Thanksgiving Without A Giver?

vqrxpnwk nhgtpb xjzbwfner evtzqnh dfhkbsptx qnigesapk vbxw

vqrxpnwk nhgtpb xjzbwfner evtzqnh dfhkbsptx qnigesapk vbxw

vqrxpnwk nhgtpb xjzbwfner evtzqnh dfhkbsptx qnigesapk vbxw

nkqojld hcmnauy vntqua kgsnz ejdxsfh yjek lavz

nkqojld hcmnauy vntqua kgsnz ejdxsfh yjek lavz

What nonsense! Thanksgiving is certainly of American origin, but to say that it has been "transformed" is to say that it was something else prior to the "transformation".

Lets face it: Thanksgiving is, first and foremost, a RELIGIOUS event. The "First Thanksgiving", celebrated by the "Pilgrim Fathers" was a religious event - they were giving thanks to God for a bountiful harvest. One MUST remember that the "Pilgrims" were "Puritans" - members of an extreme sect that was so intolerant of those with doctrinal differences with them that they had been thrown out of THE most tolerant society of their time: that of Holland.

This after being requested to leave England.

So instead of thanking those who had made the bountiful harvest possible - the local Indians - they attributed their (temporary) freedom from starvation to a mythical Ju-Ju man in the sky.

Big whup, as my daughter would say.

It is no more "iconic" than any other religious holiday: Christmas, Easter, Passover, what-have-you.

The annual Presidential declaration of the holiday would seem to be in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of both Article VI of the Constitution and the First Ammendment.

Not believing in a Ju-Ju Man in the Sky, or any other impossibility, I have no trouble being thankful that Thanksgiving is, when all is said and done, a minor holiday, as opposed to Christmas, which is taken as an excuse for outlandish and garish displays of pseudo-religiousity almost without bound.

These include the now-manditory "special Christmas episodes" of the television pap, wasteful lighting displays in almost all neighborhoods, and aural saturation with "Christmas songs" in every retail establishment.

Mr. Mohler, I am VERY thankful that the third thursday in November is a minor holiday, not a major one. I stand a chance of avoiding, for another few days, the idiocy of organized religion.

Nothing says thankfulness more than marking your territory around an national holiday, Mr. Mohler. And be assured, your argument has much more to do with how you define your sense of self, particularly in relation to your common man, than it does anything else.

Certainly, many non-Christians and non-believers somehow manage to find meaning in Thanksgiving. Your question isn't "How do they?" It's "How dare they?"

I can't imagine Christ ever intended his followers to erect their religion, like a privacy fence, around themselves.

What an absolute crock of utterly offensive nonsense.

The unassailable secular nature of Thanksgiving is precisely what makes it such a glorious event. Thanksgiving is a day of reflection and thanks in many forms, a day for family, a day for friends.

Please, reserve the toxic commentary for your congregation.

What about giving thanks to the farmers that provided the food, the bread-winner of the family who paid for it, the Native American Indians who were marginalized so we could eat at our 12 person dining tables, the grocery clerks who stocked the pumpkin pie canned filling, and Pillsbury for fabricating our pie-crusts.

What does it matter who people thank. The "spirit" of the holiday is that of community, life, grattitude, charity, family and togetherness. These are things that your "God" would be proud of, no? So why complain about it? Oh, and could you please pass the cranberry sauce? This turkey is a little dry.

amhost http://amhost.net/ > amhost

mguixbn phvy kgwoupied dplo tsbrjfx jvmpnhali oecflz http://www.zhan.racw.com

ojzq uodnw wsxulzy dryz gfphw lubmcgdk xsczkrmf

Dr. Mohler - you aren't serious are you? I could say that your version of thanksgiving seems hollow or shallow, since you are giving thanks to an imaginary entity for a non-imaginary situaition, which was achieved by non-imaginary contrivances. But, that would be rude and sanctimonious. I expected more of a seminary president.

lincoln also said in the same address:

would remind them that Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation contained many sobering sentiments. For example, he felt the day should also be one of “humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.” As we survey our sad lot, I do not think too many of us would feel we are above his advice.

quoted by zaid shakir on the same subject

peace

How can I live withouth thanking God for the things that he has done. oxygen, food, wife, children, salvation (not in order of importance). I do thank my mother for being there when I needed her but God created my mother and grandmother and so on. Thanksgiving without a giver? Scary. Im glad that God did give and Im thankful for all that he gives including his son Jesus Christ.

PUZZLED says:

Hi, Puzzled,

I agree. While Catholics believe that the fullness of God's teachings are best found in the RCC, the other religions have truth. And I believe that people of other faiths can provide needed criticisms of our own interpretations of God's word. Right now, ISTM, Christians are criticizing the terrorists interpretation of the Koran, and that's a good thing. I think that sort of mutual criticism is good for all religions. We also criticism each other's behavior and that it good. And one of the great things we can get from other religions are (some of) their prayer methods, they kinds of contemplation or meditation. Some practices are not good, it seems to me, (the masochistic kind), and we can also help each other to look objectively at those too.

Not to mention the saints who are found in all religions. They teach us all how to love God and our fellow humans. And, I might add, the King James version of the Bible, though outdated in many ways, shows us the magnificense of God's poetry as no other translation does. Yes, God is a poet :-)

PUZZLED: Our reasoning, therefore, is necessarily confined by our language. Just as command of multiple languages and cultures may help in gaining perspective, so would understanding others' worldviews (such as their religious views) through study help us open our eyes to better understanding this need for "spiritual enlightenment" (for lack of a better term) that we all seem to have.

Ann: Yes, indeed. And I think that because we non-Anglicans understand the languaage of the KJV that it adds to all of our understanding of God's words.

Ann O.

I guess what I am really advocating is that people who are really serious about faith are the people who really need to learn about other religions and traditions. It is like living in different cultures. Doing so allows one to understand one's own culture so much better because of the contrasts drawn between the multiple cultures. Perhaps that is the kind of comparative reflections we need in religion. My expectation is that despite differences in different religions, most great religions of the world all teach some universal truths we can all live by. Once this is possible, then we would be more inclined to draw more expansive boundaries (e.g., defining what it means to be a "Christian" vs. "Muslim," or "Buddhist," etc.) so that we can retain our identities as Christians, Muslims, or whatever, but still have a healthy respect for one another.

As a side note: I see Ann O.'s point about how language can define our worldview and we have to understand it well. However, language can also constrain our worldviews since the the world is an objective "somthing" and our worldviews are subjective interpretations of that "something." Our reasoning, therefore, is necessarily confined by our language. Just as command of multiple languages and cultures may help in gaining perspective, so would understanding others' worldviews (such as their religious views) through study help us open our eyes to better understanding this need for "spiritual enlightenment" (for lack of a better term) that we all seem to have.

I wrote to Puzzled: Maybe what you're getting to here is what the great philosopher of language Wittgenstein called a "family resemblance term". A family resemblance term is one (e.g., "black") which, no matter which instance of the word you pick that instance has *something in common* with *at least one* other thing which is called a "TOOL". But -- and here is the catch -- there is no one specific characteristic which *all* the things which are called "black" share.

My comment on what I wrote: Well, that certainly is incoherent!!! I started to give "tool" as an example of a family resemblance term, then switched to "black", but I overlooked one instance of "tool". Sorry, Puzzled. I'm a terrible proof-reader.

Ann O.

Puzzled also said:
However, I hope that our society has developed to an extent that there are enough open-minded people to continue such conversation by taking a more expansive definition. However, even in taking an expansive view, we must be able to set boundaries in order to compare and contrast lest my boundaries coincide with the entire universe!

Hi again, Puzzled,

Agreed. I meant to add that the very roots of the word "definition" mean "to set limits" to the meaning. If only kids were taught, as you say, that boundaries are necessary!

Ann O.

My line of inquiry was to say that there is a subset of ideas we can (roughly) define as being "Christian" and another subset of ideas we can (roughly) define as "Taoist" or "Muslim" and so on. Then are there overlaps enough to facilitate conversation? And since these boundaries are not set in stone, but may be much more fluid than many of us realize, are there possiblities for expanding the areas of overlap?

Hi, Puzzled,

Maybe what you're getting to here is what the great philosopher of language Wittgenstein called a "family resemblance term". A family resemblance term is one (e.g., "black") which, no matter which instance of the word you pick that instance has *something in common* with *at least one* other thing which is called a "tool". But -- and here is the catch -- there is no one specific characteristic which *all* the things which are called "black" share.

This means that a family resemblance term signifies different sets of things, sets which overlap, but there is no one specific difference for them all, and without any one specific difference they *cannot be defined*. The sad thing is that often we waste time trying to find"the definition". But it's true that there are many related definitions. (Scholars spent generations trying to define "Baroque". They were doomed to failure but didn't realize it. Since Wittgenstein we know better than to keep looking :-)

I think "Christian" might be a family resemblance term. We speak, for instance, of "Christian music", but, certainly that music isn't a person, and the most common definitions of "Christian" do include "person".

Yes, the context in which we use a term can usually tell us at least something of what we mean by the word, and often we don't really need to know an exact meaning. But often the context doesn't tell us enough to really communicate as well as we'd like.

So, boring as it can be, sometimes we have to try to define what we mean.

Ann O.

I agree that language is difficult. Try reading Tao Te Ching (Taoist philosophy) in English, not the Chinese characters! And reading the Bible in English in the 21st century must also present challenges for interpretation of the intentions of the original authors (of whom there must have been many, spanning centuries in a variety of languages).

I agree that we often need to more precisely define words we use since (complex) words may often be used slightly differently by each person using it. However, I am not sure how getting into the "meaning of meaning" helps clarify things. Mathematics may be the only "clear" language we have.

Meaning of a word (e.g., "Christian") would have to have limits or boundaries. Otherwise, it does not have meaning that is separate from other words since it means all things, and therefore has no meaning. My line of inquiry was to say that there is a subset of ideas we can (roughly) define as being "Christian" and another subset of ideas we can (roughly) define as "Taoist" or "Muslim" and so on. Then are there overlaps enough to facilitate conversation? And since these boundaries are not set in stone, but may be much more fluid than many of us realize, are there possiblities for expanding the areas of overlap?

I think most religions, in becoming institutionalized (i.e., the "church"), and in competing in the marketplace of ideas become rigid in setting boundaries and become exclusive rather than inclusive. Even the scientific method suffers from dogmatic thinking (i.e., Kuhn's notion of paradigms), so it seems only natural that religions evolve in this manner. However, I hope that our society has developed to an extent that there are enough open-minded people to continue such conversation by taking a more expansive definition. However, even in taking an expansive view, we must be able to set boundaries in order to compare and contrast lest my boundaries coincide with the entire universe!

Puzzled tells us:
However, when I raise the question of being "Christian" losing its meaning, what I meant was that if we can live "as if we're Christians" without actually "being Christian" (i.e., learning the teachings of Christ), then what role does Christ play? Why do we really need religion if we can, without learning about God (or Allah, or whoever), be just as good (and receive salvation) as if we had learned about God?

Hi, Puzzled,

I agree with you that in one sense of the word "Christian" the "Christian" does not mean a believer in Christ. What role does Christ play? I think the roles are different for believers and non-believers. Some of us don't seem to *need to be conscious of* the extremely good example of Christ's love to behave as people are meant to. Others of us need the full set of values that Jesus preached, including acceptance of all that He preached. In either case, I believe that He provides the needed graces for both the believers and non-believers.

This is getting to be an extremely complex world-view, but I am convinced on non-religious grounds that we are called to see and deal with the complexity of a very complex Earth and very complex human nature. So much that goes wrong in this world is due to *not thinking through* what are complex matters, and that includes the non-religous sphere. For instance, the linguists and philosophers of language these days show us how terribly complex human language is. We must face that fact and not try to over-simplify how language works -- for instance, we must not assume that every reading of the texts of Scripture will yield "the truth" at one reading. We might never find the full meanings and exact meanings of those texts in this world. God did not promise that He would answer all of our questions in this life. But I digress

PUZZLED: I think I agree with much you say in that living right is more important than some label we put on ourselves. Such labels are just slogans, after all.

Ann: Can't agree that *every* label is just a slogan. And, again, the use of language, including single nouns, can be extraordinarily complex. It's a wonder we get anything communicated right. No, no, I'm not a po mo! But they have an important point to make. I don't agree when they say it is impossible to get to other people's meanings, but I agree that it is often difficult and sometimes it seems impossible.

PUZZLED: However, it seems we have within us the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. If you think that is given to us by God, then fine, but that does not naturally mean that we must worship that God, I don't think.

Ann replies: I'm not exactly sure what is your point here. (Language!!!)

PUZZLED: I guess I am not so sure if the definition of religion can be so expansive that as long as we are "good" we are "believers" whether we think so or not.

Ann: It all depends on how someone defines "religion". Some include "believer in God" in their definition, while others do not. If you do include it, then I agree that it would be silly to say that all good people are believers.

One comment about "the" definition of religion. It's often better to talk about *your* definition of "religion" or *that* definition of "religion" . Otherwise we fall into the old Platonic error of thinking that there is only one "real" meaning. They're all real meanings. It's just that some are more useful than others. The big problem is that if we change a meaning even partly, then we have changed the subject, and that makes it harder to converse -- and sometimes we switch meanings unwittingly. Sigh.

PUZZLED: If we say that regardless of how we define ourselves, we are all "Christians," then is being Christian equivalent to being human?

Ann replies: Right, right, right -- a definition of "Christian" that covered *all* of us would make it equivalent in reference to "human being", even though the senses of those words were somewhat different. That is, they would both refer to the same things. (This might not be clear. I'm talking about an important discovery of a great modern philosopher having to do with "the meaning of meaning". I won't go into it unless you're interested.)

Language, language, language. Complexity, complexity, complexity. Sigh, sigh, sigh.

Ann O.

Ann O.:

I agree with your point about those who follow their conscience and live as a Christian (in the broadest sense) really should. That, I think, is what Christians should try to do without defining themselves as being Prebyterian, or Catholic, or whatever. However, when I raise the question of being "Christian" losing its meaning, what I meant was that if we can live "as if we're Christians" without actually "being Christian" (i.e., learning the teachings of Christ), then what role does Christ play? Why do we really need religion if we can, without learning about God (or Allah, or whoever), be just as good (and receive salvation) as if we had learned about God?

I think I agree with much you say in that living right is more important than some label we put on ourselves. Such labels are just slogans, after all. However, it seems we have within us the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. If you think that is given to us by God, then fine, but that does not naturally mean that we must worship that God, I don't think. I guess I am not so sure if the definition of religion can be so expansive that as long as we are "good" we are "believers" whether we think so or not. If we say that regardless of how we define ourselves, we are all "Christians," then is being Christian equivalent to being human?

Puzzled quotes Ann O.:

Ann O. says:
The late Catholic theologian Karl Rahner talked about "anonymous Christians", people who had either never heard of Christ or who didn't realize Who He is. They act like Christians *should* act and so God will reward them with eternal happiness.

This is clever, but although I agree that people can be "good" without knowing Christ, logically speaking, how can someone who has never read the Bible act like a Christian? This just strips being "Christian" of meaning.

Hi, Puzzled,

The important thing is not what a person is called. I can call myself "Christian" but it's acting like one that makes me one. And Catholics think the grace of God is offered to all people whether or not they are aware of it as coming from Him.

Puzzled again: Also, I must admit I don't really understand righteousness either. It is a helpful concept for reinforcing the teaching that we (sinners) are nothing and can have salvation "only by the grace of God."

Ann replies: Catholics don't agree that we are nothing. If we were nothing God couldn't love us. And we don't believe that we are saved *only* by the grace of God. Our acceptance of the grace and acting with it are both necessary -- both grace and good works.

Puzzled again: But I would think that what is truly required of us to take the cross like Christ did, and it seems to be discouraging to say that such efforts count for little since the final act of surrendering to God's will carries all the weight in receiving salvation.

Ann replies: Yes, acceptance of the Cross and doing the will of God as we understand it are essential.

I think your view and mine reflect the great theological debate about Original Sin between the Lutherans (and Calvinists?) and the Catholics. Luther spoke about our "natura vitiata" or "vitiated/destroyed nature" while Catholic theologians agree with St. Augustine's notion of of "natura vulnerata" or "wounded nature". The Catholic view -- that Original Sin only wounded our nature -- is much more positive than the Protestant one.

Just what "Original Sin" means is another problem. Catholics don't interpret all of the Bible literally, and the notion of Original Sin has been interpreted in a number of different ways. If I'm not mistaken, Catholic theologians these days think it means our *inclination* to sin plus our ability to will freely. This inclination can be more or less strong, especially given the grace of God.

Ann O.

PUZZLED quotes Ann O.:

Ann O. says:
The late Catholic theologian Karl Rahner talked about "anonymous Christians", people who had either never heard of Christ or who didn't realize Who He is. They act like Christians *should* act and so God will reward them with eternal happiness.

PUZZLED replies:

This is clever, but although I agree that people can be "good" without knowing Christ, logically speaking, how can someone who has never read the Bible act like a Christian? This just strips being "Christian" of meaning.

Hi,again, Puzzled,

Everyone who follow his/her conscience and tries to be just and kind acts as a real Christian would. Calling somebody (or oneself!) "Christian" isn't what's important. Being the sort of person a Christian is supposed to be is what counts in God's eyes. This, of course, can include atheists, and they are right to be insulted, I think, when people tell them they are going to Hell.

PUZZLED again: Also, I must admit I don't really understand righteousness either. It is a helpful concept for reinforcing the teaching that we (sinners) are nothing and can have salvation "only by the grace of God."

Ann: But Catholics don't agree that we are "nothing". If were were nothing, God would be a fool to love us. And we believe that both the grace of God and our decision to accept it are necessary for salvation.

ISTM that the big devide is between Luther's position that by Original Sin human nature was "vitiated", that is destroyed. He talked about "natura vitiata". St. Augustine and the medievals, on the other hand represent the typical Catholic view that by Original Sin human nature was *wounded* not totally destroyed. This remains, if I remember correctly, the one of the main differences between the Lutherans (and the Calvinists?) and Catholics.

This, of course, brings us to the question: just what is Original Sin? This requires interpretation of Scripture, of course, and Catholics do not require literal interpretation of everything. This, I'd say, is the biggest difference between Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants.

In general, I'd say that Catholicism is more optimistic about people, and more rationalistic in its approach to theology. The medievals were greatly interested in language and how it works because Jesus called Himself "the Word", so they did a lot of reflecting on how words actually work, and now the consensus of Catholic theologians is that Scripture needs to be taken literally to be true. People speak in stories and analogies all the time, and this is what the Bible seems to be doing an awful lot.

PUZZLED again: But I would think that what is truly required of us to take the cross like Christ did, and it seems to be discouraging to say that such efforts count for little since the final act of surrendering to God's will carries all the weight in receiving salvation.

ANN replies: Yes, I agree that the ultimate is to accept suffering as Christ did. And I agree heartily with the rest of your paragraph. But I also have the greatest respect for Lutherans who believe that they will be damned no matter what they do if they're predestined, yet go on to live upright and generous lives. Surly those people will be blest.

Ann O.

Ann O. says:
The late Catholic theologian Karl Rahner talked about "anonymous Christians", people who had either never heard of Christ or who didn't realize Who He is. They act like Christians *should* act and so God will reward them with eternal happiness.

This is clever, but although I agree that people can be "good" without knowing Christ, logically speaking, how can someone who has never read the Bible act like a Christian? This just strips being "Christian" of meaning.

Also, I must admit I don't really understand righteousness either. It is a helpful concept for reinforcing the teaching that we (sinners) are nothing and can have salvation "only by the grace of God." But I would think that what is truly required of us to take the cross like Christ did, and it seems to be discouraging to say that such efforts count for little since the final act of surrendering to God's will carries all the weight in receiving salvation.

MB,

Thanks for reading my comment. If you read what I wrote from my myopic view, I do not claim to have any knowledge of ONE TRUE GOD of ALL( no exception, not even christians:-))How can one have the knowledge of THE ONE thats omnipresent?Rather my description raises more questions as we all speculate what God is. What I wrote is not based on dogmas but on pragmatism. In other words all that believe in the higher power can relate to it.
Do you believe that theres only ONE GOD which has no names yet many( because as THE SOURCE is INFINITE, the momnet we name IT, we make IT FINITE)and many ways to seek HIM/HER/IT or Christanity is the only way and the rest who are not Christians ought to perish?

Do you also think that TRUTH is absolute based on the Subjective truth of Christanity or anyother dogmas or TRUTH is Objective reality which is always unfolding itself as stars, planets, galaxies etc etc?

Would like to know what you think of it.

Thanks

Posted December 4, 2006 1:40 PM

MB,

Thanks for reading my comment. If you read what I wrote from my myopic view, I do not claim to have any knowledge of ONE TRUE GOD of ALL( no exception, not even christians:-))How can one have the knowledge of THE ONE thats omnipresent?Rather my description raises more questions as we all speculate what God is. What I wrote is not based on dogmas but on pragmatism. In other words all that believe in the higher power can relate to it.
Do you believe that theres only ONE GOD which has no names yet many( because as THE SOURCE is INFINITE, the momnet we name IT, we make IT FINITE)and many ways to seek HIM/HER/IT or Christanity is the only way and the rest who are not Christians ought to perish?

Do you also think that TRUTH is absolute based on the Subjective truth of Christanity or anyother dogmas or TRUTH is Objective reality which is always unfolding itself as stars, planets, galaxies etc etc?

Would like to know what you think of it.

Thanks

Puzzled tells us:

"I am not Catholic, and I am somewhat surprised that you say being "good" is good enough, although I know that Catholic theology has undergone quite a lot of change recently. This "liberal" perspective on salvation is quite different from most Protestant denominations I am familiar with (I was brought up Presbyterian)."

Hi, Puzzled,

I didn't exactly say "being good" is enough, I think I said that *aiming* for what is good is enough -- assuming that what is implicit in "good" is absolute Goodness, which we call God. Actually, Catholic theologians give somewhat different explanations of what is involved here. The late Catholic theologian Karl Rahner talked about "anonymous Christians", people who had either never heard of Christ or who didn't realize Who He is. They act like Christians *should* act and so God will reward them with eternal happiness.

I also perhaps oversimplified when saying all that is necessary is aiming for good. Christians believe that we also need the help of God to do that -- to aim for good. This help is called "grace", and it is given to us individually in various forms. We believe that is through Jesus that we receive these graces.

The theological explanations become complicated, and not all theologians agree as to what the best explanations and descriptions of all this are. But I think it is safe to say that for Catholics two things are necessary for salvation: the grace of God (which we are not always aware of) plus our choices to do good -- our chosing to do what we think is good.

Lutherans and Calvinist seem to have quite different explanations. As I understand them (and I could easily be mistaken) they say we are saved by faith alone, but Catholics say, no, we are also required to do good. (Not that the others say we are *not* required to do good. Very confusing. You'd better ask the Protestant theologians about that :-)

PUZZLED SAYS FURTHER: Related to the above point, we can think of Asian religions like Buddhism as being quite similar to Christianity. In Buddhism, meditation and study are ways to become more like the Buddha, so essentially, the Buddha (not a god, but human like you and me) is a role model for enlightenment.

ANN replies: Buddha, I'd say is the equivalent of a Catholic saint -- as you say, he is someone to be emulated, not adored. This is something that many people don't understand about Catholic saints -- we don't worship them. (OK, maybe a few people sort of do, but they're not supposed to. Only God is to be worshipped.) But I don't think that Buddhist Enlightenment is the equivalent of Heaven -- at least not as they describe it. At least not if Allan Watts (the Anglican priest turned Buddhist) is right.

PUZZLED AGAIN: Whereas for Christians, salvation (and righteousness) cannot be reached no matter how good we are (since we are all sinners) and God (Jesus) alone absolves us so that we are considered righteous, even though we really are not.

Ann replies: Catholics wouldn't agree with the first sentence. If we are intend to do good and aim for what is good, then the grace of God is available to help us do so. And that means everyone. I must say I have great difficulty understanding what Protestants mean by "righteousness". I'm not sure we have an exact equivalent in Catholic theology. Could you tell us more about it?

PUZZLED AGAIN: However, even if you say that all "good people" can be saved, doesn't there still have to be an unambiguous acknowledgment of Jesus as (one and only) savior? And if so, does "good" then take on a rather narrow meaning, i.e., to be "Christian"?

ANN REPLIES: No, according to Catholicism there doesn't have to be such an acknowledgement. How could you be responsible for acknowledging Jesus if you've never even heard of him? Or do not understand enough to be convinced that He is God? And how could an infant acknowledge Jesus? The official Catholic theologians, by the way, recently explicitly rejected the old teaching about "Limbo", the place such people who did not know Jesus (or who do not realize Who He is) were supposed to go at death. It was an ancient Catholic view, intended to explain how those people would not go to Heaven, but neither would they go to Hell either -- sending them to Hell would have been unjust of God. Anyway, these days Catholic theology seems to be leaning definitely to some sort of Rahnerian view.

Sorry to go on at such length, but there are lots of misunderstandings of Catholic theology.

Ann O.

I am not Catholic, and I am somewhat surprised that you say being "good" is good enough, although I know that Catholic theology has undergone quite a lot of change recently. This "liberal" perspective on salvation is quite different from most Protestant denominations I am familiar with (I was brought up Presbyterian).

Small note: When I say that most religions are similar, I mean that regardless of culture, religions have often been ways in which we have defined "good" and "bad." And what we think of as "good" and "bad" are not that far apart.

Related to the above point, we can think of Asian religions like Buddhism as being quite similar to Christianity. In Buddhism, meditation and study are ways to become more like the Buddha, so essentially, the Buddha (not a god, but human like you and me) is a role model for enlightenment. If Christians would emphasize Jesus' humanity more than the fact that he is the son of God, then Jesus is more attractive as a role model for us because he has shown the way to salvation despite being human. And that is something we can aspire toward.

The big difference may be that the Buddha does not make judgments about whether we should have enlightenment (which might be similar to salvation) or not since enlightenment is not something that is handed to us but is achieved on our own. Whereas for Christians, salvation (and righteousness) cannot be reached no matter how good we are (since we are all sinners) and God (Jesus) alone absolves us so that we are considered righteous, even though we really are not. Perhaps, if we can get beyond this, then there is a way to reach across different faiths. However, even if you say that all "good people" can be saved, doesn't there still have to be an unambiguous acknowledgment of Jesus as (one and only) savior? And if so, does "good" then take on a rather narrow meaning, i.e., to be "Christian"?

Puzzled tells us:

Of course there are similarities between religions. I suppose that can be attributed to commonalities in basic human nature regardless of culture or history. However, it seems to me, at least for Christianity (I don't know enough about Judaism or Islam to really say) accepting Christ as savior and son of God (not just as a wise prophet) is the starting point, by definition. This is not flexible, no matter how liberal one's faith. If you're Christian, it is not enough to be a "good" person in coventional (secular?) terms. Salvation is impossible without God (the one and only God, not some other version of God).

Hi again, Puzzled,

Yes, the Abrahamic religions do have a great deal in common, but not all religions agree, especially not the Asiatic ones. In fact, from what I've read, Zenits say their absolute is not anything like the Western notion of God. (I'm not so sure about that.)

I can't speak for other religions, but Catholicism not longer preaches that you have to be a Christian to be saved, or even a believer in any conventional sense. If you aim for what is good, then in effect you ARE aiming for God Him/Herself. For Catholics God is absolute Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. You might not know that Jesus is somehow identified with God, but if He is in fact God, then you are in fact aiming for Him, and His grace is also availble to you. I have read Pope Benedict as saying when asked how many paths there are to God, "As many as there are people". This seems to me to mean that all well-intentioned people will be saved, that is, their sins will be forgiven, and they will eventually live in the presence of God (and the rest of the saved) happily foreverafter. So for Catholics it is enough to be a good person. It is also true that the Church assumes that all of us are sinners, and I for one think it's right. Sigh.

Some of this theology was adopted at the Second Vatican Council, some of it even earlier, for instance, the notion that all good people can be saved. (I'm named after my mother's physics teacher who was an atheist and a person of utmost integrity.) It's not unusual for people not to have heard that the Catholic Church has changed some of its teachings in the last couple of hundred years. Does Catholic theology develop? Indeed it does. We have to struggle too with truth and justice and what "love" really means.

Ann O.

Of course there are similarities between religions. I suppose that can be attributed to commonalities in basic human nature regardless of culture or history. However, it seems to me, at least for Christianity (I don't know enough about Judaism or Islam to really say) accepting Christ as savior and son of God (not just as a wise prophet) is the starting point, by definition. This is not flexible, no matter how liberal one's faith. If you're Christian, it is not enough to be a "good" person in coventional (secular?) terms. Salvation is impossible without God (the one and only God, not some other version of God).

Then, is there a possibility for getting around it? Is it possibe for Christians to reach across different religions without thinking that people of other faiths will not receive salvation. Accepting pluralism in the search for truth can only become possible if we can get beyond this most basic difference. But is that possible if the dogma is by definition exclusive of people of other faiths?

Is religion by definition a rigid set of beliefs (especially where "non-believers" are concerned)? Looking at Buddhism, for instance, it seems that such rigidity does not neccessarily have to be the norm.

Puzzled asks: To Ann O.: How would Catholics and Anglicans approach those of other religions like Muslims, Buddhists, and the like? Is there a possibility of some common ground across different faiths

Hi, Puzzled,

It seems to me that there is enormous agreement about basics between Anglicans and Protestants and Roman Catholics, and a great deal held in common with the Jews and Muslims. All of the Abrahamic religions teach that there is one God, that He is just, good, and compassionate, and that we must try to imitate His justice, goodness and compassion as best we understand it. They also agree that these values are *objective* that is, that they are real and are not simply the result of what we have been taught.

Jews, Christians and Muslims all accept the Old Testament as inspired by God, whether or not it is to be taken literally. Jesus is accepted as a prophet by the Muslims, but not as God. I might note that in the Old Testament Yahweh wishes *all nations* to know that He is God, and that His concern is for all nations, even though the Jews are the Chosen People. This includes the pagan nations.

All three have traditions of mystical prayer in which the mystic claims to somehow meet God in the depths of his/her soul. I don't know whether those claims are required beliefs -- it just happens that such practices are acceptable in all three religions, though not required. There is argument, of course, as to whether or not all such experiences really are matters of meeting with God

All three believe that human beings are notjust a collection of sensory data (a bundle of perceptions, as the skeptic Hume put it, and as the Buddhists seem to believe). These persons are beings which continue in time and are responsible for their own actions. Christians and Muslims believe in a hereafter, though not all Jews do. Christians and Muslims believe that we shall be judged finally after we die and our actions in this life will determine whether or not we go to Heaven. Our views of Heaven, however, differ considerably, it seems. Even in the Christian churches there are different views of the afterlife.

All three believe that God made us to be positively happy, not just reconciled to the presence of evil in this world. And all three (if I'm not mistaken) believe that God forgives the sins we repent, and He requires us to be forgiving too, though -- if I"m not mistaken -- Christians emphasize forgiveness. Our Jewish and Muslim participants can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I'm not a theologian, so everything I've said is, of course, subject to revision :-)

The problem is how to deal with our differences. I don't think that it is impossible at all, if we all believe in the right and duty to follow our consciences -- except, of course, when our consciences require us to kill and maim and deny the civil rights of those who are different from us. My problem with the Islamists -- the very radical Muslims -- is that they are unwilling to respect the rights of conscience of non-Islamists and seek to impose their own beliefs on everyone.

Ann O.

Just reacting to all that stuff about ID and the like. I realize that rigid adherence to the literal reading of the Bible is not a majority position, but then again, it seems liberal interpretations of the Bible are not all that prevalent either. Also, I've seen pretty well-educated people taking to creationists' "theories" because they need "evidence" that the Bible is true. Puzzling, baffling...

To Ann O.: How would Catholics and Anglicans approach those of other religions like Muslims, Buddhists, and the like? Is there a possibility of some common ground across different faiths?

Puzzled tells us: . Times change, and it is Christian's job to distinguish from timeless truths that may be in the Bible and the time- and culture-specific contexts that set the stage for the stories. The Book of Genesis, too, is not factually true. However, it is a confession of faith (faith that God created everything at the dawn of time), and for the faithful a higher truth that does not conflict at all with discoveries in the natural sciences.

Hi, Puzzled,

Just for the record, Roman Catholics and Anglicans do *not* interpret the Bible literally anymore, and not all Protestants do either. I don't know about the Orthodox. It seems to me that it is only the fundamentalists who do.

Ann O.

If I am born into earth with nothing, then I don't think I can find enlightenment on my own. If I did not find the time or the willingness to read, think, discuss, then I would not be thinking about these things, and therefore be (blissfully?) ignorant.

However, I do have the ability to think for myself, and I do have the capacity for open dialogue (I hope!). If you understand philosophies outside of the Western tradition, Godly intervention is not necessary for enlightenment. People only think that way because that is what they're used to. Buddhism is an excellent example of this. The Buddha was human, and he is not worshipped as a god (more like a saint or great teacher). I'm not a Buddhist, nor am I advocating conversion. However, understanding philosophies from other cultures may give you better insights into your own.

So when I say ignorance, once again, and I use the example of people who for instance read the Bible literally, I am trying to make the following points. The Bible (e.g.., Book of Genesis) is not necessarily a book of factual truths (we have science textbooks for that, and those are constantly revised as we find out more about the natural environment). Look at all the parables. The story of the prodigal son is a parable. It is not factually accurate (although there might have been someone like that) but it is there to teach a lesson. People who cannot understand this and insist on everything in the Bible being factually and absolutely true, then they need to tell me should we still have slavery, to take a fairly easy (I hope!) example? The answer is no. Times change, and it is Christian's job to distinguish from timeless truths that may be in the Bible and the time- and culture-specific contexts that set the stage for the stories. The Book of Genesis, too, is not factually true. However, it is a confession of faith (faith that God created everything at the dawn of time), and for the faithful a higher truth that does not conflict at all with discoveries in the natural sciences.

Then can we pull ourselves out of the quicksand without God? Very hard. But there have been great men outside (as well as within) the Judeo-Christian tradition. Have they all been touched by God? Perhaps. But then there is a kind of pantheistic, universal deity, and God of Abraham is only one aspect. So, these intellectual and spiritual giants are out there throwing the line to us, but we are the ones who need to grab it. The point is this: through study and meditation, I can pull myself out, but help from the great philosophers helps me. And the Christian answer is not the only one that can help, nor is it necessarily the best one. For all those who say Christianity is the only one, well, that is your belief and assertion, and very personal. But I'm afraid such arguments cannot persuade outside of an individual's narrow personal time and space.

My analogy (I don't know who first said it) of climbing a mountain will help. People are climbing a peak from many directions, and some paths may be more difficult than others. But each path poses unique challenges and different viewpoints of the terrain. And because the mountain is so tough (Everest or K2?), we think our path is the only one because if there is an easier path, well I feel like a fool, but also, I need to believe it to keep going. But once up on top of the world, then I see that all these paths have led us to the same goal of enlightenment. People who are ignorant are the people who do not know they are ignorant. Because there can be no learning. If I think I "know" the absolute truth, how can I get closer to God since by definition I have to grow to get closer? But if I know I have to learn, then I will go out and read and think and study.

Once again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. However, anyone who absolutely claims exclusive ownership of the truth reveals his/her claim to be suspect at best.

to bob
i think they stopped in 1992

Puzzled,

Yet again you seem to have thought very deeply about this. And you wrote,

"However, do we really need a savior? Why can't I save myself through hard work and deep meditation? Buddha achieved enlightenment without God. And throughout history, great philosophers from Aristotle to Confucius have left behind great insights that we still read and study."

This seems to not make sense. Can we save ourselves, we who are ignorant, as you claim? How can ignorant people save themselves? This is why I do not think ignorance is the problem. And it would seem that enlightenment without God is illogical. Because if Jesus really is the Son of God, and He really is our Savior (which you seem open to believing) then we have to take His word at face value. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." That is an absolute claim. So either He is the Son of God and is the only way and not a liar, or he is a liar and not the Son of God and therefore there is no way to God. (CS Lewis developed this argument in his book "Mere Christianity.")

another quote from you,

"Relevant for this forum, I think ignorance is when you read the Bible literally and think that doing so without question is a virtue. Actually, you're abdicating responsibility. If I were to think I knew the truth but you didn't, that would reveal my ignorance and laziness because I did not bother to study and remain closed-minded. Think about all those non-Christian civilizations: are all those traditions stupid and sinful? There are greater possibilities out there than just what I grew up with. If after careful study, you feel like what I grew up with is right, then great. But first, study."

I am not sure why taking the Bible at face value is ignorant. If the Bible is in fact the Word of the only God, coming to this conclusion would not be ignorant, but a decision based off of study. I could not have come to this WITHOUT studying.

About the non-Christian civilizations, are the traditions stupid and sinful? It depends on what you mean by that. Maybe you could clarify for me.

And lastly,

"I am not saying that Jesus is not the savior. I don't think you can really know, unless you convinced yourself that you "really" know. But my point is, even for Christians, it is the job of the supplicant to surrender to God's will, not God's job to make you do so. Otherwise, why would God who is omnipotent give us free will and independent thought?"

This is a great thought, and I partially agree with you. The Christian term for "really" knowing is called "assurance of salvation." But I would disagree that we "convince" ourselves as a whole. Some may call themselves Christians, who have "convinced" themselves that they are, but are not really saved. But this is where faith comes in, the whole topic of this site in the first place. A lot of religions are based on faith. See the connection? I have faith AND assurance that I am saved, given by God.

I completely agree that God does not make us be saved, and that it is our surrendering to Him that starts the process. But how can we surrended to God unless he has revealed Himself to the supplicent? And how can we seek something that has not sought us first? "Ignorant" people would certainly not do this, for we would not know where to look or who to look for. That is the beauty of God's grace. He seeks us, draws us to Himself, and then gives us the decision to turn to him. If we do, we are saved. If we do not, we suffer the consequences of that decision.

Excellent discussion, I enjoy it very much.

I can assure you, Mr. Mohler, along with any other sanctimonious Christians who share your perspective here, that I find *your* Christian "attitude of gratitude" to be a "pale and artificial substitute" for the real thing. How typical for a Christian to presume that they understand the depth of gratitude of someone who does not share their religious views. Considering that I see your religion as false, your piety as superficial and your worship as hypocritical, I can assure you that you neither know nor can appreciate how deeply thankful I am that I don't have to endure anyone at my Thanksgiving table who is afflicted with your religious smugness and Christian bigotry. Ahhhhh, now *that's* being thankful!

The Book of Genesis was not intended to explain "how" the world was created. It is a statement of faith, that the author believes that "God created the world," and he (or she) is inviting peopleto believe in his or her god. Trying to fit the empirical evidence from natural sciences into a narrow reading of the Bible will force you to warp your own sense of reality to the point of absurdity. Let it go; the Bible was never intended to substitute for a science textbook. This is self-evident and really should be without controversy, so I will not engage in silly argument about that (how can you argue with someone who insists the earth is flat?).

Instead, what people who truly believe should be doing is trying to read into the intent of the authors (and yes many people wrote and revised the Bible over a long period of time) who supposedly were inspired by their own faith. Anyone reading the Bible can see how context-specific the narratives are (meaning they are specific to the "Biblical" times, not 21st century, and to the region that we now call the Middle East). This means we need to separate out the real meaning behnd the writings from the historical and cultural contexts to better fit our needs in the 21st century.

Refusing to do this and just repeating (like some kind of spell) that the Bible is the absolute and infallible truth is not going to get you any closer to Jesus and salvation. Wasn't it Jesus who came to provide a new way of looking at how to live true to God; that is, he wants us to understand and live by the spirit of the laws that God gave us rather than the letter? I guess it is much more simple and easier to just repeat Bible verses and not miss service and all that (necessary perhaps, but definitely not sufficient) but who said salvation was easy?

As an agnostic and the Thanksgiving cook for a large extended family, I consider the three days of cooking I do as a gift to my family, an act of love. That may seem pale and empty to you. To me and my family, it feels full of love and warmth, an expression of family values.

For you to use this forum to write a divisive post, slamming those who don't share your belief system feels like bigotry and an ugly expression of self righteousness. It certainly doesn't move me to rexamine my attitude towards Thanksgiving. Instead, I am moved to examine my feelings towards the brand of Christianity that exhibits intolerance towards those who don't share their beliefs and to place you and the organization you represent in that category.

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks to Albert Mohler for bring up such a great topic. No one has yet to prove how you can be thankful to anyone other than God and feel a true satisfaction. No person on this earth can ever truly love you the way God can, proven by the Love that our brothers and sisters around the world show every day professing the gospel even if it means death.

They die with a smile on their face and love in their hearts to the people who torture them in hideous ways. I am thankful for serving a God who is worthy of my praise and honor, unlike everything on this hideous earth that has been corrupted by the Fall. Would you stand firm in your belief if a gun was pointed to your head or some other form of trying to convince you to renounce your beliefs?

How about if you were given the option of renouncing everything, and becoming a Muslim in which you would be given a nice job, a wife, and many other enticing things? This was presented to a Christian and he said pull the trigger. The man miraculously survived and a doctor from VOM who came to my church recently saved the man's life. He said this is one of the many heroes that he has been able to save. I plan to make a whole article later about this. Please come join gather.com we could use your inputs ^_^.

Might I recommend all of you who say that Genesis is a book that should be thrown out or taken as "not literal" then please check out this site: www.answersingenesis.org they have devoted their entire life and ministry to defending the bible and creation from the very first verse.

Not only this, but people please read Romans 1 before you try to say that you can shove evolution into the bible. It is clear that his invisible attributes are seen by everyone so no one is without excuse. So you see that it is clear that he designed the world. If you believe God created the world by evolution then you discount the fall leaving no need for Jesus to come.

Also you make God out to be a monster who created a world full of pain, suffering, and death. Why then would He one day recreate the world where the Lion lays down with the Lamb? Why would he create a new world with no survival of the fitness and peace? So you see the problem?

I ask you all to stop and think, say you lost everything like Job in the bible or many people who went through Katrina including your close family. By the way I know friends who had this happen. Can they be thankful to anything other than God? I think not. No person or thing on this earth can give them solace, only knowing that God loved them so much that he sent his Son to die for them so that they could one day come and be with him in a world of no pain, death, or suffering.

So you see this is why I am thankful and this is why you should be thankful. I pray that God will open the eyes of the deceived here who have made it very clear they are "willingly ignorant" as Paul says in Romans 1

Not only this but they point fingers at Albert Mohler even though he just asked a question. How in the world can you attack a man who didn't even show any bigotry or any thing that you accuse him of?

This shows how truly you hate Christianity and don't want anyone to tell you what to do. Even if a relative of yours came back and told you what the afterlife was like you wouldn't believe it. So I will let God convict your heart.

I hope something I have said will move you and encourage the other believers here. I am so disappointed with much of the responses. God bless you all even those who hate him. He loves you anyway, which is why he is so great. This is true love in that while we were yet still sinners Christ died for us. We hated his guts and he stilled died for us, that should mean something.

Scripture says that very few will die for even a close friend, how much more an enemy who not only hates your guts but would like to kill you. How many of you would embrace and enemy and tell them you LOVE them? Especially while they torture you. I recommend you all check out this site: VOM (persecution.com) please read the testimonies and friends of the people who were martyred for Jesus.

This is the evidence of God. You can't see the wind, but you can see the effects of the wind, just like you can see the effects of God. If you don't you are blind. Jesus said those who say they "see" are blind so you who say you see the truth of evolution are truly blind. Blinded by the corruption and chaos that have come from the Fall that lead people to believe in Evolution in the first place.

I highly recommend you all check out my site www.crossbearer.gather.com
I have made articles that pertain to many of the issues you all discussed. That provide a logical reason for why there is death, suffering, and disease. Please check them out.
One is "Solution (+=-) what it means to be a Christian" just type it in the search bar on gather.com which is just a place where people come to gather and make connections and post things. It really is a place for young writers who love to write.

This is one that is important:
Christianity vs Religion

I have written many more, so please check them out, I wrote them to help point everyone back on the right tract through using scripture, because sadly there has been a DC TALK (Decent of Christian Talk) that has crept into our Nation which is why DC TALK started their band to try to awaken people to the truth of Christianity that had been lost by the many things of the world which had polluted the gospel.

We need to get back to the gospel of God's word. You can't deny the bible as being the literal word of God or you discount everything about Jesus. Read John as someone said. The very first verse says "In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God." In verse 14 it says, "And the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

So you see not only does John say that Jesus is the WORD of God which is the bible, but he says that Jesus has an always will be the eternal Son of God.

What is meant by created in the image of God is just that we were created family just like God is family. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I get this from my dad's wonderful research in this area www.soulcare.org

I would just like to stop and thank my dad for taking me to all his presentations some 2-3 hours long and I was only 5 years old yet I retained so much of it. Thanks to my condition of asperger which you can find more about it on this site: http://www.aspergersyndrome.org/ as well as the ariticle I made on gather.com

The Holy Spirit gives all power, glory, and honor to the Son who in turn gives it to the Father. This is not symbolic it is literal.

What you fail to realize is that the Greek and Hebrew allow us to further understand what the actual literal text truly means, especially in revelation.

The Greek language has a special tense for each situation so you can know the exact state of time they are talking about. For instance in Genesis the Hebrew word Yom means LITERAL DAY! So it can only mean 6 literal days of creation and 1 day of rest. Also the bible teaches that the earth is only 6,000 years old and there is good evidence to show this, please check out AIG and see for yourself.

Have you ever noticed how inconsistent evolutionists are with dates? Sometimes it is millions sometimes billions why? Because their dating methods are flawed. Several books have been written by intelligent CREATION scientist. That is right we have scientist on our side some of whom are some of the smartest in the world. Like John Sanford who recently wrote a book that hit the heart of evolution Genetic Entropy please find this book and read it and you will see how truly illogical and foolish evolution truly is.

I could go on and on, but I will end with the very question that shut even Dawkins up.
"Has there ever been a mutation that has added new information?" He was silent for 10 min and then he changed the subject, because he has no answer. I would love to see John Sanford roast him now with his book Genetic Entropy, but Sadly Dawkins has refused to take any more interviews with AIG. I wonder why. You can see his frantic try at this on the movie: From A Frog To A Prince. I believe you can watch it on AIG (www.answersingenesis.org) site, but I am not sure.

One last thing, I and my dad went to the AIG Conference in Virginia and we saw many prominent creation scientist who truly know what they are talking about, many of whom were former evolutionist who are now convinced of the evidence for creation.

IRC (Institution for Creation Research) is another great site: icr.org

I hope this answers all your questions, feel free to send me a letter on gather or post on one of my articles; I will get back to you as soon as I can. I am currently busy with exams, but if I find the time I will try to fit you in, because the eternal is more important than the earthly always.

Everything on this earth will one day be burned up only Jesus will remain and the people we have touched that is all that will matter. I am saying this because scripture talks about how we will present our life to God and by fire he will test it and all will be burned up except for Jesus and the people we touched. Read it in the bible if you don't believe me.

Here is part of it:
"each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."
1 Cor 3:13-15 in context you can see the message as well as cross referencing it with other passages which few tend to think of. Sadly our churches don't teach people to cross reference anymore, which is one of the best ways to see how scripture truly fits together like a puzzle which you all could learn from especially you PUZZELER.

We won't get to heaven by any measure of good works, because scripture says that our righteousness is like filthy rags in Greek and Hebrew: menstrual rags, look it up if you don't believe me! Not only this, but It is Jesus' blood that paid the price and only his blood can save you no power on this earth can. I put up many thought provoking songs that pertain to this very concept please listen to them and read the lyrics.

Well Must get to bed unfortunately, it is rare that I get such a wonderful chance to show why I am truly thankful. Thank you again Albert Mohler for making this article and for telling everyone who listens to your radio broadcast to check it out, I am glad I did. I hope the organization works when it is posted.

Ummm... Giving thanks isn't a christian viewpoint, to many giving thanks is just be thankful for what you have. The Dali Llama recently claimed that reminding yourself to be grateful for what you have is one of the keys to happiness. The Dali Llama is certainly not a christian. I think you should take a page from your own book and stop separating yourself from the rest of the world. I believe you wrote this with the intent to inspire like minds, but I believe Christ was more into inspiring everyone to enter his kingdom. I doubt there's room in heaven for bigotry and dogmatism. Then again, according to you there isn't room for me either.

I am grateful to Janelle for asking questions since I've been sloppy with some of the wording. For instance, using salvation (a loaded term, I admit) may not have been the best way to go about it, but I think it made the necessary point. However, do we really need a savior? Why can't I save myself through hard work and deep meditation? Buddha achieved enlightenment without God. And throughout history, great philosophers from Aristotle to Confucius have left behind great insights that we still read and study.

I think most earnest people want to become better people. What I mean by becoming "better" is for mankind to collectively define and constantly revise as our knowledge and insights about the world we live in is revised and updated. I'm not smart enough to say for others (but I have my own notions, however unformed and in flux those notions may be). However, the great philosophers and prophets have given us different aspects of "better." That is the struggle. And that is why I say that Christ is not the only answer, but it does not have to be incompatible with other worldviews (inclding the natural sciences, although science and faith study fundamentally different issues) unless Christians make it to be.

I am not saying that Jesus is not the savior. I don't think you can really know, unless you convinced yourself that you "really" know. But my point is, even for Christians, it is the job of the supplicant to surrender to God's will, not God's job to make you do so. Otherwise, why would God who is omnipotent give us free will and independent thought? So the real heavy lifting has to be done by us. And that is where meditation (prayer?) and deep study become necessary. And it is not a totally solo effort since without society (fellow man) I am not sure where all this talk gets us or if it is necessary.

Lastly, what you call sin, I call ignorance. Of course, you might say sin is really really bad and ignorance is not as bad. If we take the view that we have be the main actors in our individual salvation, then it is really important to be able to critically think and to meditate about important issues of the day. This will help us as a society in moving forward to solve social injustices like poverty.

Relevant for this forum, I think ignorance is when you read the Bible literally and think that doing so without question is a virtue. Actually, you're abdicating responsibility. If I were to think I knew the truth but you didn't, that would reveal my ignorance and laziness because I did not bother to study and remain closed-minded. Think about all those non-Christian civilizations: are all those traditions stupid and sinful? There are greater possibilities out there than just what I grew up with. If after careful study, you feel like what I grew up with is right, then great. But first, study.

Relevant readings might include Bishop Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile," as well as Daniel Dennet's new book, "Breaking the Spell."

I want to point out some things based on Jesus. He didn't associate with the religious leaders because they got caught up in the law. They created laws that didn't reflect the love of God. He called them vipers and hypercrites. OTH, when he sat down to eat with the tax collectors and sinners, he said to them, 'you are forgiven, go and sin no more.' There are too many Christians that are becoming the Pharesees of the 21st Century, but we are not here to please man. We are here to love God and make Him known. If you love God and hate your nieghbor, you are a liar. 8 Times the bible says 'Love one another' 4 times 'love your nieghbor as your self" Love your enemies, pray for those who despitefully use you. Love the unloving, forgive the unforgiving, give mercy to those who don't deserve for greater is your reward in Heaven then to please the rewards and recognition of men.

Puzzled,

You have obviously thought through this topic, and explain your thoughts very well. To quote you:

"If we accept that faith is the way to salvation, we have to think about what salvation is. I think that salvation is where we are able to rise above ignorance, bigotry, etc. and thus reach a more enlightened place: we are saved from the stupid and mean-spiritedness within us."

If I may, I think I would answer this way. If we do in fact accept faith as the way to salvation, we first must decifer what we are putting our faith in (in this case, God.) But if we read the Bible, we read that God sent Jesus as The Way of salvation. Salvation, then, would imply that we need a Savior. From what? Your answer would be ignorance, if I am understanding you. But ignorance of what? If ignorance is the answer, none can be saved, for we are all ignorant in some way or another.

What then? Well, you can see from Jesus' own words what the answer was. "For I have not come to call the righteous, but to call the sinners."
Sinners ecompasses us all, as I think everyone would agree that we all have sinned in some ways, if not in all ways. Therefore, sin is what we are saved from.

I agree with you that we all struggle to attain "enlightenment." But I would word it as we all struggle to attain righteousness. For we are saved through Jesus Christ from our sin, so therefor we try to be like him, namely, be righteous like him. (or, better yet, perfect like him.) But can perfection be attained? Can sinners ever cast off their very nature of sin? Again, I think you would agree that perfection is not possible, since all our "ignorant" and all "sin". That is why we need a Savior.

To quote you again:

"I think Jesus was trying to teach us to become like that (enlightened). Think about why Jesus despite being the Son of God (or, God) came in human form: A plausible explanation might be that it is to be the bridge between the limitations of we mortal beings and the eternal (salvation)."

Very well put, you are obviously thinking this through. But again, though it is true that Jesus came in human form, he came to be the bridge between us and God. For again, we are sinners, so how can we stand before a perfect God? We cannot! And that is why we need the righteousness of Jesus, who lived a perfect life, died a death for sinners, and gives us his righteousness to stand before God. What an amazing act of love!

To quote you again:

"Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not, we can all still accept that he did show people a way, just like other philosophers/prophets throughout history did. Ironically perhaps, if Christians can embrace the humanity of Christ more (with all that follows such a definition; i.e., the struggle of Christ as a man in his journey toward salvation), then it will be easier to reach across different religions and worldviews toward some kind of a collective sense of the eternal."

And here then is the crux, I think, of what you were saying. The "collective sense of the eternal" then is the way we can stand before God. But is there another way besides Christ? Some would argue that there is, but Christians, as people like to say, are "narrow-minded" in saying there is only One Way, Jesus Christ. They are right, we are in a sense "narrow-minded." In fact, we are very narrow minded. So we would not believe that we can "reach across different religions" becuase these religions would preach a false message. This is why we are called "narrow minded" "bigots" and "monopolizers of truth."

Very well thought out, as I said earlier. I pray that you will be enlightened to the truth, for you are obviously searching for it and thinking about it.

thankfulness - or indeed any manifestation of moral feeling - that requires the authorization of a superior power in order to be valid, "feels empty and false" to me.

i will not tolerate "believers" like mr. mohler devaluing my ethical standing from a posture of piety, and then expecting to be free from the same criticism.

Dr. Mohler,
You said,
"If there is no divine intelligence or benevolence behind world events, public and personal, it certainly seems like our Thanksgiving is just an exercise in considering ourselves comparatively lucky. How can fate be thanked?"

I'm sorry you have trouble dealing with ambiguity, and a universe that doesn't consider humankind (and you in particular) to be its center. It doesn't need or want your thanks--or anything else. It just is.

I can hear your loneliness at the very thought of a universe without a creator-deity. But it's not so bad, really. In fact, you should embrace being responsible for your own thoughts and actions and you should think through the tough ethical decisions rather than palming it off on an invisible friend (one who is, after all, a creation of your own mind anyway).

Oh, and who to be grateful to? How about the people you love, to start with, all the way down to the ones you'll never meet who, nevertheless, make a comfortable life possible in the 21st century?

In response to the query on "multiple truths" versus "the one truth" ideas. It's been awhile, but I remember Khalil Gibran's "Prophet" where he says we have found "a truth" rather than "the truth." It's like climbing a mountain but from different directions. Because we do not have the benefit of the bird's eye view, we are blind to what other paths there may be, and in our arrogance, many of us think my path is the only correct one. But once there, we know that these are just different journeys toward a universal set of "truths," or "the truth."

If we accept that faith is the way to salvation, we have to think about what salvation is. I think that salvation is where we are able to rise above ignorance, bigotry, etc. and thus reach a more enlightened place: we are saved from the stupid and mean-spiritedness within us. What exactly this enlightenment looks like is what we the human race have to collectively come together to define and work toward. If there is a God who is omniscient, then I suppose God knows what that end-result is. But I think we were meant to struggle to find it because the process is more important than the answer. If we can peek at the end of the book to see the answer before trying to solve the problem, that answer will not be meaningful because the without the struggle, that answer will be just a number or just a phrase or whatever. Even if there is no God, the struggle should be just as meaningful (if not more so).

I think Jesus was trying to teach us to become like that (enlightened). Think about why Jesus despite being the Son of God (or, God) came in human form: A plausible explanation might be that it is to be the bridge between the limitations of we mortal beings and the eternal (salvation). I wonder if the "Imago Dei" stuff can be interpreted in this light? Anyway, perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on Jesus the God rather than Jesus the Man, and it may be a great disservice since we all need a template to follow and it's a lot easier following a human template than a godlike template. Buddha is not God, just a normal person, but he also was able to reach this state in his lifetime. Maybe that is what we can all strive toward (or should strive toward) each in our own small way, and it is possible (hard as hell, yes, but possible) for the rest of us as shown by the humanity of Christ and the humanity of Buddha, etc.

Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not, we can all still accept that he did show people a way, just like other philosophers/prophets throughout history did. Ironically perhaps, if Christians can embrace the humanity of Christ more (with all that follows such a definition; i.e., the struggle of Christ as a man in his journey toward salvation), then it will be easier to reach across different religions and worldviews toward some kind of a collective sense of the eternal.

In response to your comment about us being created in God's image: Can you tell me what color eyes God has? Presumably he has eyes since we do, and presumably they're one of the colors human eyes generally are. Okay that's smart alecky, but it's a reductio ad absurdum of taking the statement that God created us in his own image literally. You might say Jesus' eyes were a certain color (likely brown), but it would be absurd to ask about the eye colors of the other members of the trinity. And so you're left with saying that we're created only in the image of Jesus, and not in the image of God per se, and boy does that ever open up a can of worms, or you can read the lines about being created in God's own image metaphorically. I take it to mean that like God we are possessed of reason and that we are privy to the truths God is, though in a lesser way. Like God we can know the good and like him we can know facts about the world he's created. With all due modestly, that interpretation matches the spirit of the bible and it makes more sense than any literal interpretation; it also doesn't contradict Darwinism at all. And by the way Darwin was no materialist in the modern sense nor was a he a "Darwinist" about morals. Robert J. Richards at UChicago has convincingly argued that Darwin's ethics are closer to Kant than anyone else (and self-consciously so, Darwin notes the affinity and approves) and he makes an interesting (though somewhat more contentious) argument that Darwin's views on matter and mind were, to the extent Darwin thought about such things, rather close to those of German Idealism.

TJ,
With all respect and love, I would like to ask you to think about the following: It appears to me that you see Dr. Mohler's response as reflective of bigotry because He claims a belief in the Bible as truth, and that by doing so he is showing bigotry against all other religions. You then share with us your understanding of God writing, "It is hard to meet the God of the Universe, our Divine Master. God's form is immeasurable, inaccessible and unfathomable. God is all-pervading everywhere. ONE TRUE GOD is above all formless and indescribable, so sublime as to be totally beyond human powers of recognition, description, or conception"

Are you not claiming a Knowledge of God? But you have criticized Dr. Mohler for that very thing - for expressing what he sees to be the truth about God. How can he be bigoted and false on the basis that he is claiming to know a truth that excludes those that contradict it, when you yourself are refuting his truth claim because it contradict yours? How do you know that you are correct and he is false. Your belief excludes his, so is your belief bigoted?

I sense from your post that you are probably a person who cares for and loves others, and that you care about honesty. I hope that you will consider with all intellectual honesty the questions that I posed to you.

Puzzled,

I stand himbly corrected re: Descartes. My laziness is again evident, for how long would it have taken to confirm? As a side note, should Wikipedia ever go public, I'm in!

Regarding Genesis and Darwin, I will throw this out and see what sticks. If God did not create man, but instead he evolved from an initial anomolous/random event, he would not be created in the "image of God." Now if God is spirit and we are obviously not, this "image" cannot be in the physical sense since we are not spirit also. Furthermore, in almost every religion, God is a benevolent, reasoning being having a moral essence. Therefore, we surmise that a creation made "in the image of God" would have those same moral. reasoning capabilities. It is only through this creative method that mankind can then be held responsible for reasonable, moral actions, which was going along just fine until the Biblical "fall of man." Hang with me just a second more! It is this accountability for going against the command of God which sets up the ENTIRE Biblical unfolding. Short version: God picks Abram to father His people & changes his name to Abraham (plural form); sets Abraham up in the MOST strategic piece of land in the entire region (Israel); his lineage leads to the highly prophesized Messiah, Jesus, who then dies as the "Sacrificial Lamb" for all mankind. For emphasis not volume: IF CREATION IS NOT AS DESCRIBED BIBLICALLY, THEN EVERY LAST BIBLICAL ACCOUNTING IS WORTHLESS BECAUSE IT IS CUMULATIVE. If the evolution hypothesis is correct, then there is absolutely NO NEED for a Messiah/Redeemer, Jesus, for how can a series of random events leading to what we today call humankind be held morally responsible for anything that God may desire and therefore REQUIRE redemption if disobediant? It cannot! This is precisely why Christians become so adamant over, and with, any who try to merge these by way of intelligent design, evolution or any other method. Creation is the absolute foundation for Christianity.

I LOVE THESE INTERCHANGES!!

Yes, the Bible, Confucious, Hinduism, Bono, good squiggly miggly even Bob Dylan can provide us with truly worthy guidance in how to be a better person with regard to treatment of others, the ecology, animals, or anything for that matter. But the Bible and Christianity specifically is about how to re-establish a right relationship with the Creator A rule of logic states that "A and Not A" cannot both be true at the same time. Jesus said He was the only way to the Father/God. This is either true or not true. Given all the evidence I believe it's true and therefore, due to the laws of logic, MUST believe another way is impossible. Doesn't mean I think others are stupid, OK maybe some :^) or evil, just that they are wrong on this issue.

As to truth... we need much more time and space to tackle that one. And to all a good night!

Aristotle was a great man. Therefore what he says must be accepted as absolute truth. The words of all great men must be so accepted.

Let us prey:
Dear God, pleas make all great men come to the same absloute turth conclusion(s). Well, maybe You, God could save Yourself a lot of trouble and jsut give me the wisdom to figure it out for myself.

How about this God?
You have stuck us here in the middle. We don't have a clue about where we came from. And, we don't have a clue about where we are going. Is it true God, that You have blessed some men, (no women) with the answers to where we came from and where we are going? I didn't think so. Thank you God for the wisdom to figure it out for myself.

Thank You Al Mohler!

INDEPENDENT THINKER say: I also don't know if anybody including God created anything, because then question comes up who created God. I don't think anything is created or destroyed. It is only those basic units that organize themselves in a certain way to come up with a certain entity called humans or animals, etc. I also don't think this universe started at some point of time and will be destroyed after some time, because the question will be "where from and how it started and it will be destroyed to what"

Hello, Independent Thinker.

It seems to me that you have a very Pre-Socratic/Greek sort of mind. You are asking extremely basic questions about how any being is or comes to be. Parmenides , the ancient Greek grandfather of all Western metaphysics, answered that there is only one Being and "IT IS". It does not change. If it did it would change into non-being, and then it would not be itself, and that's impossible. So it doesn't change. And there cannot be many beings, because if there were, being would be other than itself, and that's impossible too. (Philosophers have been trying to deal with these arguments ever since.)

Democritus, the atomist, answere to Parmenides is that there are many different bits of being ("atoms"), with hooks and eyes and such, which latch on to each other and form the big beings of our experiences. They move around in "the Void" or space, which he said was non-being.

Enter Aristotle. He said that obviously there are many beings, but that each thing is composed of two "parts" or principles of being, two parts which when they are united in a single being constitute a "thing" in our experience. Form or "whatness" it the other part -- it makes an individual to be *actually* the *kind* of thing it is. So matter is potency and form is act.

Pure matter for him is real but not a whole reality, but neither is matter nothing. It's just a real possibility. Consider your right shoe. It is a *potentiality* of being a paper weight, but at the moment it is not an *actual" paper weight, unless you have your foot on your desk on some papers :-)

Anyway, he argued that change occurs when one form leaves a body and takes on another form. So the matter remains with a different form. (Think dead bird. Sigh.)

Then he argued that you cannot have an infinite series of changes (forms going into and out of matter) without some cause of *the whole series* of changes. This cause must be itself UNcaused otherwise it would itself be PART of the whole series! In other words, if there were not some uncaused cause outside of the whole infinite series of changing beings, then *the whole series* of changing beings could not exist. Therefore, there must be one uncaused cause outside of the system which is the cause of the changes. This being is Pure Act, with no mixture of potency as part of itself. And this Aristotle calls "God".

Of course, as it stands, that just brings us to a very sketchy notion of God. (And that was a very sketchy outline of Aristotle's argument :-) But I think Aristotle's argument is something to work from, and the medievals tried manfully to expand the concept to match their theological concept of God -- that the Uncaused Cause is also absolute Goodness, Truth, Unity, and Beauty. Those arguments are more difficult and not as easy to see. But I recommend that you start with Aristotle if you want to know the classic arguments for the existence and nature of a Supreme Being. Few people outside of philosophy know what those arguments really are. Unfortunately, the arguments are highly abstract and most folks don't like abstractions. Sigh.

Ann O.

Bill: Isn't "I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum)" Decartes?

Anyway, Christianity is not necessarily at odds with Darwin. It is the literal reading of the Bible that is at odds with Darwin (or science, to be more precise). But then again, a literal reading of the Bible will be at odds with a lot of things since it forces rigidity as well as a fair amount of self-contradiction.

To better ourselves... to become better people is what salvation and nirvana and all that stuff is all about. It is admittedly a fluid notion (i.e., difficult to define) to become "better." But that is also a part of the puzzle we have to solve as human beings. To say that I should go to Heaven as reward for good behavior (and if I don't, I won't be good) is as immature as my son waiting to get rewarded by Santa Claus at X-Mas for being good. Actually, I think becoming a dad has given me a lot perspective on religion. Dealing with a young child, I had to use a lot of carrots and sticks to "incentivize." As he gets older, I reason with him more. Hopefully, when he becomes an adult, then we can converse man-to-man as mature people. People of faith need to grow too. Do we need the fear of a lightning bolt striking us down (or some 21st century variation of this theme) to be considerate toward our neighbors? Or do we know that is the right thing to do? I don't need a pastor or a rabbi to tell me that. And, as I said, it seems different cultures have different ways of going about it, but the basic humanity and morals are not that different.

So, what I am trying to say is that the Bible can be compatible with how we can live our lives better, but it is just one way. Understanding that it may be only one of many ways to the "truth" may hurt for some Christians, but I'd like to think that it is much more rewarding since it allows all of us to get along better with our fellow man, and put faith in perspective. Being open-minded in conversing with theologians and people of other faiths will help in this. (Open-mindedness being key here.)

this should scare any non-believer:

Jeff Sharlet on how fundamentalists are "reimagining" American history
Jeff Sharlet has been coming at us over the past several years with a series of studies which should scare the pants off any small-d democrat. He reveals myriad ways in which fundamentalism is succeeding in changing American politics and culture.

We see fundamentalists as a relatively contained group of self-righteous crackpots who are tiresome to deal with on local school boards and, god knows, in the White House. After all, we're smarter than they are. But winning majorities in both houses of Congress last week should not comfort us with the belief that the nation has returned to "normalcy," that Bush has been disarmed, that the fundamentalist leadership has suffered a setback.

The threat of fundamentalist persistence – and in his latest article in Harper's,* Sharlet reveals the taste for violence in his subjects – is not behind us. America is not more sane now than it was a month ago. As Sharlet writes in his latest piece for Harper's, fundamentalists are not “a burp in American history... an unpleasant odor that will pass.”

We don't like to consider the possibility that they are not newcomers to power but returnees, that the revivals that have been sweeping America with generational regularity since its inception are not flare-ups but the natural temperature of the nation. We can't conceive of the possibility that the dupes, the saps, the fools – the believers – have been with us from the very beginning, that their story about what America once was and should seems to some great portion of the population more compelling, more just, and more beautiful than the perfunctory processes of secular democracy. Thus we are at a loss to account for this recurring American mood.

We all have our theories as to where fundamentalism came from and where it’s going. We are wising up, we think, about the character or personality defects which lead people to follow fundamentalist leaders. Sharlet thinks we’re wrong.

If the term "fundamentalism" endures, the classic means of explaining it away – class envy, sexual anxiety – do not. We cannot, like H. L. Mencken, writing from the Scopes "monkey" trial of 1925. dismiss the Christian right as a carnival of backward buffoons jealous of modernity's privileges. We cannot, like the Washington Post, in 1933, explain away the movement as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command.” We cannot, like the writer Theodor Adorno, a refugee from Nazi Germany who sat squinting in the white light of L.A., unhappily scribbling notes about angry radio preachers, attribute radical religion – nascent fascism? – to Freudian yearning for a father figure.

We’re not only wrong, we’re at risk of becoming dangerously unwary. The new fundamentalist movement is using everything from new curricula to promises of mind-blowing orgasms to persuade parents and their children to follow a new path.

The new Christ, fifty years ago no more than a corollary to American power, twenty-five years ago at its vanguard, is now at the very center. His followers are not anxiously awaiting his return at the Rapture; he's here right now. They're not looking for a hero to lead them; they're building biblical households, every man endowed with "headship" they promise sacred sex to those who couple properly – orgasms more intense for young Christians who wait than those experienced by secular lovers.

Jeff Sharlet has immersed himself in the new curricula of fundamentalism. One of the most potent tools is a very ordinary one used by every American classroom – the retelling of history. Let's face it: history has been conveniently altered in American schools since the nation came into being, and not just by fundamentalists. But now Christian fundamentalists making careers of rewriting history – and science – to “prove” they are right, and have been right all along.

The cause behind every effect, says fundamentalist science, is God. Even the inexorable facts of math are subject to His decree, as explained in homeschooling texts such as “Mathematics: Is God Silent?” Two plus two is four because God says so. If He chose, it could just as easily be five.

It would be cliche to quote Orwell here were it not for the fact that fundamentalist intellectuals do so with even greater frequency than those of the left. At a rally to expose the "myth" of church/state separation I attended this spring, Orwell was quoted at me four times, most emphatically by William J. Federer, an encyclopedic compiler of quotations whose “America's God and Country” – a collection of apparently theocentric bons mots distilled from the Founders and other great men, “for use in speeches, papers, [and] debates" has sold half a million copies. "Those who control the past," Federer said, quoting Orwell's) 984, "control the future." History, the practical theology of the movement, reveals destiny.

They’ve got the “separation of church and state” argument wrapped up. Public schools without religion are an invention of the 1930's and – thanks to recent appointments to the Supreme Court – they will soon be gone. Sharlet reminds us:

Well into the nineteenth century, most American schoolchildren learned their ABCs from The New-England Primer, which begins with "In Adam's Fall/We sinned all" – and continues on to "Spiritual Milk for American Babes, Drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments." In 1836, McGuffey's Eclectic Rentiers began to displace the Primer, selling some 122 million copies of lessons such as "The Bible the Best of Classics" and "Religion the only Basis of Society" during the following century.”

Homeschooling and fundamentalist schools are growing and with them a burgeoning industry producing " educational materials.

Who, knowing the facts of our history," asks the epigraph to the 2000 edition of “The American Republic for Christian Schools,” a junior-high textbook, "can doubt that the United States of America has been a thought in the mind of God from all eternity?" So that I would know the facts, I undertook my own course of homeschooling. In addition to “The American Republic,” I read the two-volume teacher's edition of “United States History for Christian Schools,” appropriate for eleventh graders, as well as “Economics for Christian Schools,” and I walked the streets of Brooklyn listening to an eighteen-tape lecture series on America up to 1865 created for Christian college students by Rousas John Rushdoony, the late theologian who helped launch Christian homeschooling and revived the idea of reading American history through a providential lens.

Military history – and the godliness of savage war – is a big part of fundamentalist teaching. Sharlet reports from the front.

One afternoon last year I found in my mail an unsolicited copy of "The Vision Forum Family Catalog," a glossy, handsomely produced, eighty-eight-page publication featuring an array of books, videos, and toys for "The Biblical Family Now and Forever." This catalogue, I think, is as perfect and polished a distillation as I've found of the romance of American fundamentalism, the almost sexual tension of its contradictions: its reverence for both rebellion and authority, democracy and theocracy, blood and innocence. The edition I received was titled "A Line in the Sand," in tribute to the Alamo. There, in 1836, faced with near-certain annihilation at the hands of the Colonel William. Barret Travis rallied his doomed men by drawing said line with his sword and challenging them to cross it. All who did so, he said, would prove their preparedness "to give their lives in freedom's cause."

A boy of about eight enacts the scene on the catalogue's cover. He is dark-eyed, big-eared, and dimple-chinned, and he's dressed in an idyllic costume only a romantic could imagine Lieutenant Colonel Travis wearing so close to his apocalyptic end – a white planter's hat, a Confederate gray, double-breasted jacket, a bow tie of black ribbon, a red sash, and shiny black fetish boots, spread wide. The young rebel seems to have been Photoshopped in front of the Alamo at unlikely scale: he towers over a dark wooden door, as big as an eight-year-old boy's imagination.”

War is celebrated. In a meeting at Danbury, Connecticut – chosen because it was the site of a church which received a letter from Jefferson in 1802 first using the phrase “wall of separation” – Sharlet witnesses a Christian revival, a mourning for the “oppression” suffered by fundamentalist Christians in America.

Rusty began the day's preaching, pacing back and forth between Danbury Baptist's foundation stones. He looked like an exclamation point – tiny feet in thin-soled black leather shoes, almost dwarfish legs, and a powerful torso barely contained by a jacket of double-breasted gray houndstooth. But he had one of the most nuanced preaching voices I've ever heard, a soft rasp that seemed to come straight from a broken heart "We are here to start a gentle revolution," he whispered. "To reclaim the godly heritage." He sounded sad, for his sin and mine – we were all guilty of turning our backs on the lessons of history. But then he growled up to a full fury that made even the flaxed-hair pastor beside me literally blink before leaning forward into Rusty's thunder.

'"And when you go to war in your land'" – Rusty recited from the Book of Numbers– "and make no mistake about it, we are in a war– “

"Amen!" hollered Reverend Flip.

'"And when you go to war in your land,'" continued Rusty, "'against an adversary who oppresses you”’ – and here he interrupted himself. “How many besides me are vexed by what is happening in the United States of America today?"

The crowd, shedding jackets and coats beneath a wan but warm spring sun, murmured amens.

"Your soul is vexed," Rusty moaned. Then he cried out: "We are under oppression!"

"AMEN!" responded the crowd, rising up to match Rusty's increased volume. The bill of grievances was hard: "Are we not in mourning?" Rusty asked, repeating the question and drawing it out as the women among us closed their eyes and said, plain and simple, Yes. “Are we not in mournnnning?” he moaned. “As terrorism strikes us from without, corruptions from within?" Yes, said the women, the men seemingly shamed into silence. “How many know we’re losing our children?" Yes. "Our marriages are failing!" YES....

... "There's going to have to be a great fundamental shift," Rusty preached near the end of his sermon. Not just in society but among the believers. There is a "mothering" church, he said, and a "fatherhood" church, separate but equal aspects of God. The mother church nurtures and holds a child when he's done wrong; the father church is the church of discipline. The mother church feeds the poor, comforts the dying, attempting to remind nations of righteous behavior. But to Rusty the lesson of American history – the lesson of Valley Forge and Shiloh; Khe Sanh and Baghdad; Dallas, 1963; Roe v. Wade, 1973; Manhattan, 2001 – is clear: this nation is too far gone to be redeemed by mercy alone. It is the father church's time.

Nothing illustrates the perfervid belief which produces the self-righteous militancy of fundamentalists better than the place of Stonewall Jackson in their American history books.

In the pantheon of fundamentalist history, the man revered above all others is General Stonewall Jackson of the Confederacy, perhaps the most brilliant military commander in American history and certainly the most pious. “United States History for Christian Schools” devotes more space to Jackson, "Soldier of the Cross," and the revivals he led among his troops in the midst of the Civil War, than to either Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant; “Practical Homeschooling” magazine offers instructions for making Stonewall costumes out of gray sweatsuits with schooling "fun day." The Vision Forum catalogue offers for men a military biography and for the ladies a collection of Jackson's letters to his wife; both books extol his strategic and romantic achievements as corollaries to his unparalleled love of God.

Fundamentalists even celebrate the Confederate hero as an early civil rights visionary, dedicated to teaching slaves to read so that they could learn their Bible lessons. For fundamentalist admirers, that is enough; this fall saw the publication of “Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend,” by Richard G. Williams, a regular contributor to the conservative Washington Times. Jackson fought not to defend slavery, argues another biographer, but for religious freedom; he believed the North had usurped the moral jurisdiction of God. "The North seemed to be striving to alter basic American structures,” writes James I. Robertson Jr. "Such activity flew in the face of God's preordained notion of what America should be."

Jackson's popularity with fundamentalists represents the triumph of the Christian history that Rousas John Rushdoony dreamed of when he discovered, during the early 1960s, the forgotten works of the theologian Robert Lewis Dabney. including “Life and Campaigns of Lieut.-Gen. Thomas J. Jackson (Stonewall Jackson). Dabney had served under Jackson, but more important he was a theologian in the tradition of John Calvin – that is, he believed deeply in a God who worked through chosen individuals – and he wrote the general's life in biblical terms. Rushdoony imagined the story as transcending its Confederate origins, and so helped make it a founding text of the nascent homeschooling movement.

In 2003, Vision Forum sponsored a national essay contest and awarded first prize to a pretty, freckle-faced young woman named Amanda Freeborn for her essay, "How Stonewall Jack- son Demonstrated a Biblical Vision of Manhood." "There is a name," writes Freeborn, “that casts upon the screen of our imaginations the image of the personification of godly manhood. That name is Stonewall Jackson... His life was a testimony to the world of what God can do through a man consecrated to his purposes...

...Civil War buffs study his military maneuvers and wonder whether, had he not been mistaken for a Yankee and shot by his own men in 1863, he might have outflanked the Union Army and fought the North to a standstill. But Freeborn chooses as case study not a Civil War battle but his first victory as a lowly lieutenant out of West Point. Sent to the Mexican War, he defied an order to retreat, fought the Mexican cavalry alone with one artillery piece, won, and was promoted, later commended by General Winfield Scott, commander of the U.S. forces, for "the way in which [he] slaughtered those poor Mexicans."

Many of the poor Mexicans Jackson slaughtered were civilians. After his small victory had helped clear the way for the American advance, Jackson received orders to turn his guns on Mexico City residents attempting to flee the oncoming U.S. army. He did so without hesitation – mowing them down as they sought to surrender.

What are we to make of this murder? Secular historians attribute this atrocity to Jackson's military discipline – he simply obeyed orders. But fundamentalists see in that discipline, that willingness to kill innocents, confirmation of Romans 13:1; "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Obeying one's superiors, according to this logic, is an act of devotion to the God above them.

But wait – fundamentalists also praise the heroism that resulted from his defiance of orders to retreat, his rout of the Mexican cavalry so miraculous – it's said that a cannonball bounced between his legs as he stood fast – that it seems to fundamentalist biographers proof that he was anointed by God. Is this hypocrisy on the part of his fans? Not exactly.

Key men always obey orders, but they follow the command of the highest authority. Jackson's amazing victory is taken as evidence that God was with him – that God overrode the orders of his earthly commanders. And yet the civilian dead that resulted from Jackson's subsequent obedience of those very same earthly commanders are also signs of God's guiding hand. The providential God sees everything; that such a tragedy was allowed to occur must be evidence of a greater plan. One of fundamentalist history's favorite proofs comes not from Scripture itself but from Ben Franklin's paraphrase at the Constitutional Convention: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

To put it in political terms, the contradictory legend of Stonewall Jackson – rebellion and reverence, rage and order – results in the synthesis of self-destructive patriotism embraced by contemporary fundamentalism.

The problem doesn’t just lie in the contradictions of fundamentalist teaching about Stonewall Jackson. It recurs now, today, in the Pentagon. Sharlet sees “a joyous disregard for democracy.”

The most striking example is a short video on faith and diplomacy made in the aftermath of September 11,2001, by Christian Embassy, a behind-the-scenes ministry for government and military elites. It almost seems to endorse deliberate negligence of duty, Dan Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans' affairs, announces that his weekly prayer sessions are "more important than doing the job." Major General Jack Catton says that he sees his position as an adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a "wonderful opportunity" to evangelize men and women setting defense policy. "My first priority is my faith," he says. "I think it's a huge impact.... You have many men and women who are seeking God’s counsel and wisdom as they advise the Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the Secretary of Defense." Brigadier General Bob Caslen puts it in sensual terms: "We're the aroma of Jesus Christ." There's a joyous disregard for democracy in these sentiments, for its demands and its compromises, that in its darkest manifestation becomes the overlooked piety at the heart of the old logic of Vietnam, lately applied to Iraq: In order to save the village, we must destroy it.

How that plays out will depend on how many Americans go along with fundamentalist Christian leaders who believe “we may need another 9/11 to bring about a full spiritual revival.”

We are nothing if not confused as a nation and a culture. Liberals don’t own the past (or the truth) either. Sharlet reasons:

Fundamentalism embraces its mythic past; our more comfortable, liberal histories declare their own myths simply a matter of record. The imagination with which we, the levelheaded masses, view the demigod Founders and the Civil War, the "Good Fight" against Hitler and the American tragedy of Vietnam (the tragedy is always ours alone), is almost as deeply mystical as that of fundamentalism's, thickened by destiny, blind to all that does not square with the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a nation. There are occcasional attempts at recovering these near-invisible pieces, "people's history" and national apologies and HBO specials about embarrassing missteps in the march of progress, usually related to race and inevitably restored to forward motion by the courage of some key man of liberalism: Jackie Robinson at first base, 1947; Rosa Parks on the bus, 1955; Muhammad Ali refusing to fight in Vietnam. But such interventions are not much different than fundamentalism's addition of Martin Luther King to its pantheon; they are attempts to persuade ourselves that the big "We" of nationalism was better than the little people of history actually were.

The actual past no more serves the imagination of secularism than that of fundamentalism. Liberals like to point out that many of the Founders were not, in fact, Christian but rather deists or downright unbelievers. Fundamentalists respond by trotting out the Founders' most pious words, of which there are many (Franklin proposing prayer at the Constitutional Convention; Washington thanking God for His direct hand in revolutionary victories; etc. etc. ). Liberals shoot back with the Founders' Enlightenment writings, and note their dependence on John Locke; fundamentalists respond that Locke helped the Carolinas write a theocentric constitution. But fundamentalist historians can also point, accurately, to the subsequent instances of overlooked religious influence in American history – not just Sergeant York's Christian trigger finger and Stonewall Jackson's tragic example but also the religious to convert or kill Native Americans, the violent piety of presidents – not just Bush and Reagan but also Lincoln and McKinley and Wilson and even sweet Jimmy Carter, die first born-again president, led by God and Zbigniew Brzezinski to funnel anti-Communist dollars to the bloodthirsty Salvadoran regime.

The dupes, the saps, and the fools – the believers – prefer their re-enchanted past, alive to the dark magic with which all histories are constructed. For them America’s past merely charts God's love, its meanings revealed to His key men, presidents and generals, preachers and a goy with a shofar. The rest of us are simply not part of the dream. Fundamentalism is writing us out of history.

Dr. Mohler,

It is funny to see how you flaunt your bigotry against all other religions. It is a shame that a mature man like you who must have aq family act in this bigoted manner.

FYI, we are all children of ONE TRUE GOD, irrespective of our hue,creed or faith but your biased mind fails to grasp that. It is hillarious to see someone like you who claims to love GOD but shows his disdain towards HIS creation.

For me,GOD is formelss..genderless..timeless and dwells within and only manifests itself through good deeds, not through any book. Some call this Creative Energy GOD.

It is hard to meet the God of the Universe, our Divine Master. God's form is immeasurable, inaccessible and unfathomable. God is all-pervading everywhere.

ONE TRUE GOD is above all formless and indescribable, so sublime as to be totally beyond human powers of recognition, description, or conception.

I hope ONE GOD opens your eyes to let you see that GOODNESS is not exclusive to any one religion.

Learn to love humanity for Jesus' sake.:-)

With love

TJ

Sam,

That Nietzsche died of the effects of syphillis is but one of at least three theories, which include brain cancer (if memory serves) and the unglamorous, madness from his philosophical views. I am not the first to connect with his philosphy, it just happens to be the one I choose to believe! It is ironic that even his mantle of "I think, therefore I am" left him in the end. If one's entire existence can only be validated by this single aspect of life, what other outcome would or should someone expect? You cannot trust "reality." It's a hyper-Matrix scenario (even though The Matrix is Platonic). The philosophies of Nietzsche, Hume and others are nihilistic at their very core, offering nothing (yes a generalization) beneficial to life. Most here believe Christianity to be a decision based on the fear of death, an absolutely uninformed conclusion! It is about living the "abundant" life today! It is a worldview that has a totality/completeness to it that frees one to live today. The afterlife is icing. But as I've mentioned before, it's all in or all out. What most people see today are those trying to have it both ways. It doesn't work.

It's in fact even worse. I know what I believe; VL probably knows what he believes. Puzzled seems to know what he/she believes. This at least brings some aspect of order to life, even if one is wrong. But I'm all in. I say this to establish that trying to mix Christianity with Darwin is not "all in" since the two are at odds with one another. Darwin's foundational issue is one often relfected on these threads: How does a "loving" God allow pain and suffering? He then moves forward to disconnect God from creation since he is unable to reconcile this issue, which is at odds with Genesis. A two legged stool. Worth reading? Possibly! Dawkins is on my Christmas list, and eventually I'll try Harris since I haven't read him either. Yet I wonder how many atheist/agnostics here have Al Mohler, Bruce Little (especially on topic to suffering), Richard Land and others on their list?

Dr Mohler and John Curtin,the Australian PM

These lines of Dr Mohler resonated with me: “The secular vision of thanksgiving feels empty and false. If there is no Creator and the universe is a cosmic accident, whom do we thank?...If there is no divine intelligence or benevolence behind world events, public and personal, it certainly seems like our Thanksgiving is just an exercise in considering ourselves comparatively lucky. How can fate be thanked?”

It reminded me of this historical anecdote of Australia during WWII. It is February, 1942. Singapore had just fallen, the Japanese have bombed Darwin four days later. The Australian army was away fighting the Nazis in North Africa and the country fearfully realized there was nothing between northern Australia and Sydney to protect them from a Japanese invasion. “We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the constant threat of invasion. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know, too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on.
We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go…”

Prime Minister Curtin recalls Australian troops from the Middle East and N Africa: they were needed at home for the defence of their own country.

Keneally picks up the story one month later (in “The Cut Rate Kingdom”) when the convoy carrying the Australian troops home reached the waters off the eastern side of India, within range of Japanese submarines. If the convoys are sunk, Australia’s situation would be dire.

John Joseph Ambrose Curtin, the Australian PM, makes an (apochryphal)appearance. Born and brought up a Catholic, he had long since left the church. Yet we see him here facing the possibility the troop carriers might be sunk and wondering about the chances of Australia fighting off the Japanese without them. He talks to a journalist (Keneally’s alter ego) about a sheep drover living near his ranch. “Now, that man—he’s really Australian,” says Curtin. “He would fight.”

Then the PM turns away from Keneally and looks into the night. “I’ve been praying for them [the troops in the convoy]”, he admits. “I’ve been praying for us. I know I’ve left the Church, and—maybe--there’s no one there to pray to…but I can’t pray to luck.”

“I can’t pray to luck”, “I can’t thank the Universe, or Nature, or Goodness—whatever Dennett meant by that!” “Without some benevolence the world seems cold”—all themes here. They seem very enduring, even in the face of secular scientism, the new-ish faith of the French Jacobins and their descendants.

I've known people, fairly well-educated, who profess that they take the Bible to be literally the truth. I had a conversation with a guy with a PhD in engineering who said something like the Bible losing its authority if any one part was not completely true. These are the kind of folks who are terrified of interpreting the Bible for themselves, and terrified of having others interpret the Bible.

Without people like that, I'd quietly go about being agnostic. Having faith should not mean turning your brain off in order to go worship. And many churches seem to encourage it. After all, nuance is a hard sell when you want to preach to the masses.

Bill, I agree that Nietzsche has pretty much nothing to contribute to living a good life. If he had he wouldn't have been such a miserable, weak and completely pathetic man. However, to attribute his insanity to trying to live up to his philosophy is overly romantic. In all likelihood the cause of Nietzsche's madness was syphillis. It's also likely the reason he had such terrible health, and his terrible health was almost certainly the ground for his tiresome obsession with strength and health.
I'd also like to say something about the literalism thing. It's stupid to read all the bible literally. No educated person in the middle ages, no matter how devout, would have done that. Revelations and Song of Solomon among others were always thought to be allegorical. That literal interpretations of the former are in vogue among some conservative Christians is a mark of how some protestants have thrown the baby (all those years of intellectual tradition) with the bath water (the churches bureaucracy and hieararchy). Michael Ruse recently wrote a book about how one could be a Christian and a Darwinist. I haven't read it yet, but I plan to. Ruse's work is very good.

VL,

I note that you use the term "obviously bad" and would reiterate that the examples you cite are not so obvious to a lot of people/societies. And that really is my point. The 9/11 terrorists are considered heros by an astronomical amount of people today, pre Iraq. Haggard is "bad" only in what some would call his hypocrisy vice any act he may have engaged in, and who can be free from that charge at some point in their life? Re: Haggard however, I would point out that he, the molesting priests, Foley, Baker, Swaggart and others are being held to the same standard of conduct by the mainline conservative churches as would any person "outside" of the church. That is only possible by having a common and unbending standard from which ALL conduct should be judged.

As to racism, who doesn't have a checkered past in that regard? I think it naive to believe that anyone or any organization can be truly found clean in that respect. For the sake of conversation however, why is racism wrong? Until the very recent past, enslaving people was all the rage! Everyone was doing it. Why is thinking my race is better than any other and treating people of other races accordingly, wrong? Why is Richards in hot water, because of his db level (not nice to yell!)? Because society has said so? Now it has, but what about tomorrow? Can we go back to racism is society changes its mind and if not, why? If so, is it right to be castigating Richards for something that MAY be OK tomorrow? This is chaotic.

As for Israel and Bush, those situations are political, pure and simple. The Muslims seek nothing short (by their own admission) of Israel's total destruction. I cannot fathom living life with the expectation that the person next to me is about to blow me and everyone around me to pieces. Bush? Anyone who runs a large organization knows you have to trust those given responsibility below you. Was he looking to go? I'll bet he was since Hussein and tried to kill his father. Who wouldn't be looking for a chance? Having served for eight years and then spent the next 18 in the intel industry, I know something about the military. Most of us were willing to die if it came to that, whether it was a dem or republican in office, or whether the cause was just or unjust. But that's politics, not religion.

I'll be the first to admit that "Christians" are as quick to mess things up as anyone else. But that is no reflection at all on the teaching of scripture, only on the ones professing to live by it. As I have said before, it is an all in or all out proposition, but too many try to have it both ways. It can't be done. Come on over from the dark side VL. ;)

As for Dr. Mohler, you're welcome too! It's a nice 3.0 over here! ;)

Let's distinguish between faith (personal level) and organized religion. Organized religion can go wrong when it is easily co-opted by politics and economic motivations of members. For instance, just like for-profit companies, churches want to get bigger. And there are benefits of size: more resources to provide various social services for the community, for the congregation, etc. But since the objective of the church is spiritual guidance according to a particular set of beliefs, growth can sometimes lose sight of those ideals.

To blame self-professed Christian politicians' policies on the church they attend seems somewhat unfair. For some reason even atheists expect a lot from such politicians. (Or is it to just mock the hypocrisy? Hypocritic politicians,... there's a novel thought!) But we all know that they're using religion for political gain, and if they have some personal faith (pray everyday, etc.), it is really more accidental than any indication that their policies will be true to some religious values.

Religion should focus on saving souls, not on politics. For one, religous values (even if well-meaning at first) soon get twisted out of shape by politics. It's inevitable. Moreover, we definitely don't need more Pat Robertson-types in the public arena. But more important, earnest people of faith become the biggest losers.

Paul,

"Bob asked if Southern Baptists still support slavery? The answer would be of course not."

The overarching theme of this discussion is that Thanksgiving is rooted in a religious tradition and therefore it shall aways be a religious holiday. As Dr. Moehler put it, the secular at best experience it as "a pale and artificial substitute" of what religionists experience.

If traditions -- like species -- cannot evolve, why not enjoy some Jim Crow with your turkey?

Bill,

I appreciate and am happy to accept your apology.

I've certainly encountered much harsher responses on the touchy subjects of religion and politics, and you are most gracious to be so concerned. Thank you.

I cite examples of obviously bad people who practice religion, not to say that religious folks are reliably bad (and certainly not to suggest that Mike is such a fellow), but to rebut the notion that religious affilation is the definitive mark of the moral person.

"Be afraid, be very afraid" was the tag-line from the first remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," a horror film where people's individual personalities are replaced by a totalitarian group mind. Obviously completely off-topic. :v)

Re: "Are you advocating that they have that right to decide themselves? A rhetorical question since I sincerely doubt that you are."

In some sense, I think that *is* what people must do -- constantly decide what's right and what's wrong. But they don't do it in a vacuum.

Society aims to teach values and to mete out punishment and rehabilitation for bad choices that people make.

That can be done at many levels (school administration, police, courts, the court of public opinion, etc.). Organized religion is but one system for doing these things, and in my opinion, it's a flawed, irrational, and oft self-serving means for doing so.

An example of this personal/societal process is the recent Michael Richards story, where an entertainer chose to respond to hecklers by making a racist tirade.

Others will decide how and whether he can make amends. And, just as importantly, he has to come to grips with it himself, which he appears to be struggling to do.

People certainly don't need religion to know that racism is wrong (indeed, religion has a rather checkered history in that matter). And punishment and redemption are possible without it as well.

It is possible that Richards will find redemption -- a meaningful rising up from this crisis -- with religion or without religion. And it is possible that he may fail to bring himself back up, with religion or without religion.

Now, I would argue that about the worst thing you could do for personal and societal moral development is to hand over authority for it to so-called holy men. Seek guidance? Maybe. Assume all the answers come from dogma and the dogmatic? Include me out.

The conspiracy -- and what else could you call it? -- that enabled Catholic priests to prey on generations of little boys is a bitter reminder of what can happen when we check our own moral compasses at the church door and leave it to the men in the robes.

In Israel/Palestine, people routinely kill and persecute each other because they feel justified based on a Divine Right. Wouldn't we be better off if they were guided by their personal morality, and a communal sense that we are all part of society, not a collection of rival religious gangs?

George Bush takes what he believes is the counsel of Jesus and decides that it's okay to "sex up" evidence against Iraq and start killing people in his "crusade" (as he's called his "Global War on Terror") to spread democracy to the Middle East, after willfully ignoring detailed planning from the State Department. All evidence suggests that he does this because he believes that he's doing God's bidding.

And this is what it's wrought: http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

So, no, I'm not going to be that supportive when I hear people tell me that religion is the one true path to morality.

I am not a biologist (nor a geologist for that matter). But it is clear that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong. The earth is older than 6000 years. The universe is even older. But this should not threaten one's belief in God. All Genesis is really saying is that the author believes in God, and furthermore the author believes that God created the heavens and the earth and all between them. Think about it: I don't think God was "dictating" to the author of the Bible, or shot fireballs to inscribe the Genesis on a stone tablet somewhere.

If the Bible is the word of God, and let's say God gave visions to the authors of how Genesis really happened (after all, no one was there at that time it all happened). With the knowledge of the natural world available at the time (and the author being a true believer), it is quite conceivable that the author wrote Genesis in the way he/she could understand (and in the way that his/her contemporaries could understand well). Just imagine: if someone living hundreds or thousands years before Christ saw a true vision of the Big Bang, how would that, coupled with a firm belief in God, be translated onto the word processor (or whatever else he was using to write it down)? And if it was first handed down by the oral tradition, ... well you see the point. But that should not make the basic truth ("truth" not "scientific fact") behind Genesis any less valid.

Why some Christians insist that Genesis can substitute for biology textbooks or for geology textbook is quite beyond me. Perhaps those Christians' faith is so feeble and shallow that it cannot stand any questioning or doubt.

It did not take long for someone to mention evolution, implying it is nonsense.

Puzzled as to why conservative Christians take so much offense at evolution and other scientific ideas that seem to be at odds with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientists do not necessarily say that God does not exist. There is no scientific evidence of God; that is none that is verifiable by the scientific method. Even the most die-hard believers should have no problem with that. After all, if Jesus' "miracles" could easily be explained away by scientific explanations, then those miracles do not show glimpses of God's power do they?

The only real "giver" worth thanking on Thanksgiving, would be our ancestors who gave us this great country we love and Mother Earth. "pale and artificial substitute"? The planet we live dependently on feels quite real to me. But We, free thinkers, have come to expect no less from the sanctimonious corporation of Baptists INC. Too bad your sheep have such little faith in the validity of their own lives, even on a non-religious holiday.

Thanksgiving Without A Giver?

Argument from ignorance. Try again Doctor M!

Bob asked if Southern Baptists still support slavery? The answer would be of course not. Actually the Southern Baptist Convention is the fastest growing etnically diverse denomination - including hundreds of thousands of African-Americans. And Dr. Mohler's own staff at Southern Seminary has great African-American leaders and the seminary has many African-American students. So please do not infer racism at the Southern Baptist Convention or Dr. Mohler. It is unfounded and untrue.

Also, to those who are taking Dr. Mohler's comments as a personal attack against what you believe: This project begun by Newsweek and the Post is for the purpose of open academic debate about Religion. Dr. Mohler is simply giving a theoligical view of a conservative, evangelical academic. Please do not take such views as a personal attack. Let's not be so close minded that we don't allow people to say what their beliefs are about what is truth and the source of it. When an agnostic believes that I have no God-given value as a human, but that I probably have evolved from sludge by accident I do not get offended. That is what they believe. They have that right. However, I do not place my personal value in the beliefs of others. Maybe if you take the gospel to be offensive you should ask yourself why you don't find other beliefs (which seem to be more offensive) as offensive. Is there something deep down that seems like there is true in the gospel? If not - if the gospel just seems stupid - then why does it matter what people like Dr. Mohler and other evangelicals say? Why would it offend you? I think the cross of Christ is offensive because deep down there is something in you that thinks it may be true. If that is happening to you - I encourage you to just read the book of John in the Bible. Be open minded. Don't let me or anyone tell you what it means. Just read the book of John. Read every word of it and see if it stirs anything up in your or if it just seems stupid. And if you are now offended by me suggesting a thing - ask yourself why you are offended. Would you have been offended if I asked you to read the Qu'ran or some writings from Darwin? I doubt it.

Vast Left,

I left my workout early in order to beat you to the board, but alas I am late. My intent was to apologize for my sarcasm before you read the remarks I made, but it will have to be after. I do nothing to further my points or any meaningful discussion by such tools and I was indeed wrong for using it. I apologize.

As to "crumble," may I restate and say that your response was not the lofty thoughts I had hoped for regarding how an ethical system is developed without a metaphysical "decider of goodness", but instead a retort which placed Mike B. in supposed agreement and association with "rapist priests, the Ted Haggards, the 9/11 terrorists, the abortion-clinic bombers, the KKK, and the gay-bashers." Indeed I think this is ad hominem since it is intended to denigrate the person vice the argument. It is certainly no different than if I group your lack of belief with the vast majority of child molesters, rapist, commiters of incest, etc.

As to morality and evil generally, I am saying that without the meta-narrative which defines the absolute authority for right and wrong, you should be afraid, very afraid (wasn't that a movie quote somewhere?), of waking up tomorrow and finding that everything you are or want to be has just been outlawed for being adverse to the societal good. Neither Mike B. nor I (at the risk of putting words in his mouth) think people generally are too stupid to be decent, but that they can't be due to the lack of knowing what IS decent. Again, who gets to decide? Do you think that a pedophile really believes he/she is doing wrong? Illegal maybe, but not "wrong." Who has the moral right to say that they are doing wrong? Are you advocating that they have that right to decide themselves? A rhetorical question since I sincerely doubt that you are.

As to Nietzsche, I again was unclear, but was responding to Sam and Puzzel's comments, and as to the pinnacle reference, I meant complex discussion generally.

What a startling lack of imagination. Since I don't believe in your gods I'm not allowed to be thankful for my circumstances, for my family, my friends, my neighbors, the good people I've met in my life ... is this the message of "your" thanksgiving?

You believers are sick.

In my view, it shouldn't make a difference whether one thanks a single god, many gods, or fate. In both cases, one acknowledges that one has control over nothing in the universe other than one's own actions. I see that as the essence of gratitude and humility.

Joe, the native Americans have been thanked 100 fold. They got all the leftover land that no one wanted because it had no life support and they were allowed to starve to death while corrupt managers at DI(OIA) put the money allcated to feeding them in their own pockets. They, OIA agents surely shared the loot with the ministry thus that sin was forgiven.

What you are seeing here is the product of negative education, the learning and believing of lies. They are more ignorant than before they began their educations yet come at us with Doctor for a handle. There's a couple of very educational pages on the web: http://www.hoax-buster.org/learninglies and the source and motive behind the lies learned: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul They explain the "Keep Christ in Thanksgiving" syndrome.

Thank the natives, without them the pilgrims would have starved.

Bill,

"What a shock that when Mike B. tries to meet the opposition of Dr. Mohler's comment with their sacred: logic and reason, you crumble. Can your mind do no better than what you have just demonstrated: ad hominem attacks? Is this the pinnacle of evolution?"

What I did was paraphrase Mike's arguments. That is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is a personal assault indented to distract from the merits of a debate. I don't know Mike, nor do I intend to judge him for what he does outside the scope of this discussion. By paraphrasing, I'm illustrating what I find to be faults of reason and logic in his comments. You, on the other hand, have chosen to go ad hominem by attacking me personally (e.g., "you crumble," which is to say my argument is not worth discussing, because I've "lost it" in some fashion).

And if I'm the pinnacle of evolution, evolution has been asleep at the switch. I'm sure we can do better.

As to your Hitler story, I'm not 100% sure I follow your point. As best I can figure, you're saying that it's a problem that morality is somewhat subjective and relativistic, and that problem should be ameliorated by believing in a supernatural being. Like so much in today's America -- home of the resolute, but consistently wrong, George W. Bush -- this recalls De Tocqueville's observation that people prefer a simple lie over a complex truth.

As for Nietzsche, I pretend no particular knowledge about him (nor about De Tocqueville either, for that matter -- a good quote is a good quote, even if it's from the Bible, which I'm happy to quote liberally). It was simply a famous statement that demonstrates that non-believers are fully capable of appreciating the strengthening benefits of a good challenge, which a poster had argued was an impossibility.

A question to the site manager: I had faith in the "Remember Personal Info?" feature, but that faith hasn't been rewarded. Is that for Christians or IE users only, or does it not work? The name, e-mail, and URL fields are blank everytime I start a new post, even though I keep that box checked.

Thanking to God is nothing but thanking to yourself, beacuse there is no separate entity called 'God", which exists outside you. Everything that you see around yourself including yourself is composed of same basic entity or unit. I don't know what is that basic entity or unit, which creates everything. I personally think everything in this universe is an illusion, made of nothing, because if you believe there exists some basic unit, then a question comes up what constitutes those basic units. We also don't know how far this universe exists and what is beyond its boundary. A very basic question with no answer. So we don't know either the minuteness or the vastness of this universe.
I also don't know if anybody including God created anything, because then question comes up who created God. I don't think anything is created or destroyed. It is only those basic units that organize themselves in a certain way to come up with a certain entity called humans or animals, etc. I also don't think this universe started at some point of time and will be destroyed after some time, because the question will be "where from and how it started and it will be destroyed to what". After all nothing can start from absoulte zero and can be destroyed to absolute zero. How can you destroy the very basic universe forming unit? We human beings are hard-wired to think everything starts and ends. The reality is, there is nothing to start or end, all what you see or feel is illusion. However, if you do believe this is not illusion, then you have to believe that even God is made of same stuff that you and everything else in this universe is composed of. So then how come that "God" is different from you, if there is a separte entity called "God" really existing in this universe.

I wish any religion in this world would have convincing answers to my very basic questions. The only philosophy that comes close to answering my questions is Hinduism, but even this philosophy has not made me completely understand everything or may be I am not smart enough to grasp what it is trying to say.

Can somebody from any faith or no faith has any clues to what I want to know?

Vast Left:

What a shock that when Mike B. tries to meet the opposition of Dr. Mohler's comment with their sacred: logic and reason, you crumble. Can your mind do no better than what you have just demonstrated: ad hominem attacks? Is this the pinnacle of evolution?

Try this: If Hitler and his machine is the definition of the "most evil" thing to happen on this globe (you may pick your own btw), and you remove this from history, then some other person/event becomes the most evil, by definition. Should you continue this line of reasoning and devolution you will eventually find yourself looking at little Johnny on the playground tripping equally little Suzy as the most evil event in history. It's relative! Now strap yourself in VL, for it gets bumpy now, but in this relative world, who gets to decide what is evil? How about even wrong? You? Me? GW!? Teddie K? What about physician assisted suicide, or suicide in general? Right or wrong? Abortion? Prostitution? Pedophilia? Beastiality? Schiavo: live or die? Purple Microdot? (OK so I showed my age on that one)

There was a day when homosexuality was considered morally and legally wrong, but now a large number of people and states that disagree. Does that mean it was always OK? We all have seen that a growing number of teachers believe that a sexual relationship with their students is OK. Should we go ahead and capitulate to this momentum as we have with other issues? Age? We today are finding over and over where courts treat 12, 13 or 14 year olds as adults? Having raised three teenagers, I will also attest to the fact that our schools are "teaching" middle and high schoolers that they have rights regarding punishment and authority, and they are to exercise them against their parents wishes. (I am not referring to abuse!) Do they? Who gets to decide? Society? Can society one day decide we were wrong about slavery again and that it WAS OK? It may make your head hurt, as Colbert admitted to Dawkins, but stew on that for a bit. Who gets to decide? Some of us choose God. An external voice.

As an aside, I find it humorous when I see references to Nietzsche as having understood something about a philosophy of life that has been missed by us delusional Christians. Having spent his adulthood developing his philosphy, he went out barking at the moon after trying to live it.

Thanksgiving without a giver? Has been transformed? I guess my education is sorely lacking. We were taught that the original thanks being given was to the native Americans who supplied the food for the starving pilgrims and the feast we celebrate today is a reenactment of that.

We made paper cut outs of Indians and did manger like scenes with Indians and pilgrims together. That was in the baby classes. Later, high school we learned the pilgrims put a bounty on the Indians. The first scalping was done so the bounty hunter could prove the kill.

which is more likely...?

there is no God
OR
everyOne is God(forever)

WWJD?

Mike B.,

"What unfortunate vitriol."

Translation: "Hey atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists, when the Christianists take Thanksgiving away from you, just shut up."

"We cannot know good or bad without reference to some external source. We can't be "thankful and moral" without knowing what those terms mean, or where they come from."

Translation: "Only people who belong to mystical cults can have morals. Everyone else is too stupid or too evil to be decent."

"Men and women, when left to themselves, cannot agree on universals for good or bad. When they try to, postmodernism results, since all values become relative to the interests of the individual, or an aligned group of individuals. Or, we are left with vague notions about good and evil that really do nothave any substance to them."

Translation: "The rapist priests, the Ted Haggards, the 9/11 terrorists, the abortion-clinic bombers, the KKK, and the gay-bashers have a special ability to understand good and evil that non-religious people don't have."

"Because we are hopelessly biased when left to our own means of defining good or evil, we are required to look to some transcendent and personal authority. Dr. Mohler believes, as do I, that Christ is that source."

Translation: "Getting your values from a mystical cult is the only way not to be biased. There's one answer, and it's Christ. Why? Just 'cause. No reason, just 'cause. See how unbiased that is?"

Sam, I grabbed it off of wikiquote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nietzsche#The_Twilight_of_the_Idols_.281888.29

If you have a better source, please correct it there.

Get your quotes right Vast Left. Nietzsche says "On the military ethos: That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger." So it isn't clear this is what ol' Fritz thinks. Besides as for the actual Nietzsche, the littlest of upsets devastated him, so that which did not kill him made him miserable and angry and got him to write his vitriol filled books. Personally, I think an atheist could have a more thankful attitude than a Christian, though I myself lean more toward being a Christian than not. An atheist in America who reflects on his completely undeserved good luck in living in the time and place he does and who does a little something like write out a check to Oxfam is a thousand times better example of true thankfulness than are those middle class Christians who say a smarmy little prayer before gorging themsevles and who think of the poor only to complain about them not working. I'm by no means saying that all or even most Christians are like that, but those people do exist and there are a lot more of them than the devout usually want to admit.

Christian cultures have the monopoly in "goodness" and non-Christian cultures (Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, etc.) do not? Whether God-given or not, people - regardless of faith (or no faith) - have the ability to reason. That is, to make our own rules about what is good or bad. Of course there are disagreements. Christians often disagree with one another (look at all those denominations!). But we are often able to cooperate and find common ground as well. And this is not exclusively a property of one religious belief system as evidenced by the how various cultures all around the world have developed and even thrived over time.

Christians (or people of other faith) of good conscience and of the ability for independent throught would understand that Christ's teachings (or Buddha's teachings, etc.) are templates for finding (or develping) the goodness in all of us and it is up to us to uncover and learn those teachings in the context of our lives (today in the 21st century). I don't think most Christians outside of some extremists really believe that everyone else will burn in hell? What about all those people who never had an opportunity to accept (or reject) Christ's teachings? This would apply to all the people before Christ was born as well as all the cultures that did not come into contact with Christianity for many centuries after Christ's death (e.g., China, India, most parts of Europe, etc.).

While I am perfectly willing to accept that adhering to Christ's teachings faithfully may well be a good thing for that individual (Christ as a good exemplar of what we can aspire to), I object to claims that morality cannot exist outside Christ's teachings. Belief in such claims may only lead to closed-mindedness and inability to converse with people with different world-views.

What unfortunate vitriol.

While no admirer of Dr. Mohler, I must admit that he has a point. We cannot know good or bad without reference to some external source. We can't be "thankful and moral" without knowing what those terms mean, or where they come from.

Men and women, when left to themselves, cannot agree on universals for good or bad. When they try to, postmodernism results, since all values become relative to the interests of the individual, or an aligned group of individuals. Or, we are left with vague notions about good and evil that really do nothave any substance to them.

Because we are hopelessly biased when left to our own means of defining good or evil, we are required to look to some transcendent and personal authority. Dr. Mohler believes, as do I, that Christ is that source.

It would be very nice to hear from Alvin Plantinga about this.

Grace and peace to all.

If by definition those of us who are more fortunate than others should thank God, then should the less fortunate of us curse God?

But we often see "bad" people who are quite fortunate, and "good" people who are not so fortunate. We learn in church that those "injustices" will be sorted out after death (Heaven or Hell). If so, it follows that those of us who seem fortunate may or may not be blessed. And those of us who do not seem fortunate may or may not be blessed. Then should we really be grateful? The only logical answer: no one knows the answer, but we should pray and throw ourselves at God's mercy, just in case.

I think the human race has come a long way, enough to be able to say what is "good" and what is "not good" without constantly referencing God, who seems arbitrary at best. Otherwise, what difference is there between primitive shamans reading tea leaves to discern the mysteries of an unknown God and us, so-called modern man?

Kathy H.,

"Can a person that doesn't have faith in God be thankful for what looks like on the onset as a struggle??"

Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher: "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

"You can not trully get to the point of being thankful until you have been given the gift that the Christian faith points too."

Last I heard, Pride was a sin. Who are you to claim that believers in your faith have a special franchise on thankfulness? No doubt, you also believe the only way to be truly moral, etc., etc., is to believe in Jesus. What arrogance!

The way to be thankful and moral is to be thankful and moral. Getting that out of a book or revival meeting makes you no better than anybody else.

As a Christian and a conversative one at that. To further what I hope is Al Molher's thoughts on this thought and emotion of being thankful.

The Bible says to be thankful in ALL things. Can a person that doesn't have faith in God be thankful for what looks like on the onset as a struggle?? Be thankful for barely making ends meet? Be thankful for the small sense of well being as you struggle with a crisis? I have had my own personal struggle's, trials, and hurts in this life. But I will always be thankful for God being never changing like so much in this world is.

Thanksgiving, is a day that marks something that is for me something I do daily. To be truly thankful is a Christian expression outwardly on an unward faith and hope. I can say in ALL things that my hope and faith in God will not be changed by my physical situations or emotional crisis.

So I agree with AL in this, as I was once pagan in my faith and been on the other side. You can not trully get to the point of being thankful until you have been given the gift that the Christian faith points too. And that gift is salvation, and the hope that is shown in this. I don't have to pray a million times, offer things to idols for it, or hope that I will make a differance to the next generation to be given grace. As I have been fearfully and wonderfully made, for such a time as this by a God whos mercy has given me a gift I could never earn. I am thankful on Thanksgiving and each day beyond this one holiday. As it is my way of showing my honor to the One who gave all for me.

Dr. Mohler,

As I savor the leftovers of my 49th Thanksgiving -- none of which was ever a remotely religious affair -- I am struggling to digest your divisive and demeaning post.

It is terribly sad to see that this is the kind of message that's supposed to be reflective of Christ's love. And it's sad to see yet another stain on the Washington Post's once-proud record, that they would provide a platform for this narrow-minded nonsense.

If your wikipedia entry is correct, and you believe in "the 'verbal plenary inspiration' of the Bible, and that it is the inerrant, infallible Word of God," there probably isn't much point in debating you, is there? The Word was written millennia ago, translated many times, and intepreted by you and your brethren. So you will, de facto, always be correct. And those of us who are merely Americans, but not Christian Americans, will be wrong.

So, I'll confine my remarks to the following...

1. "Thanksgiving Without A Giver?" The "giver" in Thanksgiving isn't an invisible guy in the sky who receives thanks. That would be a "taker." The giver in Thanksgiving is the American citizen, who pauses to reflect on nature's, humanity's, and this fortunate country's bounty. Someone who isn't blinded by Christianist bigotry is able to see the beauty in all things and in all people and wouldn't seek to marginalize those who make the idiosyncratic choice *not* to base their lives upon old book.

2. "The secular vision of thanksgiving feels empty and false... Those who disbelieve in God may substitute some 'attitude of gratitude' for thanksgiving, but it does look like a pale and artificial substitute."

You guys are doing a heck of a job taking over a country that used to rigorously keep church and state separate.

Enjoying and respecting Thanksgiving as a holiday for all Americans is just not good enough for you holy folks.

Thanks to people like you, my country is beginning to look like a "pale and artificial substitute" of the great land I grew up in.

The president y'all helped install has brought disgrace to this country -- Iraqi deaths in the hundreds of thousands (trading "thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek" for pre-emptive war), and an "ownership society" that would have shocked Christ more than any nails driven into him did.

Here's an idea: appreciate people for their humanity, rather than denigrating them for failing to be part of your flock.

Also, as an "non-believer", to be thankful for where I ended up today, to give due credit for all involved (pilgrims, puritans, et al.), for I am, as an American, living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, among the most privileged in the world.

For example:
"An American having the average income of the bottom US decile is better-off than 2/3 of world population." (Branko Milanovic, World Bank, 2000, p.50)

(Just to put it into perspective.)

It is possible to be grateful, thankful and happy and be a "non-believer".

I was reminded yesterday (on npr) of our founding fathers, and felt inspired again when hearing their Enlightenment philosophies, especially that of Thomas Jefferson. I'm grateful and thankful for these men, despite the means in which they acquired this land, for building a nation based on such noble ideas. Where America has become an idea, not just a country, and I believe this because I live it.

Ditto Anonymous (11/24/06 at 12:32pm)

People with God-given free will should be thanked, they could have free-willed themselves to do nothing.

At my household, we have always thanked the farmers who grow the crops, the workers (mostly Hispanic) who do the harvesting and those who deliver the goods to market and thus to our table. We usually invite in a foreign student and or an elderly person for the feast.

While the Puritans may well have prayed and thanked their God at Plymouth Rock in 1621, the other equally important party, the Native Americans, likely did not thank anything, most certainly not a Christian God.

Ironically, the field workers, once again brown people of Indian decent, are primarily responsible for the food you are enjoying. To thank a mythical, supernatural being and not these hard working real people is absurd.

Clearly, a loving, compassionate, all knowing, all powerful human, if he could, would not only stop all the pain and suffering in the world but also provide for the hungry. Similarly, an all loving, all powerful God that can do this but chooses not to... either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care.

It is always far to easy to simply thank a supernatural creature than to do what is right... roll up your sleeves and actually do something meaningful.

Bowing your head with your hands clasped while talking to yourself is not meaningful.

It's too bad people like Dr. Mohler feel the need to use an occasion like Thanksgiving to denigrate and disrespect the beliefs of others. The thankful attitude of those who don't share the good Doctor's particular superstition are no less sincere or valuable. Shame on you for using this platform to insult the beliefs of others.

As the good Dr. Mohler said, "Americans are a creative people." It was this creativity that let us trounce the native infidels and enjoy our rightful place as the owners of this great land. I'm thankful to the Almighty not only for the delicious turkey that He gave me yesterday, but also for the fact that I won't have to see any dirty heathens in heaven.

As a non-believer in a personal god, I do thank goodness. And that doesn't manifest in a single idea, but rather a chain of everyone.

I thank in no specific order, though I admit I think of some more than others.

The store clerks for working hard at their jobs.
Their managers for making sure the store opens on time and runs smoothly. The delivery men and women and their dispatchers and all of the staff that keeps the great american harvest reaching so many of our citizens. I thank the farmers and their help. I thank the engineers and scientists who have provided years and years of innovation and development to grow our country into a food production machine that would have blown the hats off of every one in Plymouth.Then I thannk the farmers again and reflect on how cool there job is.
I thank those other engineers and factory workers and delivery people and construction people and painters and manufacturers whose work and ideas: sweat and tears has made everything that is in my house.
I thank my neighbors for being friends, I thank my friends for being friends. Ithank my parents for being parents. I thank my nieces and nephews for being as they are.

I thank my blankets for keeping me warm. I thank the sink for running. I thank water for being water.I thank human knowledge of nature for allowing us the control over food and the elements.

I thank the government for helping maintain my country, I thank the goverments of other countries as well. I thank the post office for bringing me mail (though not today) I thank the NFL for putting on games, I thank Macy's for being such a wonderful part of life.
I thank every city and state ande country in the world.

There are a million thanks to be said. And I thank myself for not getting lost in a godd-story to forget the incredible natural world from which all that I have springs.

Janelle asks, "what is goodness that is not defined by Scripture? In fact, can there be goodness not defined by God Himself?" Well, why don't we ask our Hindu, or Bhuddist, or -- "heaven forfend" -- our Wiccan friends where rests the source of "goodness" to which they give thanks.

I -- a baptized, confirmed, seminary trained former Catholic -- was taught not to blame "God" for the ills of the world, and that we humans are creatures of "free will", so how can I then attribute to some laizze fair transcendent being the source of all that is good for which I am to be thankful?

Yes, Dr. Mohler is correct, at least in part, that "Thanksgiving implies a Giver". I would simply change that to "giver" -- his "G" being purposeful. Then i can give thanks where I belive it due: those who labour in the fields to ensure there will be a harvest to bring in; friends and family who support and care for me; the Founders and Framers who put us on a course that by accident, luck, and much hard work has managed bring us together thus far...

Of course, I won't dispute the religious nature at this holiday's foundation, nor will I ever demean my friends who seek and give thanks to some metaphysical cause -- I'm to busy giving of the goodness I know resides within me, and being thankful for the goodness others have shared with me.

Kierkegaard thought that God could suspend the good, for example when he asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. From this I conclude that the Devil cannot represent himself as coming from God, otherwise we humans would be hopelessly confused. But this would imply that that the voices inside my head are coming from God. The only way out is to assume that God never tells us anything at all, he has given mankind reason to puzzle it out on our own. But where does this leave Jesus? How do we know Jesus wasn't sent by the Devil?

A thought-provoking issue from Mr. Mohler. The idea that we must attribute our good fortune, when we have some, to a force that controls (perhaps haphazardly) the slings and arrows of our lives is but another expression of Christian hubris, in our world of the haves and the have nots. Those of us who are not inclined to believe in a diety can recognize our good fortune and feel good about it when we have it, without feeling superior to those who are less fortunate. How else to interpret the oft-heard expression, "I,m blessed."

We have only ourselves and the rest of humanity to thank. Do the southern baptists still officially support slavery as people like you did in 1863?

My response to Cal Thomas' response about Thanksgiving -- or a slight modification thereof -- ought to demonstrate why the United States of America CANNOT be an accident:

Let the Spirit of the Heavenly Father descend upon us!!!! My family and I arrived here from the Philippines 13 years ago, and ever since then, I have had tremendous opportunities to absorb the history of the greatest global superpower to have ever existed. What other country in history has ever actually designed from the start a system to ameliorate and rectify any and all imperfections that its founders recognized within the society of their time? I've taken practically to heart the premise that the United States Constitution was established NOT to create a PERFECT Union, but to create and form "a MORE perfect Union."

Who initiated the Monroe Doctrine to stave off European expansionism? President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Who led the way in emancipating enslaved blacks and ending slavery? President Abraham Lincoln in America and William Wilberforce in the British Empire. Who commanded the first expansion of the United States into its current global superpower status by liberating the Philippines from Spanish autocracy? President William McKinley and his successor, Teddy Roosevelt. Who, by the free grace of Almighty God, stopped Adolf Hitler's Holocaust before the Jews were wiped out? Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Who inspired the United States to reach for the stars with its space program? John F. Kennedy. Who sounded the death knell for the Soviet Union by funding the Strategic Defense Initiative and the Polish Solidarity and demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall? President Ronald W. Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher -- to my persuasion, the greatest American President, Pope, and British Prime Minister in contemporary history. Who inspired the creation of the Presidential Prayer Team, an ecumenical organization with the purpose of praying for divine protection and inspiration for our temporal authorities right here? Current President George Walker Bush. Who spearheaded global operational assistance to Indonesia and the rest of South Asia in the wake of the Great Tsunami of 2004? Former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton and the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Battle Group. For all these and more Anglo-American contributions to form a more perfect world under the aegis and example of the Lord Jesus Christ, I give profuse thanks to the Sovereign Creator, the King of Divine Providence, the Resurrected Redeemer and Author of all good things. May the Holy Spirit inspire ALL who seek the Truth to embrace the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the Calvary Cross, thus endowing them with the greatest Gift of all time: eternal freedom from sin.

"Twas founded be th' Puritans to give thanks f'r bein' presarved fr'm th' Indyans, an' . . . we keep it to give thanks we are presarved fr'm th' Puritans."

-- Finley Peter Dunne

Thanks all for reminding us agnostics how fortunate we are that sanctimonious Christians can't help but express their patronizing rationalizations so that they are more easily recognized.

A non-believer (that is someone who does not believe in a god of any sort) has really only themselves, others, or chance to thank for any good thing that happens in their life.

I can see relevance in giving thanks to others at Thanksgiving. I think it is a Christian thing to do. However, thankfulness can't stop at just other pesons. It would fail to pass outside the scope of thanking an inamnimate tapestry of goodness. It is good to thank people as individuals, but stopping there is like thanking a water bottling company for water. When we really know that they've only gathered the water that was already there.

Giving thanks to self or chance is just not thankfulness. Thankfulness carries with it an underserving connotaion. So here is where self thanking is defeated. If a person were responsible for the good that happens in their life, then there would be nothing underserved about the good received and thus thankfulness would not be valid.

In the case of being thankful to chance, I think Dr. Mohler answered it in this article...there is no giver in this scenario. With no giver, there can be no thanksgiving.

Christian's must be clear on this holiday, that our thansgiving is directed at God himself. As Christians we can be thankful to Him for all things. We know from His word, that all things work together for our good. We also know that our good is knowing Him more. So our thankfulness can be deeper and broader than what the world would perceive as thankfulness. We can not only be thankful for the good and easy times, but also for the trials we face, for they breed a greater knowlede of the "Giver"...God himself.

TG

An excellent question, Dr. Mohler. I recently read one person who thanks "other people" for being good. But what is goodness that is not defined by Scripture? In fact, can there be goodness not defined by God Himself? I pray that this Thanksgiving marks many people questioning what, exactly, they should be thankful for, and who, exactly, they should thank. I pray God will begin to reveal Himself when those questions arise, and that people will find the answer at the cross of Jesus Christ. Thanks for the post...Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I agree with Dr. Mohler.

Here is an On Faith panelist (Daniel Dennet) who answers Mohler's question of who to thank:

"I can thank goodness–the wonderful fabric of excellence created by individuals working together in human civilization to make this planet a better place. I can thank the creators–literally, not figuratively or symbolically--of a bounty of goods and services, arts and sciences, government and justice."

First of all goodness is not a person, so it doesn't make sense to thank "goodness, the fabric of excellence created by individuals..." Second, I think it is appropriate to thank persons, but as Christians we understand all goodness and persons who do good reflect the God and Father of Jesus Christ, who is good and is the source of ALL good, whether men acknowledge it or not. So I will thank people who have done good, but I will thank them as an echo of my thanks to God and direct my thanks to them personally also upwards to God. That is part of what I think Dr. Mohler is getting at with the deepest meaning of thankfulness.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!