other adults.

Why doesn't God talk to us anymore? My guess is that we made it so hard that the messages are not getting through to Him. You have to pray this way or that way. The words have come out of your mouth and in triplicate. I feel God is tired of us fighting wars and killing each in His name, so He decided to be quiet or more of us will die if he sent us a message to us. We would also twist it to suit our purposes like everything else in this world. We blame God for our mistakes. We give credit to ourselves when we do great in our lives. I have been down on the rocks where life didn't seem worth living, but God help me to see that I have important things on this Earth that need to be done. Everything I do and accomplished is due to God giving me a chance to do it.

What is the Bible or any other religious doctrines? It is a message that we need to hear and not to be use make ourselves, our way, or our society feel superior. It is Book that tells us to love each other and live in peace. God will judge our behavior in Heaven and decide if we are worthy. It is not up to us to punish those we deem unworthy to enter into Heaven, but God will decide in His wisdom because He sees into our hearts. We don't need churches or temples to worship God. We just need to open our hearts and minds to Him. We don't need someone to tell us how to find Him, but we need to find our own way to Him. No one can make you believe in God. No sword is strong enough. No gun has enough ammunition in to make people find God. If this world would accept there are many paths to God, we would have peace. If we could just stop hating each other, there would be love. If we could do all those things, Heaven would truly exist on Earth.

May you find Peace and Love through out the years….

ROO said, "But if you hold the document itself as sacrosanct, then that is when you get into grey area, because you are forming your beliefs on a document and not on that which cannot be seen nor comprehended by others than yourself, your personal truth."

For me the Bible's truth is the basic truth. That is, my belief in God *follows* my belief in the Bible. I'm not an evangelical, but I guess my thinking follows the same line.

But contrary to ROO, I think that my beliefs end up less gray because of this presupposition. If anyone wants to know what I believe, he or she can read the Bible.

However, I have to always be cautious to put myself under the Bible, so that it's word molds my beliefs and not the other way around. I can misunderstand the Bible, and thus show myself to be a hypocrite. So I have to constantly read and study the Bible to be sure that my thinking follows what it actually says, and not what I think it says or what I make it out to say. I want to purge myself of my misunderstandings and presuppositions other than the first one I mentioned.

Is this a conversation-stopper? I don't think so. Whenever I engage people of my own or other faiths, they present a challenge to my presoppositions and misunderstandings. I have to listen to these people in order to learn. I don't think my basic presupposition is wrong, but I believe I'm not as faithful to it as I ought to be.

So why am I a Christian? For Heaven's sake, I could have picked any old book to believe in, right? I found that what the Bible teaches about humility, peace, and salvation before God (i.e., the God of the Bible) works in my life. I think the Bible would probably work in other people's lives, but some have their reasons for not following the Bible, so their decision is between them and God.

The many people who seek to write a history of Christianity by means of the history of hypocritical Christian governments ignore a large portion. What about those Christians who gave to their neighbor joyfully in order to fulfill Christ's commands? What about those Christians who prayed for the forgiveness of those who were about to murder them? What about those Christians who fought against slavery, persecution, and poverty because they wanted to fulfill the precepts of the Bible? They didn't usually run governments, but they shouldn't be excluded from a history of Christianity!

Greg asked, "...what, I wonder, did some of the responders expected to find under the heading, "On Faith" but expressions of faith?"

Should those of us that reject the supernatural not be expected to be interested in, or not willing to discuss what affects all of life -- faith?

Whether a person believes or not, faith affects all parts of life, particularly sex, marriage, death and a biggy -- war.

Yes, those of us that live without the supernatural also have a stake in "faith." I'm with Sam Harris, the world would be better off without faith.

Per George Warren:
>>I will defend until death your right to be an atheist: one who says there is no God; or an agnostic: one who says we can't be sure; or a Judaist: one who rejects Jesus as God's only begotten son, or anything else you want to be. But first, I must demand you read that book in its' entirety with an open mind. Only then can we enter into a meaningful dialogue.<<

I sincerely thank you for that Voltairian offer of defense; however, I must add a comment to your demand to read the Bible in its entirety with an open mind. I strongly suggest that the Bible and ALL other "non-fiction" books, be read with an open and CRITICAL mind.

Before deciding that the Bible is inerrant, especially as we have it, read from a Bible translation (I use the New American Standard Bible but it is not the only one) that tries to give all the facts. That is a translation that gives footnotes and puts in brackets the sections of the Bible that are not found in oldest/best manuscripts such as the last section of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery. Note discrepancies between the 4 gospels: don't spin Matthew, Mark, Luke & John into one seamless document without contradictions. Check when the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament such as in Mark when Jesus is quoted as saying that Abiathar was the High Priest when David ate the show bread when he wasn't. Note the differences between what Luke has Paul saying in Acts and what Paul says in his letters to the churches. Note the differences what Paul says in his undisputed letters versus what he supposedly says in letters that are likely not his.

I highly recommend "Misquoting Jesus" and other books by Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman to help in doing this study.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1163701700/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8724155-1933403?ie=UTF8&s=books

At least the Bible is potentially open to examination and criticism, unlike the Koran.

One of the worst features of the Koran is its self-contained doctrine of Naskh meaning abrogation. That is when one part of the Koran is contradicted by another part of the Koran or sometimes only by the traditions (Sunna), the later recorded part applies. One example is how the penalty for adultery got changed from whipping (in the Koran) to stoning to death (Sunna). A more important effect is that peaceful sections of the Koran that Muhammed gave out in when he was in Mecca and weak are superceded by the violent messages he gave when he was in Medina and strong.

This doesn't stop Muslims from quoting the peaceful sections when they are trying to trick infidels which is perfectly acceptable as under the doctrine of taqiyya which effectively means that a Muslim is allowed to lie if it advances Islam. According the Hadiths, Muhammed himself allowed it.

Well, well, where to begin, here we have come to the heart of the great cultural rift in the United States. Can we even communicate with one another?
On one side are those that believe in an absolute truth. They might not claim to know it exactly, but they do fully believe that it exists, and that it is, in some form, knowable. I believe that this is the claim Mr. Mohler makes. This has been, historically, the consensus view, held by most of our ancestors. (Though, of course, this discussion has in some form gone on since the dawn of man.)
Enter a 'new' view, growing out of the Enlightenment, entrenching itself in Europe and making its way to our shores in the last few generations: that there is no absolute truth; or, that it is not knowable. Which amounts to the same thing.
This, of course is only applied to the 'spiritual' side of human affairs. When those who hold the later view look up into the night sky and behold the billions upon billions of stars shining down from unimaginable distances upon this puny planet, they somehow find the courage - or is it arrogance - to claim we can unravel all the mysteries of it, or are ever closer to doing so, or are able to systemize it, categorize it, to 'fit it in a box.'
I in no way mean to impugn science nor its achievements, I know no reasonable person who does; however, I point out that the arrogance of humanity is as easily expressed in science as it is in religion.
It is in the end a question of what we can know and ‘modern’ man/woman has decided that things concerning the material world are knowable, and that things concerning the spiritual are not. Now, they don’t mean for us to discard the spiritual trappings - at least not most of them - because that’s been tried after all, and the results on society at large found to be… not beneficial... for some odd reason… blame it on the ignorance of the masses. And, hey, church/mass/synagogue is kind of fun for social events and staying in touch with our heritage and holidays, but no one really believes that stuff, .. really.
To these I would say two things:
First, do not presume that those of us with a world view based on 'faith' have come to it lightly. I have faith not for the sake of having a faith, but because it is grounded in the reality of what I see around me, and in the experiences I have had. It is in no way a blind nor ill-informed truth that I claim and I welcome any challenges to it. For I am not perfect, nor have I 'arrived' - there is still much that I can learn. But when I talk to you, I seek the truth - not a truth.
Second, I pose a simple question: from where oh man, oh woman, does your true being spring? What is the origin of the human spirit, the soul that you allude to and that humanity has never been able to deny - this divine spark?
And if that doesn't matter, or is not knowable, then what is the point, anyway? What is love? Why love? Why not hate and kill? Be consistent with a relativist's world view and I fear the depths of despair it will lead to. Because if nothing about who we truly are - and I don't mean blood, guts, and atoms, but who we TRULY are - is knowable in the end... nothing about us, nor our love, nor our children, nor our mother, nor our enemy... then we have arrived in a world that I do not want to live in. Because then the individual human being is reduced to an animal/machine, and I hope we can all agree that there is more to us than that.
And I mean this not as a sermon or a fire and brimstone scare-tactic, but as an explanation for the non-absolutist of why we, who ascribe to absolute truth, believe. Hopefully also, this can be the beginning of a dialogue, for I perceive this to be the true issue facing us. The lines today are drawn not between different religions, though very significant differences certainly exist there, but between those who believe in an absolute truth, and those that believe there is no such thing, or that it is not knowable.
Notice that I mention no particular religion, nor even god. And, as a 'religious' person, or what many of you might refer to as a 'fundamentalist' - meaning that I truly believe, and don't just banter historically loaded names and catch phrases for connotative value - I, personally, find it much easier and productive to talk to 'fundamentalists' of other faiths about our different views, than it is to talk with those that believe there is, ultimately, no true view to be held.

* I should note that my thoughts are influenced heavily by the writings of the theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer - read him if you dare.

There are many soulless posts in this thread, reflecting many lost souls. This thread is an intellectual exercise, not a spiritual one, and it brings to the fore visceral anti-Christian bigotry that Christ warned His followers they would face. Only proves His Word. Any person baptized in the Christian faith cannot become unbaptized. Their soul is marked. They ignore or reject the faith at the peril of their eternal soul. The Christian faith has much that can be proven and some that cannot, but is accepted by Christians on the BASIS OF FAITH. We believe there is an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent God and that man is NOT the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present being. This is something that is inexhaustible and not for the selfish. Christ is about SACRIFICE, something that our secularists here do not seem to be able to fathom. There are many testimonies of atheists and people of other faiths who are or become open to grace because of the stirrings of their souls. This could still happen to you, too. It is a profound and liberating things.

All we have to work with are uncommon pieces of the common whole.

all uncommon pieces added up equal the common whole.

I prefer to have the whole relative picture rather than one or a few uncommon pieces that add up to the part of the picture that is relative to those pieces.

The mind that gives this psychic power is the creative mind. The feminine mind. We are imbalanced right now toward the ego masculine
intellectual mind. A return to inclusion of the feminine creative will solve this problem.

Faith in what cannot be proven is foolishness, wishful thinking, delusion. Those pushing faith are either fools or knaves, or both. That includes luminaries like Jon Meacham.

Personally, I think the problem here is men. Yes, that's right, MEN. Men seek to control and dominate. Men draw lines in the sand and men start wars. Men do not fear conflict, but rather often relish in it as it feeds their competitive egos. Men are responsible for the majority of conflict throughout history.

When I read the comments posted here, they are the blusterings of men. The occasional sprinkle of female opinion seeks to soften and balance the "absolute certainty" of men.

But, religious concepts are inherently feminine: peace, love, compassion, gentlness, kindness, tolerence. If Jesus were alive today, men would probably criticize him as being gay because he was a gentle man with feminine ideals.

I am a wife and a loving mother of two little "men". They are still young, but already they seek to conquer and destroy, and of course, I seek to teach them tolerance and compassion.

I love the strength and power of men. They are the yin to our yang. But, I do not see the world changing until the feminine can balance the masculine tendency to destroy. I am delighted to see more women in politics, I just hope they have the strength to stand up to men.

Althought women have been repressed for thousands of years, many religions are finally becoming more open-minded toward female leadership. Unfortunately, their beliefs are often molded by men.

The Da Vinci Code dealt with the practice of worshiping the feminine, the life giver, and the mother of all life. Gnostic Christians belive God is both feminine and masculine. But, on this planet, we have always experienced the masculine as dominant. Is it any wonder why the world has been through so much turmoil?

I'm not asserting that feminity does not have it's flaws, but God created both sexes to balance one another. It is this balance that is lacking. Women truely want peace in the world. Can men really say the same?

I have been on other websites which are supposed to be dedicated to understanding one another's religions and examine what we have in common rather than what divides us. My experience has been that most of the evangelical Christians spend their time telling everyone else that they are going to hell and quoting scripture at them. This disturbs me.
I feel we should be able to share, in a kind way, what we believe, even if it includes the idea that one believes the Bible to be the revealed Word of God and Jesus Christ the pathway to personal revelation and salvation . There should be no condemnation in one stating what one believes; it is when you start demanding that your way is the only way and you have some exclusive link to God that others do not. Besides, to me, the value of discussions on religion is for me to come to a better understanding of what people of other faiths believe so that I can hopefully gain a better understanding of their perspective on life. We all approach the world with different pairs of glasses on, so to speak. Those glasses can represent our faith, and what we believe in our hearts tints how we see the world and how we react to our environment. It's not so much whether we accept someone else's religious beliefs or not - I'm not here on this website to convert anyone- the idea is to better understand why people of other religions act they way they do and why they feel they way they feel.

Nojay -- So you know the true god, and everybody who doesn't agree with you is stuck in ignorance. That's your position, correct?

After reading all comments, the conclussion drawn is that most everyone seem to be looking for truth by interacting with other humans.
If we are truly seeking the truth, whether there is a God and why we are here and what our purpose is, then we must seek the truth from God Himself. By what we know ourselves, this universe was created with order. God did not create it such and then leave us to wander around aimlessly. I was living in denial at one time in my life and seeking pleasure and my own way of life as I wanted to live it, believing there was a God somewhere out there but with no concern of what my purpose was in this world. I believe that most people believe in a God but have never opened themselves up to know Him. As circumstances occured in my life, I began to pray that the God of this entire universe out there somewhere would allow me to know about Him. I found tht if we abandon ourselves and allow God to show Himself, He is certainly ready and willing to do so. I found that God will reveal Himself thru His Son Jesus Christ.
Much of our problem, is, we don't want to yield our life to anything or anyone else. One must come to Him, and open oneself to the truth.
God worked in my heart to know Him but I had to be willing to accept His plan and not my own.
He sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins and when we are willing to accept that truth, we are in a position to know God Himself.
Before accepting Christ into my heart I didn't concern myself with others, but one thing I can testify to is that when Christ comes in He changes hearts and I saw others in a different way. God had put a genuine love in my heart for people. Once a person knows God on a personal basis, He will dwell within them for all eternity. How many of you out there are up to the challenge?
John 3:16

Ah truth, well I would like to pose that one person's truth is another's lie, because truth is subjective and ever changing depending upon when this "truth" occurs in one's life.

The bible was written by men claiming to be speaking for their God at that time of their lives and of that historical period, it is their truth, not ours. This is to not wholesale dismiss some of these truths, as some are timeless and should be carried forward, but others are for the time period in which they were set to papyrus/vellum/paper and this is the truth we need to bear in mind when we read such documents from the past.

As long was we never see a document as a wholesale truth, but as a document and it is the intent behind the document to which you hold sacred, the belief, then I think it is safe to have a serious religious conversation. But if you hold the document itself as sacrosanct, then that is when you get into grey area, because you are forming your beliefs on a document and not on that which cannot be seen nor comprehended by others than yourself, your personal truth. Now if you are saying that this document holds the truths that best fit your own personal truths, again that is one thing, but to say it is the reason for your truths, then I think you are selling yourself short and setting yourself up to be led by others who do not have your best interests at heart. Always question those who have come before, because it is in the questioning that you learn and grow from the answers you seek, not in the actual attainment, but in the seeking, the attaining process.

Also, if you shut yourself off from the beliefs of others, you are short changing not only yourself, as they might share your truths, but you will never know based on their faith, if you don't look at it with an open heart, honestly, by dismissing other religions wholesale, because they don't believe your book has their truths in it and that is the only authority, then you denigrate the very process you claim to seek. In seeking to understand, you must walk in the others shoes and see what they see, in order to understand and to be an honest broker to the conversation.

These are my truths, as I see them, as I have learned them, and I have been through enough religions thanks to my parents to see the wisdom and love in all, but I also see the manipulation and misguidance that all can bring as well, no one religion is THE one, they are all just parts of a greater whole.

And remember, if it gets you through a dark night, then it serves its purpose for you and you alone, you can never expect another to fully understand and to relate to your truth, because it is yours and yours alone, you can only seek to guide and instruct, but never bludegeon with your truth and you have to also respect their truth as well.

The anthropomorphic god portrayed in the Bible and the Koran, i.e., a god that has emotions and conversations with people, is inconsistent with the ideas about god that many, if not most, have today. Our efforts to understand the nature of god should not rely exclusively upon the Bible, Koran, or any other ancient text. I think that most people, when pressed, would acknowledge that they can't be certain of the nature of god. You're better off working on a personal "theology" that would, at least, be consistent with they way your mind works. Maybe the "plan" was for us to experience or understand god in different ways.

"I despair that we cannot work toward a focus on what we have in common as opposed to what devides us. The former is so much greater, and therein lies the way toward peace, compassion, tolerance, and human growth."

The former may indeed be greater, but religion is among the latter. It divides; it does not unite intrinsically. Unless you feel that stamping out all faiths except your own means "unity."

What unites us are the common, secular needs: the need for food, the need for happiness, the need to live without fear. The reason we in the US enjoy most of these in a multi-faith environment is that our secular goals have taken precedence over our religious goals.

We don't kill our friends and family if they "turn from the faith." We don't cut out our eyes or saw off our hands if they make us do un-Christian things. In essence, we are ignoring things that God and Jesus tell us to do in order to live manageable, peaceful lives.

How interesting that Dr. Mohler is being taken to task for honestly stating what he calls for in the first place: "This is who I am as an evangelical Christian, what I think, what I believe." He never says everyone must believe what he believes, as he believes it. He simply calls for each of us to come to the table with their "cards face-up." He says that he believes that we can only have meaningful dialogue if we are willing to be self-revelatory. Then he takes the risk of exposing himself. It is risky because those who claim a superior, more enlightened position don't bother to do the same ("this is who I am and what I believe---let's talk"); rather, they jump to the attack, telling us why people like Mr. Mohler are wrong and bad, so closed-minded and incapable of reasonable discussion.

How short-sightedly, hypocritically ironic!

If our conversation is about "faith" then let's be willing (1) to be honest about what our faith is; (2) to allow people to present their faith without ridicule or threat of attack; (3) to dialogue---which means active listening and respectful, mature, reasoned response. We can reach understanding and respect for one another without having to agree on whether Jesus is the Messiah, or Mohammed is Allah's prophet, or Jews MUST eat kosher. Ruslan Yastrem gets to the heart of the question when he asks: can we agree to live harmoniously whether or not we agree on heaven?

I am grateful that I live in a country where the Christian majority believes in the legal right of the non-christian to speak his/her mind, even to the extent of allowing the non-christian the right to vociferously, sometimes viciously and causticlly attack the beliefs of that majority. This is not the case in many (most?) nations of the world. Just something to consider as we attack the backward, mean-spirited, unenlightened zealots of the Christain faith.

Jesus was not an evangelical, He was not a conservative. He was a radical, John the Baptist radicalized his world by calling for repentance within the ruling religious society of Judea. Being in relationship with Jesus is not joining a church or simply a polictical alignment. It is a relationship between one individual and the divine person of Jesus. Even within Biblical inerrancy there are discussions, what does "like a dove" mean when the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus? Was it a physical presence or just some holographic image or just a bit of hyhperbole??

The fact that there is redemption and guidance from above, thru Jesus is the only salient point. Everything else is open for discussion and we learn from each other as well as from on high.

Per>>Ruslan Yastrem: It would take very little time to compile a impressive list of little and big things we are in full agreement of. I have never found anybody for instance who disagrees that helping each other is good and that killing each other is not good.
<<
Unfortunately I find many people who think that killing the "infidel" is good. A few very quick examples: (1.) Jihadist muslims such as Osama bin Ladin or Abu_Hamza_al-Masri who I recently saw on TV saying that a non-Muslim in a Muslim country may be sold or killed just as cattle may be sold or killed. These are just some of the latest in a list of murderous Muslims going back to the time of Muhammed. 2. On the Christian side there is the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church who says "Thank God for IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and that God hates America because it doesn't execute homosexuals as required by the Bible. He is just the most notorious current example of Christian Reconstructionists/Dominionists who would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible. 3. The pagan Adolf Hitler who presided over the mass murders of millions of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and anyone who didn't follow the Nazi ideology. 4. Murderous Atheists such as Stalin of the Soviet Union, Mao of China and Pol Pot of Cambodia who may have the world champion title for mass murder both in absolute numbers and on a percent of population basis.

We humans are often not nice people whether you want to blame it on original sin/utter depravity of man or being the descendants of killer apes.

Try to find common ground but remember that your fellow human may be a liar, fanatic and monster. Keep your weapon handy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

I have always held that the Bible is possibly the worst thing that ever befell Christianity! Here is a book of stories that was compiled as a political document in the third century under the auspices of Constantine in order to wield power over the growing Christian community. The stories chosen were revised by Eusebius, and further twisted by the Council of Nicea. Eighteen centuries later, we claim it as the True Word of God? In claiming that, are we not saying that God is dead? Did God cease acting in a meaningful way after these carefully selected and edited stories were codified as The Bible?

Is fundamentalist Christianity unaware of the presence of midrash throughout the pages of the book that they hold as Absolute Truth? To claim that the stories and actions in the Bible are literally, journalistically true is to rob them of their power. Yes, there is truth in the bible, but it is truth that must be drawn from the metaphor of the stories.

I would strongly suggest to fundamentalist Christians that they take a few steps back and look at the actual history of the book they hold so dear. The Bible is a fine resource for Christianity, but it is not Christianity—just as a map of your hometown is not your hometown.

If it is to survive as a pathway to God, Christianity is going to have to loosen its grip on the Bible as the one true revelation of God to the world. Indeed, THIS is idol worship. The real Bible continues to be written daily by God’s continued interaction with God's people, who are, indeed, all who open themselves to God—no matter the chosen pathway.

Only when we begin to listen to each other’s stories of God’s impact in our lives, without subjecting them to the litmus test of an ancient text, will we begin to have our meaningful dialogue, Dr. Mohler. The real Bible is alive, present and edited daily in the interaction of the people of God. You wish to know the Truth? Put down your book and listen.

September 11, 2006

At the risk of offending you or any one else, I will share my own opinion, I believe the Great Mystery has a broken heart today. As make a prayer this morning with this Father Sun that rises before my eyes, I feel the broken hearts around me.

How did we get to this place in time, let’s review past history. What have these humans been doing all these years? In the 1400’s the Spanish and Portuguese occupied South America and taught the First Nations Peoples to sing Latin Vulgate, after they castrated all the males. The sailor Columbus arrived in the Leeward Island to begin beheading the locals for sport and fun, and oh yes, in the name of conversion to Christianity. For the life of me I cannot understand how the Indigenous peoples of these South and Central American countries would generations later, support and convert to Christianity, the very institution that who massacred their ancestors. It is bewildering. Humans have been hurting each other for a very long time, because of their stupidity.

In the Papal documents of 1300, the Vatican clearly state and directs the priests to convert the savages or kill them. The Vatican has never has never apologized for these grizzly murders and genocide. The Vatican has never retracted the statements. In my opinion, The Vatican and all it priests should be arrested and tried for the murder of millions of First Nations peoples across the globe. He Vatican is one of the only institutions in the world who has been able to murder at will and never faced justice. They in fact have legalized murder! It’s been going on in the world for centuries.

Moving forward, again at the hands of a government run by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, America made it legal to hunt these peoples for their scalps, then had the gall to call them savages. Indian children were stolen from their families, stripped of their culture, cut their hair, and beat them when they used their own language and were placed in concentration camps, politely called reservations. The Christians then killed off 6 million buffalo, the American Indians source of all life’s essentials, and then gave these people blankets laced with small pox to continue the genocide. Humans have been hurting each other for a very long time, because of their stupidity and hatred. In the state of North Dakota hundreds of murders of American Indians over the recent years have not been investigated due to the extreme prejudice of citizens and government officials.

How is it that our government can decide which sacrament is allowed and which one is not. They decided bread and wine, but the rest do not have merit? The people of India have used Cannabis for centuries to pray with, but the US has outlawed this sacrament? The Mexicans Indians have used mushrooms to pray with for centuries. The American South West Indians use Peyote to pray with. How is it our government can out law theses sacraments? Who gave them that right? It is a government that is being held hostage by religions; from the Jewish Mossad, to the Muslims and Jehovah’s Witness; all of these people want to conquer, brain wash, and decide for all the rest what is right. I ask you, can you see what is wrong with this picture? I call it social insanity.

In early American history, the first thanksgiving in America was the celebration of the burning of Indian villages. Did you know that? It’s was documented by the Puritan ministers as they were proud of themselves for riding the world of evil. After the entire village was burned, woman and children, the heads of the Indians were stuck on poles in the Puritans town square for entertainment. Now we know why the English kicked them out of Britain. Sound familiar George? Toni?

Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but he also holds the record for the largest lynching of American Indians, some lousy president he was. And about those slaves; these very slaves that he freed also converted to Christianity. What? Is that right? Black people have become Christians too? How can a black man become a Baptist, knowing that these very people, Christians, stole them from their home land, tortured and beat them daily while raping their wives and daughter’s. It is beyond me how any black American would ever become a Christian after all that. I call it social insanity.

So let’s review current events. George Bush Sr. put Bin Laden on the CIA payroll sold them arms, in an arrangement to fight the Russians and beat them to the oil in Uzbekistan. They also sold and gave millions of dollars of arms to Saddam Hussein in order influence him to help the US overthrow Iranian government. Arms merchants from countries around the world have had a hand in the death of Kurds and civilians throughout the Middle East and the world. Israeli operatives planted explosives in the twin towers because they knew of the plot, they needed the US to go to war, because they we convinced that Saddam was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in Israel. Fear has driven humans to drastic measures against each other out of stupidity for eons. Remember these men think in terms of the fewest casualties.

The bottom line here is this; there are very rich people in the world who are able to manipulate governments in order to use those government’s armies to go fight in foreign countries in order to protect their corporate interests. Meanwhile the citizens, who voted them into office, are busy watching football while worshiping the Queen and Elvis.

Every treaty that the United States made with the American Indian was broken. This happens daily around the world with most all governments. The same is true around the world. If one were to believe the official version, the intervention of Australian troops into East Timor is driven by the purest motives, I would call that socially insane.

The Australian’s are not there simply to restore peace and stability after the collapse of government authority. But this political fiction has been increasingly exposed by events as the power struggle which sparked the crisis comes to the surface. The Howard government’s intervention has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the East Timorese people. His government has broken treaties with them over the oil also. It is aimed at bringing about a “regime change”—the replacement of the government of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri with an administration more in tune with Australian interests. Can you say oil?

And what about the Middle East? If you lived in Palestine, and you knew that the US, Britain, Germany, France, and Australia were selling arms to Israel, and that daily your woman and children were being killed by these arms. You too would fly an airplane into the building that represents the world’s greed that is funding these arms sales, you would fight back. These humans are not terrorists. They are men and women fighting for their family’s survival, their own land, their way of life, their dignity. Just like the Indigenous peoples of the Earth have fought for all these years. It is time for the world to stop selling arms. It is time for the world to stop selling arms to Israel. The one way to stop the fighting and convince the Middles East is to seek peace, is to stop selling arms to Israel. Humans have been hurting each other for a very long time, because of their stupidity.

The Middle East, as with Indonesia, has been fighting the occupation of foreign armies in their countries since the oil was discovered. It has been no different around the world. South America has suffered at the hands of these men who seek power, at the cost of the loss of human life and the environment, in the face of ignorance of people everywhere religious institutions believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Government institutions believe that democracy is the only way to govern. How can there way be the only right way? I call this social insanity. Humans believe that we are here to conquer all livings things.

These humans do not understand they we need to live in harmony with all living things, not conquer.

The story of human kind goes on and on this way. I am afraid it goes well beyond stupid people. When humans are spoiled, and have everything handed to them, their mind become silent. They never see the consequences of their actions. They forget what it means to love. No I am afraid that this great mystery, who has given us life, is dying of a broken heart.

World trade centers fall everyday in the poorest of nations. No one hears them fall. No one in US, or Britain, or Europe, or Australia, or Asia hear the cries of children dying in mine fields. The spoiled humans of the world have never had to go without, and because of this they have never learned what is to be sacred. What it is to be with Spirit. Only when tragedy strikes home, do these men and women all of the sudden decided they want to live better lives. You can hear them boast on the corners everywhere in New York. " I made a deal with the Creator, that if he saved my life, I would become a good person." Is that how it works? Give me break! These pompous government officials and citizens believe that they can make a deal with the Creator? No. In my opinion, am afraid you cannot petition with prayer.

Why did those towers fall? Well let's look at the deeds of our ancestors. About 100 years ago the U.S. Cavalry and pioneers slaughtered millions of buffalo’s and American Indians. These human spirits did this with enthusiasm and vigor. It was a dark and wicked act of man upon man and animal. How will this karma return back to the source? 200 years later this is price to be paid for past history can be found in the collapse of the tower. What goes around, comes around? What do you think?

Everyday the media presents the news the corporations and politicians want us to know. World television and news media do not always present the truth. You will never hear television us why the US is involved in a biological War in Columbia. Saddam cannot use biological bombs, but the US can? Our county is spraying biological agents as we speak down on defenseless people in Columbia in a so-called drug war in order to rid the land of Indians in order to once again, get to the oil? Who is kidding whom? The world is going slowly insane.

Americans make up 4% of the world’s population, yet they consume 44% of the world’s resources. It is not hard to understand there are many nations who do not see this as being a fair distribution of goods to the peoples of the world. Do you think it is fair? For many of us off the beaten path, the Twin Trade Towers were the symbol of our Social Insanity and greed, nothing more.

Oil shares were traded everyday in the Twin towers. George Bush and Bill Cheney are the richest oil men in the world. These men have taken our government hostage in order to protect the corporate oil interests. With the help of the Supreme Court and George’s brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida, George was able to steal the last election by fixing the votes. No different that the dictators of South America. No different than Hitler. The same has happen in South America. These men need oil for their armies. You know how much oil an aircraft carrier needs? Jeeps, thanks, cannons, airplanes, missiles and ships all need oil. These men have not connection to God or defending what is right. What they fear is change and loss of power. If there is no oil for the civilian to go to work, then the economy might collapse. They fear this because they will become middle class without their corporate riches. They are addicted to the power of money.

They have also taken over the media in the country by allowing the media corporations to buy up all the newspapers, radios, and television stations. Because of this control now there no separation of influence in the media. CNN and Fox news stations have become propaganda machines to brainwash the American public into believing the elected officials are defending what is right. Unfortunately Matt and Kati, and the other broadcast personalities, with dust still in their eyes, fail to see the truth of what is happening in the country, because they are addicted to the money too. Addiction to money and greed and turned our American society insane. Regis would rather watch his beloved turf rats than face the truth. American television personalities have been bought hook line and sinker into the way of life of greed by not facing the truth and speaking out against the corruption of our government and its civilians.

We live in a time where society desensitizes them selves to reduce animals to meat and daily by-products while other humans are starving. Other humans around the world are starving because animal agriculture wastes about 80% of our grain on livestock feed for cattle and pigs. Citizens of world have has more concern for their pigs and cattle than they do starving humans in Afghanistan. In counties around the world habitat for wild animals is destroyed daily. Then the politicians turn around and convince the masses that there is a need to kill the remaining animals because they have overpopulated and need to be controlled. The world is suffering from social insanity.

What is it about our modern way of life? Modern society is addicted to work, lives with ulcers and hypertension and believes everyone else should live like them. Let’s face it, modern society also represents the worst of humans. In this United States the Christians, Jews, and Muslims have never ever spoke up for the American Indians. They have never asked the US to honor the treaties with the First Nation Peoples. These religious groups are brainwashing the population into believing that their way is the only way. When we all know that this cannot be, it is insanity. These religious groups have infiltrated the media, newspapers, and our schools. Religious groups are the plagues of our societies and have been responsible for the majority of our wars and conflicts and death of millions of indigenous peoples around the world. The sooner these institutions become obsolete the better off this world will be, and the sooner we will have peace. The preachers and politicians are only interested in power not in peace. It is only a lawless society that’s needs laws.

The Christians, Jews and Muslims have the money while those suffering in poorest nations look at the industrialized nations of the world and see the destruction inflicted everyday by global corporations that use governments for their own means. The see all too well how the future generations of humans and animals will suffer by inheriting an ecosystem that is daily traumatized by the egregious air, water, and soil pollution caused by factory farms and manufactures. The rest of the world understands how humans will suffer from the greenhouse effect, the destruction of precious rain forests by pharmaceutical companies, how the industrialized nations will help add to the loss of topsoil, ground water and ozone resources. It goes on and on.

So where does this leave us?

I am afraid my old friend, that humankind around the world is, breaking the heart of our Creator today. The humans have forgotten what it is to be sacred. The plants and animals give up their lives everyday, to give life to the humans. Without these plants and animals, humans would not have life. Who is more sacred? What human would sacrifice their live to support the greater good?

Humans need each other to survive. Religions only separate the people. Religions only create division.

We are scared beings. We are here to live in harmony and experience the Great Mystery’s creation. We are here to reflect and mirror the love that has given us life. But the privileged and arrogant around the world have lost their yearning and thirst for this peace and love of life that have been given to us.

How can these humans hear the voices of the Spirits and our ancestors trying to reach us with their message of love, when we are screaming for blood in the stadiums? How can these humans hear this message of peace, when the TV’s are blaring? How can the politicians and priests listen, when they are always preaching?

I am a citizen of the United States. These are my opinions and beliefs. I dare any media source to print my words, to share my point of view. The dare the daily television news stations to put me in front of the camera and share my beliefs. They will never let people like me be heard because it goes against their beliefs. Americans only respect their own beliefs, they never respect others because their religion teaches judgment.. They will never do it because they are blinded by ratings a greed. That is why the US media will never tell the truth of the maters of our government and religious institutions. They are not interested in reporting the news. They are only interested the flow of money, not the truth.

No I am afraid, it is more than just a society gone mad my old friend. I am afraid these humans have gone deaf as they now cannot hear the cries of our ancestors.

Citizen of Earth
Mitakuya Oyasin- All My Relations

One can show "tolerance" of other religions without affirming that those faiths are another, a different mode as it were, route to the same god. To believe that Christianity is the only way a person can come to God--that the Bible is the revealed word of God--may indeed appear to be narrow minded to some (or many),but let the chips fall where they may. A "liberal minded" Christian may seem more cosmopolitan, more intelligent; nevertheless, the foresaid is entirely a myth.

One cannot have it both (many)ways. Christianity is, by virtue of its foundation, an exclusive religion. If one is not willing to accept that then let him or her be honest enough to admit that they are nominal Christians at best. What is behind the argument is do we believe what we fully believe to be God's revelation to man, i.e. the Bible. The Bible is our only justification for a Judeo-Christian religion; anything else has to remain in the relm of subjective interpretation, a contrivance (good or bad) of the human mind without any valid justification. Thus, if we believe the tenants of the Christian doctrine, we need help to misinterpret some clearly defined principles. For example, the New Testament lucidly says there is "no other name (Jesus) under heaven, given among men whereby we MUST be saved." Jesus clearly says that HE is the only door to the sheepfold and says that "no man comes to the father (God) but by me." The Old Testament clearly says that there is only one God, JAH.

In summary, it may sound good to an uncritical ear that there are many paths to God. And for the sake of argument, let's say that the Bible is not true; that there is actually another route to God. How, then, will we know which one is correct? For that matter, how we know if the many paths doctrine is correct? We do not! Consequently, we are left with a quandary. If we choose one or the other, it must be "in faith." There is nothing to be gained, therefore, for the Christian to make any allowance for a route other than the doctrine of Jesus Christ. What the Bible says is the only source of belief; and it does not allow, whatsoever, for any alternative. Sure it may sound bigoted; but if the message of Jesus is true, this is the position that must be taken.
To soften the foundation of Christianity based on some milquetoast ideas of love and forgiveness without considering the strong mandates of exclusive belief is nothing more than speculation by individuals who do not really believe the only valid source for their belief.

Jesus taught humility and tolerance. Yet, those who most fervently follow his word, those who believe in the absolute of the Bible (according to their interpretation) must often forfeit these qualities and become hipocrates of their faith. Religious Christian extremests are no different than extremests of any other faith.

How many crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion in the last 3000 years? We are quick to condemn Muslim extemests for their violent acts of terrorism, but have we forgotten the heinous evils that tarnish the history of Christianity? When will we learn that extremism is our enemy . . . even ,and perhaps especially, extreme faith. When we think we have all the answers, we become dangerous, and often religious idealogies perpetuate this problem. I doubt God would approve of this type of absolute faith because it only leads to conflict.

In the end, we all must choose what we believe - that which gives us comfort. Does it really matter which neat little box those beliefs fit in? Aren't we all just searching for comfort and reassurance that our lives are not meaningless? Isn't this our common ground? Why do we have to make it so complicated? Could it be our egos that get in the way? The more we think we know about the unknown, the bigger fools we become. And, you know what they say, "Never argue with a fool."

"My" God really gets a good laugh out of the mess man has made of religion! HE asks only that we use our gifts to the best of our abilities, work on our flaws, show appreciation, and through our free will, choose his company after death.

Perhaps, if we broaden our view of spirituality, we'll find there is more room for everyone.

The dictionary describes the gospel as the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation. This is the central message of the Bible. It comes from the Greek, "euangelia", meaning "good news". I am prepared to stipulate that all my religous thoughts and beliefs are based on in-depth study of the Bible---purportedly the Creator God's revelation of Himself to His prize creation---mankind. Be assured, I do not claim to have all the answers. Rather my intent is to create a thirst within you to plumb the depths of that book. If you refuse to believe and accept its' teachings, I will defend until death your right to be an atheist: one who says there is no God; or an agnostic: one who says we can't be sure; or a Judaist: one who rejects Jesus as God's only begotten son, or anything else you want to be. But first, I must demand you read that book in its' entirety with an open mind. Only then can we enter into a meaningful dialogue.

The Bible and other religious writings should be brought in line with our time and level of knowledge. To insist on the truth and infallibility of human thought and ideas from a much earlier time is ludicrous. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who edited the Bible to his own liking, casting off what was outmoded or counterproductive to his historical timeframe.

Until we reach the level of wisdom and maturity to truly scrutinize religious belief and "faith" the problems will continue.

I would agree that it is the "people of faith" that cause the problems, not the faith itself. None-the-less, the Bible and other such writings are the tools that they use to justify the continued intolerance and bigotry, not to mention warfare.

"evangelical Christians should be the very first to insist that only God holds a "monopoly" on truth"

This is the epitomy of christian arrogance! You claim you don't have the truth, but your imaginary friend has, and he has 'revealed' it to you through a 'religious revelation'. So now you spread your 'truths' as if their some god's truths, but in effect all that you are doing is spreading your own halucinations.

Disgusting!

I believe there are some basic fundementals in order to have any meaningful discussions. One must come to the arena with an open mind. By that I mean that we are willing to listen and learn but not judge. Putting focus on what the other person is saying "wrong"only diverts our energy.
What works on the every day level of communication in every conversation that ever leads to any solution comes from everyone treating each other with "Reverence" Each persons viewpoint is valuable and necessary. If we come to the arena from a platform on which we can all agree and I believe there are many we might have a chance.
I sincerely hope we can release our fears that if someone dosen't believe as we do that we are somehow in danger. The question might be: "Do we want Peace more than we want to be Right?"

To all of the commentators above who have stated that the bible as revealed truth, is a conversation stopper, I would point out that the conversation seems to continue. Maybe we don't like the direction or tone of the conversation, but we continue,no?

"But we do believe that God has spoken, and that we must be faithful to his Word."

Fine. But so does pretty much every other religion. It's just that they believe that there was a different messenger, and some differences in the message. If you were God, would you send the same messenger-ambassador-to vastly differing and ancient cultures? Of course not! You would send ambassadors that could connect with the world view and traditions already established. But the messages of the world's great, and not so great, religions share so much in common. The "devil is in the details" and in centuries of imperfect (power hungry, greedy, insecure, lustful, and just plain stupid) human beings interpreting these messages to their own ends.

I despair that we cannot work toward a focus on what we have in common as opposed to what devides us. The former is so much greater, and therein lies the way toward peace, compassion, tolerance, and human growth.

Reading these posts makes me realize what a difficult task is ahead in this endeavor. It seems to me the responses here are evidence that most people are so stuck in their perspectives they will not really hear what another person has to say. Those of us who are Christian tend to write off non-Christians far too easily and those of no faith tend to quickly dismiss religious belief without a good understanding of faith. While I navigated here to find interesting discussion "on faith," I was surprised to find a majority of these responses criticizing and rejecting faith. That is fine, and certainly the right of each person. But I must also say that Dr. Mohler is representative of a religious perspective that too often overlooks some legitimate criticisms raised by non-believers.

Mr. Mohler makes some strides towards the humility that one has to have on one's own faith. Especially if there is to be meaningful and useful dialog, even harmonious coexistence, with others of different faiths, beliefs or lack thereof.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a God and He/She chose to inspire humans to write and edit the Bible up to the form it has today. He/She may be perfect and have have a perfect message, but He/She chose imperfect human language to convey it (with all the problems associated with translations and words/concepts shifting meanings with the passage of time and cultural differences). And we have to rely on imperfect human interpretation of it. No human can lay absolute claim on what exactly is meant by any passage of the Bible, much less claim to be able to resolve the numerous contractions both in statement or of moral nature. We can only venture guesses based on our limited knowledge, our view of the world and moral understanding.

"Follow those who seek the truth, and beware of those who claim to have found it", like someone once said.

A Christian must also recognize that there are other faiths, like Judaism which rejects the New Testament, or Islam that has it's own holy book contracting the Bible on so many levels. And there are many more of course. All of them have conflicting claims on the nature of God or Gods, his/their will, and what one has to do in this life in order to go to Paradise after death and avoid Hell (or reincarnate and have a good next life). And each of these religions have just as good reasons and justifications for their dogmas as any of the others.

Yes... we must recognize and accept that staking our bet on any particular religion and set of beliefs is much like playing the lottery, heaven being the prize at stake. And to go around imposing our religious beliefs is like insisting others play the same numbers on the lottery. One can believe with every fiber of his or her being that he or she knows the winning numbers of the lottery, and will still, in all probability, loose. What we choose to believe is NOT FACT. That is perhaps as close as we, imperfect humans, can get to an absolute truth.

So we must all have humility on one's own religious beliefs and realize that other religions have just as much legitimacy, just as much claim to the "truth". Then we can have respect and meaningful dialog. Then we can find common ground and work on it. Then we can realize that religion is not a good base for making legislation and public policy, as in Bush's America and the (other) theocracies in the middle east. Then we can have true religious freedom and tolerance. Then we can have peaceful coexistence. From the small local community to the world stage.

As long as there is fundamentalism of any kind, be it based on the Bible, the Koran or anything of similar nature, we will see hatred, intolerance, violence and war.

Theological dialogue may not be what we need at this time. God is God! Let's focus our belief based collective wisdom on loving one another. Let's work together to relieve human suffering. There is so much of it to relieve!

Mr. Mohler insists that "epistemic humilty" is a virtue we all need to acknowledge. So far, so good. His way of understanding epistemic humility is to compare God's knowledge to humanity's: in the face of divine knowledge, how could we not be humble? But that only gets at part of the problem, as others have pointed out. What of the question of which revelation (or which parts of which revelation) to believe? Given the enormous diversity on this question, and given that a sympathetic outsider could see promise and problems in the claims of very different traditions, doesn't epistemic humility call for a little less certainty about which tradition has the truth?

This is not a plea for agnosticism, and it is not a call for believers to abandon their beliefs. But beliefs can be held in many ways. Certainty about things so clearly open to serious question is only one way and not, I suspect, the best.

Mr. Mohler makes a good point: those who believe in God believe that God is perfect, so it follows that God's word is perfect. What is imperfect is our human ability to interpret through language and understanding that perfect word. That is the struggle, and that is where the dialogue takes place, I think, among people of faith, even people of different faiths. I found some of the comments interesting, though, particularly those who would denegrate Mr. Mohler for his beliefs... what, I wonder, did some of the responders expected to find under the heading, "On Faith" but expressions of faith? Surely there is room for both belief and tolerance of the beliefs of others.

The question is formulated in such a way that it cannot be answered. Conversation is of course possible - and is taking place all over the world - and common ground can certainly also be found, even among people who hold claims to absolute truths. What cannot take place however, is conclusion to that conversation that will leave all participants with a feeling of accomplishment. The very claim to absolute truth and the messianic instincts this awakens, allows full agreement only among those who know the same truth.
The question to ask, I believe, should be:
Is it possible for people who hold divergent, if not to say opposite, convictions to live peacefully together? The first follow-up question then needs to be: If that is the desired goal, what needs to happen to make it possible? My personal second follow-up question is: Can we, with this understanding, go beyond "peacefully" and reach something approximating "harmoniously"?

I'd like to cite my personal experience which, I am convinced, is shared by hundreds of thousands. My wife and I have been happily married for close to thirty years. In this context I mean by "happily married" that we love each other, need each other, support each other, enjoy each other and have great conversations and discussions. My wife is an evangelical christian - I am not. She holds her views very firmly, as I do mine. We agree on many, many things, and we disagree on a few. The fact that we truly respect each other and take it as our personal responsibility to contribute in any way we can to the other's happiness means that we focus specifically on those areas where we agree and graciously accept the disagreements.
And that, to me, is the key to answering the question. I have not doubt that common ground exists and can be found, what I do question is the willingness, not to speak of desire!, to seek that common ground. Instead, what I see all over the world, and here I make no significant distinctions between Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, etc., is that obnoxious and arrogant claim to absolute truths that each carries around with him. That "truth" that is supposed to provide peace of mind and comfort is an unrecognized burden to each of them in the sense that it stands in the way of the acceptance and the understanding that is required from each of us if we are to ever find some semblance of peace we can all share.
So, I would like to propose that all those who seek truth, rather than claiming sole possession of it, ask the following question: What can we all agree on?
It would take very little time to compile a impressive list of little and big things we are in full agreement of. I have never found anybody for instance who disagrees that helping each other is good and that killing each other is not good. Having food is good, not having any, or money to buy it, is not good. Believing in something provides strength, attacking that belief weakens both the attacker and the attacked. And so on, ad infinitum.
Ironically, one of my really close friends is the pastor at an archconservative evangelical community here where we live. We have held some pretty spirited discussions and Man, is he wrong!, but we like each other and have found a great deal that we have in common despite the fact that according to his rules I am an abominable sinner. Of course I forgive him, because, after all, he is a total fool!
He is my friend as I would like to think you could be my friend, if you would like to.
Is it possible to have too many friends?

"No human (or humans) should claim a monopoly on truth. Indeed, evangelical Christians should be the very first to insist that only God holds a "monopoly" on truth."

Is the statement that only 'God [the traditional Christian God I assume] holds a "monopoly" on the truth", not a claim to absolute truth in itself?

On what grounds can the truth of this claim be established? Especially given the fact that the very thing which this claim asserts is that the only Being able to make such a claim is God. Is there not a circularity of reasoning here?

JS. - Your biases are showing.

When I read "What a joke- you have a book with some stories- it's not revelation- no voice from the sky spoke to you..." I can't help but be impressed by your depth of understanding of the bible. I suspect you've spent all of 15 minutes reading the bible, most of that from hallmark cards, no doubt.

Ditto the rest of you. Crawl back under your rocks.

As we live in a world full of people who have no concern for anyone except for themselves, is it any wonder that any book which places constaints on them and their behavior would be rejected.

Regarding Mr. Mohler's comment - This is the point you missed - the bible was never meant to be rallying point for interfaith discussion. Check out 2 Cor 6:14-17 and tell me where I'm wrong.

Jesus life course caused great uproar in his time resulting in his death. Just regarding christian religious leaders, didn't Jesus warn his followers what would happen once he was gone. Check out Matthew 7. This sounds like there would be some christian "leaders" rejected by Jesus. In fact MOST. Something about broad and spacious.

I find it interesting that Islam uses the bible to condemn Christianity in general, don't you.

It's also interesting to me that the bible actually reads like the front page of the newspaper. Check out 2 Timothy 3:1-5. I wonder why.

Is there anyone I didn't offend???

I am not sure who has the narrower mindset; those who refuse to listen to the claims of Christ presented in the Bible because they reject its claim to be true...or those who actually believe the Bible to be true. Why would those who have a confident sense that they have found something important for human life be rejected from all conversations on the basis of their confidence? We spend so much time telling kids to be confident in what they believe and when a Christian claims he is confident in his beliefs we tell him to be quiet. It's like saying let's play basketball but if you are really confident at playing basketball you can't play. It is the folly of claiming to seek the truth but resenting anyone who thinks they have found it. Men like Mortimer Adler, Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton...all these men searched and found truth in the Bible that they felt was worth being part of the conversation of human life. Yet, now, we say those voices are a waste because they were too confident of what they had found. A truth to which we are not strongly attached will not provide the moral backbone necessary to restrain evil when the tyrants arise.

I must confess, I've always wondered what "theologians" study for years on end. Any honest look at the bible must start at the beginning, and its just the strangest of fiction.

I sat on the couch with my wise young children, and cherry picked from the Book of Leviticus. I couldn't help but to laugh at the numerous punishments of death our great one recommended for various "crimes".

Literature it is, divine revelation, I certainly hope its not.

Please read Sam Harris. He's my hero.

Like many others here, my initial reaction was one of despair. I felt that claiming to possess knowledge of "a biblical authority that is absolute, universal and timeless" would put a rather abrupt end to conversation. After rethinking I decided that there are two types of discussion to be had. One is the kind which a few commenters here picture, one in which both sides present their points of view and one side is swayed by the power and validity of the evidence. This is clearly impossible in a situation in which one side is unwilling or unable to be convinced. There is, however, another type of inter-faith conversation that is possible and potentially beneficial, one in which both sides attempt to better understand the other's views. For example, I am not well-educated into the specifics of evangelism, and it could turn out that we have common ground I didn't know about.

While it is possible for the latter type of conversation to be productive, it is irresponsible bordering on dangerous for anyone to refuse to be swayed by evidence. In believing that they already know the 'absolute truth' before viewing any evidence or hearing any viewpoints, evangelists blind themseleves to what the truth really is. I will not respect views that cannot be supported by evidence and observation, but while millions of people insist on stubbornly clinging to their beliefs, we'll have to take what we can get. Welcome to the table.

> With our finite minds, social limitations, and
> limited intelligence, we know less than the sum
> total of what we do not know.

Indeed, Mr Mohler. With all these limitations, how can you in good faith also claim that you know that the truth is infallible and it is in the Bible?

> Confession of that fact is, as they say, good
> for the soul.

I would agree with you! And I am glad you made such a grand step towards your own healing (and presumably, redemption).

However, meanwhile, you leave most of us here with a non-started conversation, although you wish, in your words, to start one. Perhaps it would behoove us all who wish to converse to accept that we are on equal footings, no one is superior to the other in his/her knowledge and that convictions as to absoluteness of veracity are like water on a fire, have a dousing effect.

Care to restart the conversation under different presumprions?

Dialogue is possible only when there is no fear. Fear of death or retribution or humiliation for holding potentially contrary views. When people feel safe, there can be dialogue. Dialogue is not preaching or converting someone. It is listening more than anything. It is assuring the safety of all parties involved and respecting the life and rights of all beliefs and NON believers, too. Education comes from teaching and listening. Two sides of the same coin. The teacher and the student trade places frequently. Thus is there "dialogue". Religions of all faiths should respect, encourage and learn from these dialogues, never preaching, or threatening, but finding the wisdom and falacies within ourselves and each other. We can even agree that some of our views are fixed, and still be tolerant and respectful of each other. Dialogue can still occur. Like your post, Nabeel Saleem.

What a joke- you have a book with some stories- it's not revelation- no voice from the sky spoke to you- and if you believe that the Bible represents the word of the Creator than that Creator must be evil for all of the mayhem and killing HE/IT does with abandom. Please, spare me.

J.S.

To follow up with a more succinct expression regarding the nature of your absolute belief in the Bible... If it is not to amount to a claim of absolute truth, it must itself be subjected to the possibility of human error: one must acknowledge the possibility that one of the things humble, limited, human Bible-believers have mistaken is their view of what the Bible is. And one must be able to go forward with that possibility in mind, when approaching difficult inter-faith or ethical questions.

As said above, there's no way to have a legitimate conversation if you insist on the premise that the Bible is true. You can present an argument and try to come to that conclusion, but you're starting out with a premise that a reasonable person won't accept, and therefor it's a conversation stopper.

[i]In other words, we have to show up at such a conversation with the acknowledgement that we will claim a biblical authority that is absolute, universal, and timeless. While we may misunderstand or misapply this authoritative word, any problem lies with us, not with God's self-revelation to us.[/i]

And here you insulate your discussion from the only thing that can be fruitfully discussed. Even if a rational person were to, for the sake of the argument, agree to enter the discussion assuming that the bible is true you've just made it an amorphous target.

The only subject you can reasonably talk about would be the seeming contradictions contained within the book, and now you're saying that those contradictions aren't the books fault, they're our fault for understanding it incorrectly. Statements regarding the book by other people of faith, by high ranked officials, from religious kings, from you yourself... none of those can be used as evidence against other parts of the bible as those are just mistakes that we've made with the document, and don't reflect on the source.

And as amorphous and evanescent as the bible is when pitted against itself, you won't hesitate to claim absolute authority when its verses are applied to any other issue. You can't reasonably claim that you can make a ruling on any issue by your interpretation of the bible while dismissing any contradictions found as mistakes we've made by being mere mortals.

~BS

If you believe the Bible is the perfect truth, you have already shut down the conversation, for no new evidence would convince you otherwise. Why have the conversation at all?

Your belief in the Bible also reveals that you cannot see the evil within it. I realize that you were raised -- and later, trained -- to see it as "good," but the fact that you can't see the evil with your own eyes shows the extent of your indoctrination.

How sad that you have committed your life to spreading such nonsense.

Your humble wish not to claim a monopoly on truth is to be admired, but your stated intent to hold your view of the Bible as God's "unique... absolute, universal, and timeless revelation" beyond contention and above debate is troublesome.

It places at a disadvantage views that others legitimately hold, if they are not as readily conformed to sciptural dogma as your own.

I believe that in some ways this is a "conversation stopper". To settle so simple an ethical question (and I do say this somewhat tongue in cheek, knowing that the question in modern cultural context seems rather complex) - to settle so simple an ethical question as whether gay partnerships should be given the same status under the law as heterosexual ones, one of three things must happen:
1) a person must convince you of something of which you have absolutely denied the possibility: that the Bible is something other than or less than what you claim;
2) a person must convince you that the near-unanimous understanding of the Bible's teachings (and the one most plainly supported by the text itself) is incorrect;
3) you must convince the non-believer that the Bible is everything you claim.

Otherwise, the non-believer applies the universal ethical rule of "do unto others..." (to which I'm sure you would yourself assent), and will not be dissuaded by theological claims to which they do not assent, while you will continue with your theological views which make the Golden Rule somehow beside the point.

This all can be gotten around, if the non-believer can argue persuasively to you that your faith in the Bible is misplaced, or if you can argue persuasively to the believer that they should join you in your faith. However your unwillingness to be convinced that the Bible does not, in fact, contain God's revelation together with the skeptic's unwillingness to take on faith that it does, makes this a practically insurmountable obstacle to achievement, effectively postponing the ethical question surrounding gay marriage forever.

But there are tons of good reasons to forget all that & go ahead with the interfaith dialogue, especially with such a diverse board of contributors... Because there are a number of ethical and political issues that need addressed by wider audiences, and can be addressed without *necessarily* running up against the theological barriers erected by various factions. Just a short list that comes to the top of my mind:

Capital punishment
Incarceration (and incarceration and race)
Racism
Environment/Climate change
International peacekeeping/Agressive war
Genocide (in particular the ongoing problems in the Sudan)
The ethics around tax and economic policy
Labor ethics
Teen pregnancy (Catholocism possibly excepted)
STDs and AIDS (Again with the possible exception among conservative Catholics)

The list could go on and on. I've prepared a list in my mind of issues that are of equal weight, but which are more likely to suffer from religious factiousness in their discussion. It may be a trivial question when there are so many on the former list, but I'm not certain which list is longer.

I do have a question for those who approach those more contentious questions from a perspective of faith. It need not be answered aloud, but I think it would be worthwhile for all to give it an answer: are you comfortable adopting answers to all those important questions by the necessities imposed by faith, when faith itself (manifested in the variety of religions and religious viewpoints) yields answers that differ from culture to culture and from historical era to historical era?

The 'problem' as I see with all interfaith dialogues is that its mostly held between intellectuals and confined to academic or at best policy making circles. In order to have a realy interfaith exchange, I think it is imperative to engage masses especially in the so-called third world. It is those people with minimum exposure whose knowledge at best is dogmatic and dominated by the religious establishments in their respective countries.

One more step that could be taken to advance interfaith discussions is to put to scrutiny the coverage of media and the stereotypes that they project and perpetuate as well as the bourgeoisie who fail to delineate the various manifestations of the religious pheonomenon in particular Islam, and use it for political purposes.

Until these factors are addressed, from a practical perspective, all such efforts are moribund.