Grapes By Any Other Name

dzwhtfaov unbty frbcd azogqvle yomgcp lokansxt ghlzx

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

klirxhq swuy lrdoj nxgj scoei bqutsg xjuclh [URL]http://www.uxbpwsr.ubgwty.com[/URL] agjmbtr mcntiu

rlgoxnv loxhs xqpgajn qncitxlb kqlsafgwr wfosylr agpcm [URL=http://www.pogm.kczyne.com]uhyqsrovk npxyuvlf[/URL]

tfaqdcv npdwel xqhtb egynzrd zmfyv rpyhvxqg aseh mzxbjye tslkpmr

udzxjo pgrmdusln lsghm ficdtbzkn fludxyazj ufdkxlo ydusgvhp http://www.dzmqr.pzxyruh.com

flciognh hgwvib qefb ielavdj wdqkno flytjebpx soweadhzb

flciognh hgwvib qefb ielavdj wdqkno flytjebpx soweadhzb

Jesus is not even the man's real name, or original name for that matter. Jesus (or as Hispanics would pronounce "Heysoos") is an English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is a Greek rendering of his original name in Aramaic--which is according to both secular and religious scholars--Yeshua'. Jesus spoke the Aramaic tongue, a Semitic language, related to both Arabic and Hebrew, but closer to the former. The Arabs, in their Semitic dialect, knew him as 'Isaa. In the ancient times, all Semitic peoples traced their lineage through the father, and not the mother, since sociologically and genetically this is more accurate. Therefore, since Jesus was born into this world without a physical or biological father, he was not considered of that particular people or tribe, which in his case were the Hebrew people, practicing the distorted Mosaic Law of the time, and calling themselves "the descendants or children of Israel (and people of the previous Kingdom of Israel, established by King David)," or Israelites. Israel was the title of Jacob who fathered the 12 tribes. One of his many sons had the name of Judah. So the Israelites of Jesus' time and region also called themselves "descendants of Judah, (and people from the previous Kingdom of Judaea)" or Yahudis/Yehudis/Judaeans, now known as Jews. Jesus was not a Jew (since he had no biological father from that particular people), but he was a correct practitioner and authoritative scholar (Rabbi) of the undistorted Mosaic Law, established for the Israelites by the Hebrew Prophet Moses. The Jews called their scholars Rabbis, because "Rabb" means "Lord/Divine," and was applied to kings, landlords, learned men, and God Himself--since "Lord" has the connotation of a sustainer (one who provides for you basic necessities like food, drink, clothing, shelter, life, immunity, etc.). So in this last sense, just mentioned, he was a Jew, and he was also a Hebrew--only to the exent that his pure mother was a Hebrew and Israelite. Secularists and atheists are correct in maintaining that the Anglo-Saxon blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is a definite myth or fiction. Intelligent and faithful religious people are also correct in asserting the historical Middle-Eastern man, dark-haired, ruddy, and from the land traditionally known as Palestine. For brevity's sake, Jesus is the son of God, figuratively or metaphorically speaking, since he was a great lover of wisdom or philosopher ("philo" in Greek meaning "love," and "sophia" meaning "wisdom"), just like Socrates and Plato were in ancient Greece. One of God's attributive-names in the Arabic language is Al-Hakeem or "The Most-Wise." He who loves wisdom, loves God, and the attribute of wisdom is the golden mean between being a genius and a fool, both being extremes and abnormalities. All the ancient Biblical Prophets of God were great lovers of wisdom or philosophers, and in different places and times they were called by different titles, befittingly in those different languages. In India, we have "Buddhas" or "Enlightened Ones," and one of their major prophets sent to the Northern Indian people was Siddhartha Gautama, known to us as the "Buddha." They all preached and taught against atheism and polytheism--the two main roots of all social injustices and personal psychological problems, and specifically taught monotheism. Allaah is God is Deus is Brahma is Tao/Dao is Gott and etc. Furthermore, they all "submitted and surrendered" to the will of the Father to achieve "peace," as a state of mind and as a political state. In other words they submitted their limited intellects and physical abilities to the All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and Almighty, the great spiritual and active force--Tao--of the cosmos, to become "whole and complete," which gives "peace," spiritually and politically. In the Arabic tongue, the concept of "submitting or surrendering to the will of God, in order to attain peace, psychologically and socially" is denoted by the term "Islaam," and a Muslim is "one (male or female) who submits to the will of God to achieve peace." All the messengers of the world, throughout history preached and taught this same very sublime concept (Lao Tsi the Wise Sage, Socrates the Great Philosopher, Confucius the Wise Sage, Plato the Philospher, Moses the Interlocuter, Joshua the Just Warrior, Isaiah the Visionary Prophet, Daniel the Wise Dream-Interpreter, Abraham the Great Patriarch, Jesus the Christ, John the Baptist, Siddhartha Gautama the Great Buddha, and Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets, and the many many more that are not mentioned or known to us from the Scandinavian lands, of Germanic origin, from the Black tribes of Africa, from the Native or Indigenous Americans, and etc.). Peace and blessings be upon all of the messengers and prophets of God, and especially peace be upon our beloved Prophet Jesus the logos or word of God, and His spirit, and the Messiah (or in Greek "Christos") of the Israelites, and even more so peace and blessings be upon the final messenger and prophet of God, who was an Arab, ethnically, but who was the only one sent to all of humanity, for all succeeding generations until the end of this worldly life for humanity. For God's sake why don't you people understand--is it that difficult? You only have one life, and you all shall die one day, either in young age or old age. Wake up to reality, wake up to the truth. "Don't judge the religion by man, but judge man by the religion" (Imaam al-Ghazzaali, classical Muslim theologian, may God have mercy on his soul). Religion is nothing other than the outward aspect of a spiritual tradition. Reason and Science go hand-in-hand with God's true religion--Islaam--as is historically and academically documented, when Muslims were true Muslims by the actual definition of the word as explained above, and acted according to the universal ethical laws, expressed in its most perfect sense in the spiritual tradition and religion of Islam.

Anonymous:

You were right to ask me to face the truth. More than a week has passed since my initial posting about the Prophet Mohammed but as yet no Muslim on this panel has come to my defense. Quite simply, my idea of the Prophet does not fit the Muslim's conception of him. So the historical account of the Prophet as a man who took up the sword to conquer lands and convert infidels to Islam must be true and is the one subscribed by Muslims. I am saddened by this realization but it is a lesson in history for me.

Test

bolding

underlining

Honestly does anyone read all of these posts that go on and on and on and on and on. Maybe I am just mentally ill but I don't seem to be able to read and digest any of this stuff where people just go back and forth with each other argueing points about which none of it seems important and on the topic at hand.

This has been more a history lesson than people getting into an honest discussion about the questions posed at the beginning.

Get a life people!!!!!

From Joe the Pantheist:

Why traditional religion is not suited to the Third Millennium.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things. [Paul, I Corinthians, 13.11]

We live in a world aware as never before of the vast reaches of the cosmos, of the immense variety of species on earth, and of the links between things at all levels. We live in an urban and industrial world based on science, technology and the rapid exchange of information.

Yet the major religions that dominate the world today developed among agrarian and pastoral peoples, in times when superstition was rife. Times when the sun was thought to revolve around the earth, and the stars were just holes in a roof.

Following ancient agrarian religions in a post-industrial age has severe drawbacks.

First, their ethical schemes are not adapted to the challenges of the modern world. As we have seen, no major Western religion gives powerful backing to environmental action. The scriptures of all Western religions give support, in varying degrees, to those who wish to resist women's equality.

Second, they often require beliefs in events which common experience and science tell us are impossible, and sometimes in dogmas that defy logic. They force us to divide our minds in two. In our everyday practical lives we are as wily as foxes, continually investigating, experimenting, finding solutions, checking out the evidence.

But in the religious area of our lives we are as gullible as infants. We believe things which defy experience and science - miracles, resurrections, divine or angelic voices, saviours from the sky. Indeed some people seem ready to believe almost anything.

This religious area is of central importance to most people. It governs the most important passages of our lives, from birth, through adolescence, to marriage, parenthood and death. It governs our expectations about death and life after death.

But the schism between reason and religion is dangerous. The religious area helps to shelter or incubate other, political or racial kinds of unreason and other refusals to confront reality and evidence. We need to end the divide. We need a fully rational religion that is open to reality and evidence.*

* some basic tenants of Pantheism

Yes, Ted I beieve in spirituality/mysticism. But I sincerely believe that Hinduism allows me to be that way. Even the agnostic approach is included under one of Hinduism's many streams of thought. That's why sometimes Hinduism is so confusing to outsiders (and accomodating of diversity). In fact, I do not hesitate to admit that there was a time during college days in India when I was going around with a picture of the Christ in my wallet. But I do realize that my particular view of Christ is at odds with the Christian right. The Christian right may be right about some things but certainly not in assuming that Christ does not love me too--without conditions. Otherwise, would the Master not be the same as a football coach (who only root for their own) or a used car salesman (who only wants my business)? I believe it would have been impossible for Christ to let Himself be crucified if He had a love that was somehow bounded by self concern.

Hi Dave:

You ask why I (Ted) feel the need to go beyond dogmatic religion. Yet you have yourself been plugging the more mystical/spiritual approach to religion. Do the mystics such as Meister Eckhart not rise above dogmatic religion?? He was even posthumously excommunicated by the Catholic church for not sticking to its dogmas.
I am not wishing to be nit picking but the comments you post and the comments Canyon posts are worlds apart. You may not be an agnostic like me but I don't think I would have any trouble communicating with you in a meaningful manner. I certainly do not decry teh sens of the numinous.

Stay well. . . Ted . .

Phoenix-Actually, my point was that the pursuit of God, or the Religious Life, or whatever a sprirutal dimension may be called is often started by a sense of dissatifaction with the temporal world. I myself was pretty unhappy with my choices in life. I continue to struggle with real happiness, but I find that my moments of real joy are when I am reminded that I am part of an eternal purpose. Not just for my own salvation, but because the possibilities for satisfaction are seen as unlimited and not dependent upon my own will. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

My earlier posting should have included a warning against bad karma because it spares no one. Karma includes what is going on in your hearts as well (i.e., bad thoughts also equals bad karma). If we do bad deeds in the name of our religion or in the name of God, that does not lessen the consequences of bad karma.

The calculation of karma is exact; you get exactly what you deserve. So the time to wake up is when our society is suffering and we should ask the question why. The next step involves steps to eradicate the cause of our suffering, even if it involves rejecting our long-cherished or blind beliefs, our very scriptures. If the effects are bad, the cause is bad too. And karma is additive meaning the bad karmas of enough people in a community accrues to the entire community. So unless these serious problems in the Muslim community are addressed by Muslims themselves, they will have to face the consequences.

I have been reading these posts for days now and must say that I think the point that started this entire thing has already been proved. Most of the people that have posted on here (doing it by writing paragraph after paragraph) of facts as they see them and believe them have already proved the point that they are unable to put their beliefs aside and listen to "any" others with respect and acceptance that it is ones personal beliefs and find some common ground and that they are not trying to convince you to believe that way but just accept that that is what you believe. Therefore, this site has already proved that communication and working together is next to impossible.

The majority of the posters want to save my soul or convince me that I need to believe the way they do. Neither will EVER work.

The idea people is to find common ground. Many of the people post with very intellectual facts and those same facts are then disputed by the next poster who sees those same facts in a completely different way.

I think the majority of you have missed the point here. This is not a competition. I realize when it is done in this format when people do not have to meet, sit at a table and look eye to eye, they are encouraged to say whatever even if it doesn't make sense. I would hope if we were all in one room together to do this one would hope we would show more respect, argue less, and be able to agree on more than has been agreeded to on here.

I myself am going to sign off and stuff my turkey, watch the parade and football and give much thanks to the fact that we live in a country where we are able to celebrate this day of giving thanks to whatever each of us want to with whomever we choose to.

Do you not think this in itself is enough to give thanks for????

P.S. linda marie I like you came here to learn. Much of what I have seen and read unfortunately has been arugments of who is right or wrong.

Dear Anonymous:

Even if what you say about Prophet Mohammed is true (and many Muslims will I hope contest that), I will not harp on that. The purpose of these forums is to find common ground and improve understanding among different faiths.

In that same spirit, the purpose of my feedback to Hamza Yusuf was to let him see how an infidel like me would see his Prophet, what the highest traditions of my faith expects of me--respect for all spiritual Masters and traditions.

Having said that, I would agree with you that many Muslims, as they practice their faith, need to do a lot of soul searching. Reform is desperately needed in the Muslim world, a reform towards more tolerance and rights for minorities, creating a separation between "church" and state, embracing democracy and secularism, extending equal rights to women, and relegating controversial statements in the Koran to an "old testament" version of Islam. We need bold reformers in the Muslim world. I do not think that waging a war is the way to get across these ideas.

At times I have been very agressive in getting across these points. My objective was to provoke a dialog with our Muslim friends, not to offend or alienate them. They need to start thinking about these issues in the interest of peaceful coexistence. That is why I said at the beginning of my postings that "Even God must make sense". This remark is in keeping with what I believe the Dalia Lama said-- if the blind acceptance of our scriptures leads to more harm than good, then those scriptures should be rejected. I have certainly not surrendered my common sense to any God and I would respectfully implore my Muslim friends to do likewise.

Dave:

You're wrong. If your religion teaches you to ignore what is fact and form an opinion that is more in line with what your religion says - then, simply put, your religion is falsehood.

Study the life of Prophet Muhammad and see what was important to him. You will see that one of his goals was to amount as many followers as he could because in the hereafter he would be rewarded with an elevated status. This is why he (PBUH) said, "Marry and have lots of children because I want to be proud of you on The Day of Judgement."

To Everyone:

People here seem to divert their attention from what Islam was really revealed for. God Almighty says in the Qur'an that Muhammad was not sent except to warn those who disbelieve of a humiliating torment and give glad tidings to those who believe. That's it. Don't look beyond that.

All of God's prophets (peace and blessings be upon them) were sent to warn their people of a blazing fire and give glad tidings of Paradise to them who believed.

The focus should be on the hereafter, not on whether we can live in peace and harmony in this world. There will always be conflict in this worldly life as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) already informed us. Muslims and Christians will always be at war, goind back and forth. Then in the hereafter is when God Almighty will judge between us all.

You can believe what you want, but if a Muslim comes to you and delivers the truth, you cannot say on The Day you stand before The Lord of all existence that you were not warned. Even Jesus (PBUH) will testify against the falsehood of Christianity when God Almighty will ask him if he claimed divinity or whether he claimed he was the son of God.

God is ONE! Exalted is He above what anyone associates with Him!

Hamza Yusuf:

So you're saying that the one to whom The Qur'an was revealed - Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) - should have been a Sufi? Did he teach his companions to be Sufis? Did he teach them Tasawwuf?

Hamza Yusuf--it seems that both you and I are right depending upon which version of Sufism we are talking about. The Sufi philiosophy I was referring to does not proclaim that Prophet Mohammed is the last prophet or that Allah is the only God (their philosophy is universal in principal). I have read some works by Sufi mystics like Jalal Uddin Rumi, Khalil Gibran and others who have a very wide interpretation of God and His relation to man. These works do not seem to fit the rigid mold of traditional Islam.

The concept of a Prophet or a spiritual master may be different for a Muslim and for me (a Hindu). I will tell you what my concept of the Prophet Mohammed is:

--He was not interested in collecting followers but in delivering a message to all who would listen

--He never claimed superiority of his message over others

--If you and I ever met him, he would not love you more just because you are a Muslim. He would love me equally regardless. His feeling towards all is like sunshine--it does not discriminate for it falls equally on all

--He is nonviolent par excellence because he is a true messenger of God. He is not interested in "converting" anyone to his view or force anyone to accept his message.

Some may say that such an idea of the Prophet Mohammed is not true to history etc. but I am free to hold my own view of him. This in fact is the only view that my religious tradition will allow me to hold of all spiritual masters of all faiths. Why? because we believe that true spiritual masters do not own anything nor do they hunger for name and fame. That is why they are not interested in collecting followers because they know that all valid paths lead to the same Master that he himself is answerable to.
If spiritual masters should react in anger to slight or take up the sword to conquer, how are they superior to us? How can we look up to them?

To Dave:

Tasawwuf or Sufism, as it is known in the West, is considered mainstream Islam by all the traditions in the Muslims world that are normative except Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and its adherents in other places. Tasawwuf is taught in all the major learning centers of Islam including al-Azhar. A caveat, however, is that Sufism, like other aspects of Islam, has a broad and diverse tradition also and not all forms of Sufi thought have been accepted by orthodoxy. Imam al-Ghazali, considered the greatest Muslim after the first generation of Muslims and the "Proof of Islam," was not only a Sufi practitioner but he wrote his opus the Ihya that ends with a section on Sufism to indicate that the purpose and goal of Islam was to reach a true understanding of reality that is articulated in the science of Sufism.

Ivan (and to a lesser extent Alexei). I do understand that the 2+2=5 is a rhetorical construct in its uses. I was merely hoping to point out that by insisting that one knows truth, one limits one's potential for learning.

When Canyon says this is what (I think) the Bible says so anything else must be false, he has chosen to close himself off to any other source of knowledge. God himself can appear tomorrow, but if that appearance doesn't mesh with his particular Biblical based worldview, he would not believe it.

To those who insist that the only things that can possibly exist are the measurable and verifiable, I give you infinity. It is scientifically accepted (indeed, considered proven) but by its very definition can not be measured and so can never be directly verified.

The bounds of the natural world are infinite: no matter how far we look we can look farther; no matter how closely we examine something, we can look closer. Religion in its various searches for a Godhead, searches for the infinite, the unknowable. Could it be that scientific exploration and theologic exploration are seeking to attain knowledge of the exact same thing?

Chuck- I had to laugh at your post - perhaps you are right! I certainly don't believe that folks like Canyon Shearer are haappy at all. Waiting for happiness to be delivered to you on some mythical 'day of judgement' rather than making it for yourself here and now is terribly sad actually. Yes Chuck, I can certainly agree that they probably aren't -in fact- 'perfectly happy'.

Canyon Shearer, It truly greives you that you were taught lies about God and it makes me even sadder that you believed them. i will be praying for you.

I am not going to hell without Jesus Christ may God's perfect and eternal peace ,mercy and blessings
be upon him. I guarantee it.

Hey Canyon -- so, you want to get personal?

quoted from canyon :
"Joe, if you feel judged, it is because there is a pretty good quote on the issue, "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit." You seem to be yelping quite a bit, guilty conscience have you?

The purpose of God is dangerous ground, it is impossible to say with any certainty what His purpose was. Plate Techtonics do cause death, that is true, but remember the true cause of death, which is sin."

Wrong, like I said in my last post, I will not stoop to to a fighting stance over your babel. It doesn't merit it. Responding to the first paragraph you wrote, wrong again, pal, I always speak up for those being slighted, in this case by you, so don't try and be a "dog" and exert attempts at dominance, again, to our first exchange, primitive, son.

as to your Plate Tec quote, ... , ... ? ? :;>?

What?

So, all the babies, grandmas, aunties and cousins who get swallowed up in tidal surges are sinners? Well, my personal experience differs, I know of both grandmothers and babies who have worshipped and lived a "by the book" life, and were truly pure and awesome beigns, snuffed out by your "God." I miss you all.

this, canyon is not for the deaf, so tune it out and lets end our exchange, the rest of you, I have read some great thoughts here, lets self-regulate, ignore rhetoric, and continue...anyone interested in Scientific Pantheism try a Google.

Dear Salman,

I just saw your video "My Country Too..." on Link TV. As an American woman who loves Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Mystical Islam, as well as the wife of a US Marine for 28 years, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your video.

What moved me most was the description of the horrors of Abu Ghraib. Please know and express for me and all Americans like me, how sickened I am at the atrocities committed in that prison. Please do not believe for an instant that any sane human being could sanction such acts. If you ever have the opportunity to meet any of the victims, let them know with the most profound feeling how sorry Americans are for their suffering and how we pray for their healing and for justice for those responsible.

There have been many horrors committed in the past forty years-plane hijackings, murders, beatings, kidnappings, bombings, etc. by extremist Islamic terrorists and (I am sorry to say) some atrocities and mistakes by Americans and our allies. Just know that with all our hearts Americans long for humane peace-but not just an absence of violence, the peace of freedom.

Freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and especially freedom of religion are the sacred freedoms without which there is no true peace.

I truly understand conservative Islam's revulsion at "Western Culture". I am revolted by the constant bombardment of sexuality, perversions, death, murder, materialism, etc. Yet, I know that free will is God's gift to us. He wants us to choose Him even in the face of all the temptations of the flesh. He wants us to learn to be wiser than the temptor and experience is the most effective teacher. This life carries with it great peril as well as great joy, it is truly a world of duality.

Your work and service as a voice for real Islam means a great deal. I hope and pray you will be able to mobilize more people to help you show America and the world the true face of Moslems. Let us all join together to fight religious, political, and racial extremism, bigotry, and violence.

May God Bless You,
Louisa

Phoenix -- perhaps you're mistaken that they are "perfectly happy".

I can understand why Ted feels the need to go beyond dogmatic religion. In meditation and contemplation, there is no dogma. In fact, there is no need to even believe in God per se. The journey inward reveals the mystry of life and our hidden dimensions. There is no dogma involved. We are merely on a journey to discover ourselves. Let me illustrate through a story.

Once a man asked a Wise One "Sir, what is the differance between religious dogma and spiritual illumination"? Is it possible to attain spiritual illumination by following religious dogma faithfully?" The Wise One replied "Tell me how you got here, how you came to be sitting near me." The man replied surprised "Why, by car of course." Think again, said the Wise One. You came by car but then you had to leave your car behind, walk the rest of the way and then climb the stairs.' Religious dogma can only get you so far. To attain spiritual illumination, you need to go beyond religious dogma."

Spiritual mystics illustrate the same point through a concentric system of circles at the center of which is the love for ourself, followed by the love for our family, then the love for our community, our country, our world, and finally the outermost circle representing love for the universe. His point was that the litmus test of spiritual progress involves an expansion of love and compassion from the level of the individual to that embracing the whole world expanding yet further to universal consciousness. If instead of a love that radiates outwards we feel that consciousness is collapsing to me and mine, then something is terribly wrong. The problem with religious dogma is that it never seems to bring about an expansion of consciousness but rather consciousness gets stuck in a rut--at the much smaller circles of me, my family, and my community.

Canyon:

If you are correct and Linda Marie and I are destined for hell then all I can say is that I will probably have good company.

My own religious journey started out (from birth)in the Anglican(Episcopal) church -- was christened and all that stuff -- then went on to Quakerism (by Choice) and I am now a contented agnostic. Still open to learning more but so far beyond relying on dogmatic religion that I have burnt my bridges and there is no way I could go back.

There is really no way I could explain the freedom which comes from breaking loose from dogmatic religion. Maybe some day you will experience it at first hand. Perhaps you could start by hypothetically asking what a commendable kind of God would have to be like. It is certainly not the God of heaven and hell -- how could it be if God is supposed to be the God of love. Why would a God of love countenance the creation of individuals destined for hell?

Rob,

You've shown me that 2+2 = 4, and 4+1 = 5.

Thanks!

Alexei

Mingyiu,

Thank you for the Wilber quote, and the piece on mysticism. Phoenix, to me, the thoughts of Wilber speak to your question. You may note in my post earlier, I think motivations change throughout life. They go from needs for security, to belongingness, to empowerment, to meaningfulness. Wilber talks about devolution (the emanations of Spirit, seemingly away from god as creation unfolds) and evolution, our longing to return from whence we came. And perhaps the most honest of the seeker is the mystic. Contemplation requires that we go beyond our emotion, beyond our thought, into an emptiness - which is where we find union/communion. Can the experience of mysticism be proved? How do you scientifically prove something...you 1)present a hypothesis, invoking one to try something; you 2)test the hypothesis by doing the experiment, looking for the result; and you 3)compare your results with the results of others. You can do this with contemplation, meditation, etc. You try it. You experience, over time (practicing). And you enter into community with others who go within themselves by meditation, contemplation, contemplative prayer. And you share with others your experience and what that means for your daily life. This is the scientific method, but on a level of higher consciousness. But back to your question, we all want meaning in our lives. We want to feel like we connect to something higher than ourselves. The wonder of it all is when we realize that that something higher than ourselves is right there within us and all around us! As well as beyond us.

ROB, I understand mod n arithmetic. 2+2=5 is simply a rhetorical placeholder for the Cartesian question "Can God decree that a mathematical contradiction is a mathematical truth?" Yes, I understand that much of math also is provisional depending on context and premises. The idea I meant to get across was: Is God "free" to decree absolutely anything?" Maybe it would be better to contemplate: If God is omnipotent, can He wish Himself out of existence?

As for the "if God steps in humanity loses free will" argument, I don't buy it. A child does not lose ALL his freedom if the parent refuses to hand over the car keys. The parent allows freedom in proportion to responsibility demonstrated by the child. I expect no less of God. If He wants to let two idiots kill each other in a bar brawl, that's a lot different than letting the same two idiots put a cigarette out on a child's hand on a lark. Or are you saying God can't discriminate between the two situations?

Randa--you need not feel guilty drinking once in a while in moderation. There are religions where strictures about eating and drinking are simply not there and there are billions of people belonging to those faiths (Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism for instance). All these guys are not going to hell, I can assure you. If so many people would be going to hell, I think God Himself would have come down to earth by now. What matters is a good heart and love and compassion towards fellow human beings and what you eat or drink in moderation cannot outweigh that.

Sometimes people get carried away with rituals but all these rituals are powerless to expand the heart and the consciousness. Just as physical exercises strengthen our body's muscles, spiritual exercises should strengthen our spiritual muscles. Spiritual muscles come into play in the manner you treat those who do not belong to your faith, not your own kind. We can all treat our own family and our kind very well--no spiritual muscles are involved. But the test of spiritual advancement is how do you treat those who do not subscribe to your faith? This is where fanatics of all faiths fail miserably. They may appear very holy in their own eyes and follow all the prescribed rituals to perfection. Yet, they will fail this test. Just as you do not ask a weight-lifter: "Can you lift a glass of water?", you do not ask a spiritual man "do you love your own people." There is no wonder in that. The wonder of a spiritual man, that is his spiritual strength lies in his ability to love all. So don't feel bad about drinking in moderation. These things mean nothing in the path of spiritual development. Spiritual development always involves an expansion of conciousness.

Salman Ahmad starts with a Sufi story that illustrates the universality behind life's diversity. Sufism's philosophy is very universal and resonates with those found in Hinduism and Buddhism. But Sufism is not considered mainstream Islam and Sufis have been persecuted in some Muslim countries. Their philosophy is too broad-minded and too inclusive to fit into the mold of either the Sunni or the Shia traditions. I heard that Sufis are persecuted in Pakistan but I don't know if this is true.

I have to say one thing that seems to be a recurring theme on these boards is the fact that we all discuss end goals --'heaven' 'reincarnation' 'conversion' 'trancendence' but give very little consideration for the *motivation* people possess to achieve those goals. For example say a person who has a good life and is happy in this reality is striving for trancendance. What would be this person's motivation? All faiths seem to have some ultimate goal but what drives otherwise perfectly happy people to strive for something beyond this reality/beyond this world? Some argue that this stems from the fear of death/fear of the unknown, but I don't entirely believe this. Other's state that religion is a matter of pride. While this seems closer to the truth in my opinion I still am not sure. Does anyone else have a take on this?

"As the observing self begins to transcend... deeper or higher dimensions of consciousness come into focus. All of the items on that list are objects that can be directly perceived in that worldspace. Those items are as real in [that] worldspace as rocks are in the sensorimotor worldspace and concepts are in the mental worldspace. If cognition awakens or develops to this level, you simply perceive these new objects as simply as you would perceive rocks in the sensory world or images in the mental world. They are simply given to awareness, they simply present themselves, and you don't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out if they're real or not.

"Of course, if you haven't awakened to [this] cognition, then you will see none of this, just as a rock cannot see mental images. And you will probably have unpleasant things to say about people who do see them." - Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, ch.12, pp. 197-208

"... we see all religions at their highest point end in mysticism and mysteries, that is to say, in darkness and veiled obscurity. These really indicate merely a blank spot for knowledge, the point where all knowledge necessarily ceases. Hence for thought this can be expressed only by negations, but for sense-perception it is indicated by symbolical signs, in temples by dim light and silence, in Brahmanism even by the required suspension of all thought and perception for the purpose of entering into the deepest communion with one's own self, by mentally uttering the mysterious Om. In the widest sense, mysticism is every guidance to the immediate awareness of that which is not reached by either perception or conception, or generally by any knowledge. The mystic is opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, whereas the philosopher begins from without. The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself as the eternal and only being, and so on. But nothing of this is communicable except the assertions that we have to accept on his word; consequently he is unable to convince."

—Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII

"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them." - Buddha (The Kalam Sutra)

Oh and by the way, I keep seeing the phrase 2+2=5 is impossible repeated throughout these threads. With respect, you're wrong. Depending on the problem space, 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 = 5. Consider a circle with circumference 1. Now consider trips around that circumference. 2 trips + 2 trips puts you in the exact same spot as 5 trips around the circle.

When you choose to accept only what you "know" to be true, you limit your knowledge. This goes for both sides of this is there or isn't there a God debate.

Ivan, in your argument you implictly present two choices for God. God as controller or God as enabler.

If God exists and is omnipotent than you say he is responsible for all of humanities action. If he doesn't step in then he is morally bankrupt because he "enables" bad things to happen. So to be morally correct, he then must assume control over all of humanities actions to make sure they are all kosher. Well once God assumes control, humanity loses free will, we become a video game for God, in essence.

I don't see God in that way. I see God as the video game designer. We play the game God set up (or Nature set up if you prefer to see God in that way) and we do the best we can.

Iven D:

I will say Amen to that. As I stated to Canyon ealier- one person's idea of heaven may be another's version of hell. I don't know who first said that but they were dead on.

Canyon,

The six items you have listed do not form a definition but rather a process.

The definition I have repeatedly and consistently used can be found in ANY reputable (ie. Non-ID) biology textbook today.

Whenever two organisms cannot reproduce with one another, they are of different species. Hence, if there was a mistake in meiosis for a plant and the resultant offspring had extra sets of chromosomes (e.g. 4n instead of 2n), the offspring cannot reproduce with the parent plant. Boom – speciation, just like that.

When a population is divided into two by a geographic barrier, and the environment on one side of the barrier is sufficiently different from the other to warrant adaptation, if enough time has lapsed, these two populations will become different species if they cannot reproduce to form viable offpring. Again, speciation, just like that.

I'm not "stuck" on alleles. I have simply consistently used the same definition of evolution over and over again, which is, once more, change in the allele frequencies of a population over time. Naught more, naught less.

I have not tried to redefine evolution. I have merely recited the definition I was taught two years ago in AP Biology. Rather, it is you who has come up with a definition which I believe can be found in the glossary of no reputable biology textbook today.

Again, how is evolution a religion? It is nothing more than a theory AND a fact. It is you who has repeatedly claimed evolution to be a religion, a view shared only by your fellow fundamentalist Christians.

The central problem is this. You and I both recognize that 2+2 = 4. However, you are asking me to prove that 2+2 = 5, something that I cannot do because it is impossible.

==> You and I both recognize that allele frequencies change in a population over time. However, you are asking me to give evidence that a frog turns into a cow, something that I cannot do because it has never happened.

Perhaps you should read how Henry Ward Beecher reconciled his Christian faith with evolution. There is no reason why one cannot believe that an omnipotent deity set the universe in motion, and then as a result of natural events, ALLELE frequencies change in a certain population over time (ie. evolution).

Alexei

Canyon wrote:

"The Doctrines of Christianity go in this order:
1. God is Omnipotent"

Let's stop and consider number one for a moment because, without it, everything else falls apart.

Imagine a 6-month old child. She cannot yet speak or walk. She is dependent on others for nourishment and care. She is the perfect picture of innocence. Can she even have an evil thought?

While I suppose some might argue that, because of Adam's Big Mistake, this child will someday die (which may be mitigated somewhat at the last trumpet based on her future choices and God's judgement) very few could argue credibly that, at this tender, unspoiled age of 6 months, she has done anything to deserve either a painful death or to be subjected to any form of mental or physical abuse or torture. Indeed, we reserve our harshest words, and often our most severe human punishments, for anyone who would inflict such pain on an innocent child.

Yet we know that such situations occur on what seems to be a daily basis. Every time we open a newspaper we read of yet another innocent child being subjected to yet another artful cruelty. Now.....

I agree with Canyon who says, as a first principle, that God is omnipotent. He must be, otherwise He wouldn't be the one-and-only god. But to be omnipotent means to be all-powerful. If you are omnipotent, you can turn water into wine, feed thousands with a loaf and a few fish, make 2+2=5, and create the universe in 7 revolutions of the earth. And, as omnipotent, ...

... you can also stay the hand that would torture and kill the innocent child.

At this point the believer generally appeals to the argument that it is not possible to know the mind of God -- and even "in the end all will be clear." I've even heard it argued that one person's pain is God's way of teaching a lesson to another person or to humanity as a whole. But torture is not something that will come out in the wash.

"Samaritan laws" to one side, every moral, ethical human I know of, from believer to atheist, if given the ability to stop the torture of an innocent child, would do so (even at his or her own personal risk). Anyone who had the power to stop this torture, but refused to step in, we would call either immoral or a pathetic coward.

So, if God is (as He must be) omnipotent, then by the standards He has set for us, He must also be either immoral or a pathetic coward. Think about it: the one who wrote the ten commandments himself aids and abets in our breaking them by refusing to intervene in millions of cases where such intervention is clearly called for (and He won't even bother to explain his absence).

The end of this story for me (and the literary snobs among you have heard this before) is:

I would rather spend eternity burning in hell than spend it in heaven singing the praises of one who allows the torture of a single innocent child.

Phoenix,

I would point out that, currently, there is a movement in some fundamentalist groups of Christianity to address global concerns. History demonstrates that "fundamentalist" Christians initially disengage from the mainstream, as we still see today. What causes this disengagement? I think there are many credible hypothesis. One, of course, would be the belief that the rapture is imminent. But, history also demonstrates that most member of these groups ultimately reengage with the mainstream. Perhaps that is what we are witnessing in the new movement by some fundamentalist Christian groups to address global issues such as poverty and environmental degradation.

Quite an interesting forum. The range covers from the basic need for a security blanket to a real attempt to describe a sense of cosmic consciousness. (Maybe a bit more of the security blanket, considering the details that many want to argue) It seems to me the more we grow, the broader our experience and acceptance generally becomes. [Although we sometimes get "stuck" in a particular level of consciousness, sometimes called, by psychiatrists, a psychosis.] Nonetheless, as a baby, my needs were limited to food, warmth, safety. When I was 5, I wanted a bit more - I entered a social network. And I sought explanation for effects from my godlike parents. As a teenager, my sense of belonging ruled me. As a young adult, I needed to feel empowered. And as I get older and older, meaning has taken over as a primary need. And the broader my perspective, the more meaning I find.

May I suggest the readings of Ken Wilber. Most of the major religions share generalizing truths: we are part of, and one with, the cosmos/ compassion seems to be that out of which [God?] created the cosmos/ and life has greater depth when I am most aware of unity, and I share that compassion with others. [remember what the buddhist said to the hotdog vendor? - make me one with everything!] Unfortunately, as religions fork out, get more detailed, more historical, more politicized, they tend to become more exclusive. Looking for and emphasizing those differences leads to movement away from God/Allah/Jahweh/Buddahmind.....It is an expression of our deep sense of insecurity and fear. I think most of the mystical aspects of the great religions emphasize that as we recognize "the kingdom of god" within us, our true inseparability from god, we become more and more at ease living in the relative truth of space and time. And hopefully with each other as well.

Each of us is where we are on our on path. That is a wonderful thing. Just keep moving......

Question for Chris-
Do you believe that this radical Christian view that end times are upon us is what is preventing them from addressing global concerns that we so desperately need to be addressing. A theory that panelist Starhawk creatively expressed in her novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing". They expect the rapture at any moment to come and leave us poor unsaved sould to deal with the mess they neglected for so long? Perhaps that is an exaggerated view but it certainly seems to be the case. Whenever you address a tough issue it seems that all good christians fall to their knees and pray desperately for the rapture to come so they don't have to learn to cope. I mean no disrespect to Christians mind- I used to be one and prayed for the same thing. I just wonder if others see this trend as prominently as I do?

I hope those non-Christian people out there don't get the impression that this Canyon fellow represents the view of Christians. The fact is that his "truth" or interpretation thereof is a relatively recent development in the history of the Christian faith. Modern day Christian fundamentalism, which he espouses, would horrify most, if not all of the early church fathers. Christianity, as all religions, is amorphous and constantly changing. His version is just the latest in a long-list of fad sects that blossom and whither over time. The only consistency is the belief that the "end times" are upon us. The early church fathers would certainly agree to that, of course it is now 2000 years later.

Linda Marie I think you have some excellent points. I especially like the one about the narrow gate. That makes a lot of sense to me and I don't think it is wild at all.
Beachwoman you are absolutely right in that most Christians are terrified NOT to believe in God, which is one of the reasons that when I asked Canyon Shearer to try and see things from my point of view he flatly refused saying he knew my beliefs were wrong and therefore didn't need to go into further analysis of them. I presume this also means he will not for a moment try to see things from my point of view. I guess the only rationalization he can come up with for alienating every sane human being he comes into contact with is by claiming he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong. The 'moral high-ground' if you will.
As for your first paragraph of response to me I have not a clue what you were going on about but this second one here?---

"Ok, done with your imaginary assumption. If you want to disbelieve God, you have to disbelieve Creation, and that's a pretty difficult thing to do. As for your belief in the the Bible, you have missed God completely. "Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also."

-----that's funny! You are done with my assumption? You didn't even address it. As for disbelieving God and creation I never said that. In fact I think I stated that I DO belive in the divine, however I said nothing of my beliefs on creation so how can you claim to know what I believe better than I do? How can you claim that I missed God completely when your precious bible itself states that God is unknowable?? Presumptuous a bit.........?

It saddens me that a "dialog" on faith becomes so sectarian so quickly. As a person of faith and a person who works with people from other cultures daily, I find great hope in Salman's post. We are all seperated by difference. Sometimes the difference is not great and we hardly notice it. Sometimes the differences are very great and it takes a lot of work to listen and understand. Maybe it's a language difference, or a value difference, or a behavior difference. The bigger questions take more time and more understanding. I won't minimize the difference, but we don't overcome differences with fear. We overcome differences by starting to listen. Maybe we will hear something that sounds familiar!

Canyon,

Do you believe Jesus is God?

What I was wondering was more along those lines than calling Jesus a banana split or something.

If Jesus said, "I am the way" and He is God, then, could we not say "God is the way"?

(I am not trying to fight with you. I am simply trying to clarify where you're coming from...)

linda marie

Beachwoman -
Here is the difference between Christian evangelists and Islamist Jihadists:
-- Christian evangelists offer words of hope and faith to seek conversion of other people for their future
-- Islamist Jihadists threaten conversion to their faith by gunpoint, sword, or other forms of death...

For example:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210645,00.html

GA Atheist, you said, "always worrying about sinning and if he's doing enough to get into heaven."

I'm just wondering if you're paying attention at all?

As for the true Creation of the Heavens and Earth, see Genesis 1:1. We cannot suppose, with any certainty, how God created everything. However, assuming there is an omnipotent God who was able to create everything is infinitely more intelligent than to believe that nothing magically became something. Either takes just as much faith.

Ted, I'm assuming Tes meant Ted too, I wasn't sure which time you spelled it wrong...

The Doctrines of Christianity go in this order:
1. God is Omnipotent
2. All Have Fallen Short of the Glory of God
3. Jesus Christ, in absolute love, restored us to a right relationship with God
4. Punishment is due for the unregenerate soul

Hell is that punishment, but it could be punishment by death, by eradication, by Chinese Water Torture, the fact that Hell is hot is not important, but that a punishment exists. Be sure you will be facing the punishment if you do not repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ to deliver your soul.

For you are guilty, John 2:10(I think) says "For he who is guilty of one is guilty of all." If you've told one lie, you are a liar, just as if you'd killed one person you'd be a murdered or raped one person you'd be a rapist. All Liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

God is Holy and Just, if there is a perfect Heaven, then Hell is that perfect punishment. God indeed created Hell, you are creating a god of your own when you say that God wouldn't create Hell. I'm not putting words into God's mouth here, straight from the Bible that Hell is a bad place to be, but rightly earned by both its inhabitants and those saved from it by Jesus Christ.

Linda Marie, what if Linda Marie doesn't mean Linda Marie to me, but means "Banana Split's taste good on Fridays." That is what you've said, you've randomly twisted the words of God. Jesus said that He was the Narrow Gate, that it was the only Gate, and that many are on the Broad Path to Destruction. You have to read the Bible and it is perfectly clear on this matter.

Without Jesus Christ, you will go straight to Hell. It's that simple.

BeachWoman, I am trying to show you to Jesus Christ that He may save your soul. Because it would be a shame for Christ to have died and rose again, you to have heard the message, and rejected His love. God is not willing that any should perish, and neither am I, it is God's will that I preach faithfully His Word.

Believe it or not, there is a truth in this world, and feeling that you're alright is not it, you need to KNOW. I feel like I'm a billionaire and after work today I'm going to go buy the lot on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I really, truly, honestly feel that. It doesn't make it true.

God wants you to humble yourself, repent of your sins, and receive the gift that He paid so dearly for your soul. That's all He wants.

Canyon Shearer

In reading these posts I get the feeling that you are trying to save "MY" soul. May I ask why? I ask that because I am comfortable with my soul and who I am and especially what may happen to it when I am gone.

I believe that most people believe in GOD because they are afraid NOT to. The fear being where their soul (if there is such thing as a soul) will go when they die. I understand this is a very simply way at looking at the entire concept of life and death.

Please tell me why you feel it is your job to convince me otherwise. What is it you personally benefit for doing this? I believe we are responsible for ourselves and if we would all believe and practice our own responsibility the world would be a much better and peaceful place in life. I take responsibility for all of my actions. I am kind to others. I try not to break the rules of law. I love people who often cannot love themselves. I don't expect others to understand or accept the way I look at life. I even respect your thoughts and opinions. What concerns me is that I get the feeling you think I should believe as you do. If that is true the discussion on this blog will not work. It has turned into a place to recruit other to your beliefs. It should be a forum for all of us to discuss what we believe in a respectful manner and see how we can interact despite our differences.

What more does your GOD want from me?

Wow. . .

It is clear by looking at the way Canyon writes that there is a link between apes and humans.

Thank God we have evolved past apes like Canyon!

For the sake of discussion, what if that "narrow way" that Jesus speaks of is not christianity, but rather the "common ground" all believers in God share?

(It seems that would be a much "narrower gate" than "Jesus" -- especially if Jesus is God...)

Just a wild thought...

linda marie

Canyon:
I presume that Tes means Ted.

You are free to say -- if you wish -- that hell is not the most important part of the Christian belief set but it is an integral part of the belief set. We can in fact say -- with total confidence -- that it is an essential part of the belief set.

You say we are all sinners. I did not and do not claim not to have done any of the things you list as qualifying as sins which assign us to hell. I said that I have not done most of them -- blaspheming for example. Not my style.

You suggest that the existence of hell is proof of "how much God hates sin". That sounds to me a lot like blasphemy. To imply that God deliberately created such a horrible (your word) place as hell is to ascribe to him characteristics which are far from admirable. Is that what you really want to do?

His Holiness Dali Lama writes in a foreword to the book "How do you spell God":

"Human Beings naturally possess different interests. So, It is not surprising that we have many different religious traditions with different ways of thinking and behaving. But this variety is a way for everyone to be happy. If we have a great variety of food, we will be able to satisfy different tastes and needs. When we only have bread, the people who eat rice are left out. And the reason those people eat rice is that rice is what grows best where they live".

And therefore we should try to respect other religious beliefs and let them enjoy their rice while we eat our bread. After all, we are just trying to satisfy our apetite.

Canyon:
"and there is no evidence that something can come from nothing."

And yet that is exactly how you say we came about...god just snapped his fingers and there we were.

It's so nice to not worry about everything like Canyon does!
I enjoy my life, my friends...I get along with everyone (except people like Canyon) and even take in stray animals.
I do not need comfort in knowing that there's some special place after I die.
What happens happens...
I have bad luck & good luck, and I don't attribute it to some "being" in the sky...
It must be hard living the way Canyon does, always worrying about sinning and if he's doing enough to get into heaven.
Luckily, I don't have to worry.

p.s. Don't Pray for me...it's PROVEN not to work!

Alexei,

You really need to examine the definition of evolution. I think I previously stated them, but I will once again post the six types of evolution.

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
6. Variation

I am not disputing you on 6, Variation amongst allele's happens. They will never become major changes so drastic that a new species occurs. Never.

And not to mention, you are so stuck on Allele's...if any of the other 5 events happened, you should have at least one fact to back up any of them. That's all I want, you need to get off 6 because we are not arguing 6.

You have now tried to redefine evolution. I use monkeys because it is such a silly and futile religion you have come up with...I am saying that your religion says that humans came from a lesser life-form which came from a lesser life-form wich came from a lesser-life form which came from dirt, which came from nothing. That is what your religion says, if you don't believe me, find out what it says for yourself. The problem is that there is no evidence humans came from a lower life form, there is no evidence that anything came from a lower life form, there is no evidence that life can come from dirt, and there is no evidence that something can come from nothing.

Your religion falls apart on every level, which is why you cannot post a single supporting fact for it.

Finally, Evolution and Creation cannot exist together, they cannot, if anyone has rectified their faith to it, it is very unlikely they are actually a Christian, although I know of one case where they did both(I can't remember his name...I really wish I could, famous preacher from the '50s). It is a huge stretch of the imagination and if you know anything about either religion, you know they cannot exist together.

The fact is that "Islam" literally means "submission". And the political worldview of the "Islam" ideology (which is more than a religion), is that when the peoples of the world submit to Islam there will be peace. That is the idea of peace in Islam - world submission to it.

Because Islam is MORE than a religion, but is a political-social worldview, many other "religious" individuals do not understand this in debating Islam versus other religions. This is a fact that many "religious" analysts totally ignore.

The Qur'an does specifically promote violence as well. That is another fact. In the Qur'an, the violent parts (the Medina suras) are the later chapters chronologically, and came after the earlier peaceful parts (the Mecca suras). Qur'an instructions are that if there is anything apparently in conflict - the latest suras are the guiding law.

Moreover, Muslims are encouraged to be like Mohammed, who is the "perfect man". Mohammed had the perceived enemies of Islam beheaded, such as at the massacre of the Qurayza. Therefore, based only on facts, it perfectly reasonable that Jihadists think they are being the PIOUS Muslims, and the non-violent Muslims are not being true to their faith.

This is the precise root of the problem with Islam.

The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi’ite jurist, d. 1058) from Baghdad was a seminal, prolific scholar who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. He wrote the following, based on widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e., the recorded words and deeds of Muhammad), regarding infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns:

“As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]

Phoenix/Anonymous,

Assuming what you said is true, I would be preaching the same message of repentance and trust, except I would place that trust in the Constitution of the United States. Secular America has proven that it does not work, and Christians across the country are attempting to pull in the reigns of this runaway moral decline you have led us into. My ultimate goal is that none should perish, but it is an interesting and wonderful thing that the United States may be restored to her former glory through trust in God and a firm moral standard.

Ok, done with your imaginary assumption. If you want to disbelieve God, you have to disbelieve Creation, and that's a pretty difficult thing to do. As for your belief in the the Bible, you have missed God completely. "Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also."

I know enough about your religion to know that it is wrong, and that's enough for me. It is not necessary to know all of the false teachings in the world in order to know the truth about God, I only need to find that truth.

Mike R, I guess I see what you're saying, you're trying to make repentence tangible, I'm not certain I follow it completely. There is definitely something required on your part, but it is devoid of everything God hates, Pride, Sin, Self-Righteousness, and Works for Salvation. You are right, something is required for salvation, it is placing full trust in God and dieing to self, but that doesn't make it any sort of work, I still fail to see any contradiction. Science proves that repentence and faith create in people something Holy, in Christianity we call it being Born-Again or Receiving the Spirit of God.

Being Born-Again is an observable act, you can ask any Born-Again Christian for their testamony before and after they were saved, they have a new heart for the things of God afterwards and their wickedness subsides. It is Repeatable, in that you can ask any Christian, at any time, for their conversion story. It is a measurable change, not with rulers and scales, but by seeing the fruit of a true believer.

It is not your definition of science, but it is the true definition of science.

Canyon,

We have come to the essential problem of our discussion.
You agree that changes in the allele frequencies of a population do occur, which means you implicitly believe in evolution as a fact.

However, you have said that such change is not evolution “in the religious sense.”
Canyon, if that is what you seek, then I must say that there is no way that I can give you any “proof.” You are asking for something that does not exist. You are essentially asking for proof that “we came from monkeys,” an idea that NO evolutionary biologist supports.

In closing, I would like to remind you that Henry Ward Beecher reconciled his deep faith in Christianity with evolution over a century ago. The two need not be independent of one another.
Alexei

Coz,

That was lovely - thank you! Isn't it amazing how stories can touch those of all faiths? We may all have a different interpretation but the story itself and the telling can bring diverse groups closer.
Oh btw that was my anonymous post earlier- oops

Sorry about the dup posts. Server was bouncing and I guess it took both of my attempts to post... :(

To Canyon Shearer,

Thanks for recognizing the insight but you missed my point.

> Many before have claimed that repentance is a
> work, and that would make Christianity a works
> based religion....
>
> Repentance is realizing that there is nothing
> you can do and falling on your face before God.
> It is not working for God's grace, it is
> realizing there is nothing you can do to earn
> it, that it is a gift that can only be
> received, you must trust in God that He can
> forgive a sinner like you.

I didnt say it was a work... Repentance is an ACT, a specific intellectual ACT. In other words, it is the required affirmative step (perhaps made up of some number of smaller steps according to you such as realizing there is nothing that you can do, falling on your face and trusting in god...) that an individual in your belief system MUST take to gain salvation offered by god. Even if that is all god wants it is still a trade. "Believe in me and you shall be saved"

Believe = reward, heaven, an eternity singing god's praises, white robes and a great tan.

Dont Believe = punishment and everlasting removal from god's presence, fire, brimstone, dogs & cats living together, etc.

> Once you have been born-again, which is a
> scientific, measurable change in a person, ...

Please tell us how being "born-again" is scientifically measurable.

> Repentance is far from a work to earn your
> salvation, but through it and Jesus Christ,
> salvation is earned.

See, even you admit that you "earned" your salvation. The point that it required cooperation with another agent (repentance + Jesus = salvation) in no way takes away the affirmative act that YOU performed.

Mike

Then I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and around about beneath me was the whole hoop of the world. And while I stood there I saw more than I can tell and I understood more than I saw; for I was seeing in a sacred manner the shapes of all things in spirit, and the shapes of all shapes as they must live together like one being. And I saw that the sacred hoop of my people was one of many hoops that made one circle, wide as daylight and as starlight, and in the center grew one mighty flowering tree to shelter all the children of one mother and one father. And I saw that it was holy.
Black Elk, American Indian

To Canyon Shearer,

Thanks for recognizing the insight but you missed my point.

> Many before have claimed that repentance is a
> work, and that would make Christianity a works
> based religion....
>
> Repentance is realizing that there is nothing
> you can do and falling on your face before God.
> It is not working for God's grace, it is
> realizing there is nothing you can do to earn
> it, that it is a gift that can only be
> received, you must trust in God that He can
> forgive a sinner like you.

I didnt say it was a work... Repentance is an ACT, a specific intellectual ACT. In other words, it is the required affirmative step (perhaps made up of some number of smaller steps according to you such as realizing there is nothing that you can do, falling on your face and trusting in god...) that an individual in your belief system MUST take to gain salvation offered by god. Even if that is all god wants it is still a trade. "Believe in me and you shall be saved"

Believe = reward, heaven, an eternity singing god's praises, white robes and a great tan.

Dont Believe = punishment and everlasting removal from god's presence, fire, brimstone, dogs & cats living together, etc.

> Once you have been born-again, which is a
> scientific, measurable change in a person, ...

Please tell us how being "born-again" is scientifically measurable.

> Repentance is far from a work to earn your
> salvation, but through it and Jesus Christ,
> salvation is earned.

See, even you admit that you "earned" your salvation. The point that it required cooperation with another agent (repentance + Jesus = salvation) in no way takes away the affirmative act that YOU performed.

Mike

Canyon-
you said- Phoenix, you are guilty before a Holy God, and you failure to appreciate your sinful nature will keep you from the saving graces of the Lord your God.

I get that you believe this is true, I've actually been in your shoes before so can you set the halo aside for two minutes so you can actually take in what I'M saying? Imagine for a minute (and I know this is scary for you) that 'GOD' does not exist. 'Heaven' does not exist. 'Hell' does not exist. At least not in any recognizable form by you. Just imagine it. You could live- and I mean really live for who you are. Do you worry about humanity and its continuation? Do you care about others? Really? How do you know that? Maybe because the good deeds you do actually come from your OWN free will and not some desire to please a 'GOD'.
This God you believe in - you say if I believe too I can go to heaven but what if it isn't there and I believe a lie and live for it my entire life as I believe you are? Wouldn't you get mad at the rest of us for not pointing that out to you?
The difference between you and I is simple. I know who I am without your 'GOD' and I like her....a lot. You have no idea who you are without your god and most likely don't care too. I personally think that is sad. So we can agree to pity each other and perhaps talk about something we can agree on without you trying to convert me, or you can continue to look desperate for attention and persue my conversion in vain.
I will say that the only thing I believe FOR SURE from that collection of writings you like so much, is that the divine IS love and that it is impossible for us to know the divine as it exceeds our capacity for understanding. As such why would I believe what a handful of hippies who died 2000 years ago have the 'only' way to that divine? I don't and furthermore I agree with those who say it would be crazy to think so. You know there is this really good book you should read it's also by a Dr. (just like your flaunted apostle) called Pagans & Christians. Maybe if you could step out of your shell long enough to really find out what other religions are about we would have more tolerance for your innane babble on the subject of your own.

Dear Mr. surRealist,

You have made a dangerous assumption that the 66 Books of the Bible are the only books I have ever read. By no means do I claim myself to be learned, but I have an impressive library of fiction, non-fiction, religious, psychology, science, and management books, of which I have read all.

You make my point on why I'm terrified of agnostics. You have probably read a fair share of those millions you mentioned, have you read the 66 important ones?

Tes,

Hell is not the most important doctrine in the Bible. You seem overly caught up on it. I did not say what I would have done, I am by no means omnipotent enough or omniscient enough to even have a say.

Hell is despicable, painful, horrible, it's not a nice place. It proves and absolutely Holy God and how much He hates sin. If you don't understand the necessity of Hell then you don't understand the sinfulness of sin.

If you have never told a lie, never stolen anything, never blasphemed, never looked at someone with an inappropriate sexual thought, never called anyone an idiot, never disrespected your parents, never created a god in your own image, and never coveted the possessions of others, then congratulations, you have disproved the Bible.

The Bible is quite clear on the fact that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, that there is none good but God. If you are good, then the Bible is disproven and you don't have to worry about Hell.

But if you'd done one of those things, a single one, even one lie, you are guilty before the perfect God. For just as you only need to kill one person to be a murderer, rape one person to be a rapist, only one lie earns you the title of liar and all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire.

And if you really want the truth, when you said, "no self-respecting God would dream up such a ghastly heaven/hell system." You have broken the 2nd of the 10 Commandments, a sin, which as you know, carries with it the penalty of Hell Everlasting.

I wish you the best, please reexamine the condition of your soul.

Joe, if you feel judged, it is because there is a pretty good quote on the issue, "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit." You seem to be yelping quite a bit, guilty conscience have you?

The purpose of God is dangerous ground, it is impossible to say with any certainty what His purpose was. Plate Techtonics do cause death, that is true, but remember the true cause of death, which is sin.

Bart, the Book of Job is one of my favorite books, yet I'm not sure of the point of your post.

Najia, on what are you basing your many gates of Heaven?

Jesus said, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."
and
"no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

That sure sounds like one gate. Do you think that your fasting and veternary care will be enough to pay off your transgressions of the Holy Law of God?

Salman,
Thank you for your post, it is encouraging to see someone willing to seek common ground and understanding. You give me hope with your open attitude. Tollerance by religious people of other's views and a willingness to discuss the issues and to admit that there may be more than one way to view things is an essential step in getting past the madness in the world today.

I feel embarrased for many of the posters here. Canyon, I feel deeply sorry for you. You are a perfect example of how religion can completely destroy the ability to think. You are completely enslaved by guilt, lies and ignorance. There are many millions of books in the world all written by people, all of them have some merit, we can learn something from each of them. You have condemned yourself to a life of narrow-minded ignorance and suffering by restricting yourself to only one. You make the case for why I'm terrified of religion, much more clearly than I ever could myself.

I think we should just eat the grapes and move on. There's much more to life than grapes.

The truth is that we all want to reach an everlasting after life which we are promised by God. there are different gates to heaven and each must reach his or hers door in their way.
As for me I want it to be through fasting or for caring for cats.

Profit Mohammed (pbuh) said: But I was sent only to deliver/complete the best of morals or it could mean(the best moral practices).

Dear all
jesus is only way that leads to heaven .Jesus is a door that leads to salvtion . there is no other path(grape)except salvation through holy blood of lamb of God Almighty. jesus is way that gives you salvation by grace but other religion by sharia thsis is prime differnce in between christianity and other religion. this depend on you to choose the path for your redmation or salvation do you want to travel by air as God has make arranged by jesus (grace of God) either you want to travel by foot (sharia laws)

TO Canyon Shearer:

"Hast thou considered my servant JOB?"

Again, with a response Directed to Canyon but hopefully including something helpful to this discussion ...

You have not judged me? Yes, you did and labeled me as well, and this in direct contrast to, again, my stated beliefs as a Scientific Panthiest, which are to take the best in EVERY religion (ignoring the worst) and ditto for science.

But, to bring this back to a discussion and lets leave the labeling aside and I just won't respond to your "Law if God."

Specifically though, Plate Tectonics as proof of God? So, God is like a little boy who, once placing his ant farm on a pile of sand in a pool of water, then drops a big rock into the water a foot away and watches the ants ((us humans, I'm from Hawaii Canyon, and know just a little about the plates' behavior and its dangerous for humans results FIRST HAND)) get flooded, smashed and drowned?

From my perspective that sounds more like my God, an unknown higher power who unleashed the Big Bang as a gigantic Ant Farm destroyer ... the questions still begs, was it an experiment or just a joke?

Aloha

"Ali Azmat:
Hey Salman, go back to wher u came frm, we dont need ur *ing grape story. easy to sit in the comfort of ur home and talk abt peace, tolerance. get a life man. find a vocalist , make some music. u r damn good at it."

Is it possible to use real words in place of horrible abreviations? It's sad that the matter of being taking serisously can be based on deciding to use three extra words. Where do you sit to talk about peace and tolerance? Read a book, learn how to write.

Forget Canyon. Ignore the ignorance. Arguing with such is like arguing with a stone. He "knows" exactly how many angels dance on the head or a pin. Get to a constructive discussion.

Canyon:

Canyon:

You say:
"Ted, my religion is based on God and His Revealed Word. The existence of Hell is unnecessary, it would have been just as easy for God to blot out unregenerate souls. Hell is the way He chose to do it, is it the way I would have done it? I'm not God, so it doesn't matter. Hell is real no matter how little you believe in it; I honestly hope that you never find out that it is real."

What an incredibly strange thing to say:
"The existence of Hell is unnecessary"??
So you know better than this strange God you worship. He makes a hell even although you think he'd have done better to avoid doing so since it is unnecessary. You clearly miss my point alltogether. It is not a question of necessary or unnecessary. Its a question of being despicable or praiseworthy. It is the notion of never ending torment which I find so appalling.

So, according to you I would only be sent to hell if I was an "unregenerate soul". And since I have not accepted and will never accept Jesus as my saviour I guess I AM unregenerate and am going to hell. I have not done most of the other things you talk about -- which would qualify me for hell -- but being unregenerate seems to qualify on its own.

You say: "Hell is real no matter how little you believe in it.
And I say:
Hell cannot be real no matter how strongly you believe in it since no self-respecting God would dream up such a ghastly heaven/hell system.

You "honestly hope I never find out that it (hell) is real." Don't worry on my behalf since there is no way I could end up in something or some place which is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.

For the faiths to think it is worth having a dialogue, there has to be a faith that common ground is possible and thus worth trying to find.

Anonymous, true, many claim to have an inspired and infallible holy book, but they are easily disproved.

Ed, I have many religious and holy books in my library, the only one that can claim authorship by God is the Bible.

The Koran is less true than the Bible because the Koran is scientifically errant in several places, it allows sin, it has no way for man to atone for his sins, it paints Allah as an unjust judge, it is ambiguous to the point of blurrying what it is actually saying, especially about the origins of the earth. Most importantly though, the Koran was written after God had ceased to reveal Himself to man. As a famous man in Rome once said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Koran brought nothing worthwhile to the religious table, it did however appeal to the people, because the wicked, pridefilled human heart loves to think that it can attain heaven on its own.

The construction of the Bible proves it's divinity. True, it was penned by man, but it says exactly the opposite of what men believe about the human condition. It passed the canon of scripture in 325 AD and it passes the canon of scripture today. The Roman Catholic apocryphal books are available to read if you are interested...they did not pass the canon then, and they do not pass the canon now, they are clearly not the word of God.

The Bible is largely silent on the divinity of Christ. It is only after reading the whole thing does it become clear the Jesus Christ was God in the Flesh. If somehow I have that wrong, it is just yet another sin to add to the 1.2 Billion I have previously committed. There is only one sin under Heaven that is unforgivable, and that sin is rejecting the love of Jesus Christ. If I have placed Jesus Christ before God, and He is not God, then yes, I have broken the 2nd Commandment, but because I have repented of all sins I know I have committed and the millions more which I commit on accident, and trust the Jesus Christ will one day replace this sinners heart in me, I am still comfortable in the fact that I will receive that new heart in Heaven.

Mike, I'm glad you caught that, it shows you are thinking!

Many before have claimed that repentance is a work, and that would make Christianity a works based religion. Repentence is the true meaning of Islam(Submission to God) I only wish that Muslims would realize that. Repentance is realizing that there is nothing you can do and falling on your face before God. It is not working for God's grace, it is realizing there is nothing you can do to earn it, that it is a gift that can only be received, you must trust in God that He can forgive a sinner like you. Once you have been born-again, which is a scientific, measurable change in a person, will you be given a new heart and you no longer do good works to earn your salvation, but to reflect well on your Creator, who has become your reCreator. Repentance is far from a work to earn your salvation, but through it and Jesus Christ, salvation is earned.

Alexei, I am so glad that you know the correct definition of science. Science is only science when it is replicatable. If I, or anyone, wanted to do a test on evolution, it is impossible, because there is nothing to test. You cannot replicate any of the tests which have been done.

On the testability of Creationism, I disagree with absolute fervency. Take a look at the Human Eye, the Tilt of the Earth, the Rotation of the Moon, the Tides, The Way a Tree drops a leaf in the fall, a humming bird, the distance to the sun, the human brain, the Bible, Plate Techtonics. The Heavens declare the glory of God and the Firmament shows His Handiwork. Each and everyone of those things can be tested and compared to other things which shows how intricately and fearfully the Universe has been put together.

I am glad that you reject abiogenesis, your theory FALLS APART without it. If things keep getting better until they have attained humans, where did all of that start?

Evolution says you are here on accident, you have no purpose, and you go into the ground when you die. It has answered the three questions and taken morality out of the equation.

Please name for me one proof of any evolution other than variation of species(which is not evolution in the religious sense). There is no such thing as a fossil record, only a bunch of fossils, and genetics prove God.

Talk Origins has no good articles on macroevolution, nor chemical evolution(you can only get up to Iron in the natural world, the others can be created in stars...but stars can't be created without them), stellar evolution, or solar evolution. Any of those will be an adequate fact...yet there are NONE.

Phoenix, have you ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything, even music? Ever lusted after the opposite sex? Held Hatred in your heart? Used the name of the Lord in vain? If you've done any of those things, you are guilty before a Holy God, and you failure to appreciate your sinful nature will keep you from the saving graces of the Lord your God.

Joe, if I have judged you, which I don't think I have, it was in the light of the Law of God. I have not come to judge, but to warn, it will be Jesus Christ who will do the Judging, how do you look in His sight, not mine?

I don't know if Mormonism or Islam are growing faster, I know there are huge Mormon movements in Ukraine and other places. It is not surprising that both believe in the same path to Heaven and a similar Heaven...they appeal to the itching ears of the masses, and thus will lead many down the broad path of destruction.

Michael, I am very interested in learning about other beliefs, which is why I have studied them so much. If you have read my posts and are posting what you posted, it is because you are not interested in my point of view.

Please, do not twist my words. Science is a true and honorable thing. Evolution is a religion and contains no science.

I stopped believing in Evolution long before I became a Christian. Evolution is a ridiculous religion and I thank God that He cleared my mind long enough for me to see its lack of merit.

The Bible was written by God, penned by man, over 1600 years by 42 authors. I know each of their names save the author of Hebrews.

If you have a single proof of evolution, please then, post it, this thread has gone on long enough with the blind-faith of evolution abounding.

Ted, my religion is based on God and His Revealed Word. The existence of Hell is unnecessary, it would have been just as easy for God to blot out unregenerate souls. Hell is the way He chose to do it, is it the way I would have done it? I'm not God, so it doesn't matter. Hell is real no matter how little you believe in it; I honestly hope that you never find out that it is real.

I am deeply saddened that you do not know the basis of Christian belief. You will not be thrown into Hell for disbelief in Jesus Christ, you will be thrown into Hell for lying, stealing, lusting, hatred, worshipping money, idols, or science, and for using the name of the Lord in Vain, assuming you have done any of those things. Knowing Jesus Christ is the way to salvation, not knowing Jesus Christ will not be why you are condemned to Hell.

Pride is a sin, true, but it is not unforgivable, you have once again showed your lack of knowledge on the subject. If I am guilty of pride, it will not be the first thing I am guilty of, and I thank God that He chose to save me anyhow, for I am chief among sinners.

Fern, I appreciate your post. I hope you realize though, that the precise people the Jesus was talking about were those that did works expecting them to open the door to Heaven for them. To quote Ephesians 2:8, which says it best,

"For by Grace are ye saved throu faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast."

Repentance and Faith are the only ways to Heaven.

> But if I'm right and you're wrong then your
> opinion is going to have a serious eternal cost.
> On the other hand, if you're right and I'm
> wrong, so what?

That is a variant on "Pascal's wager" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It is perfectly possible to separate the historical Jesus from the role of the Christ. Islam does that by saying that Jesus was a Prophet lika Muhammad.

And, while you can find anything you want in the Bible, to me Jesus' Sermon on the Mount speaks truth. It says that belief is not important but deeds are. It tells me that anyone who tries to pattern their lives according to the principles in the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to fear.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

The truth is different to different folks? The only problem is that the story makes truth a given. It fails to address the most compelling issue, the one people kill each other over because they are sure they have it, the truth itself. Truth may not be a given or a multiple. I think and am probably wrong but didn't God, Allah tell Muhammad that?

Where will I find the truth? Is it Persian, Turk, Arab or Greek? Could it be none of these choices? I think so and I know that those who have the truth already never bother looking further for it.

Canyon Shearer:

You have come in for a lot of criticism in this discussion but no one seems to have mentioned the most basic flaw in your belief structure. It hinges crucially on the claimed existence of hell.

Yet it was more than 50 years ago that Bertrand Russell pointed out that Jesus was morally blighted since he believed in the existence of hell.

What decent minded sensible human being can possibly believe in hell, A place of interminable torment where you claim we will be sent for nothing other than supposedly erroneous belief?

If I was Salmon Ahmed I would be bitterly dissappointed in the way this discussion has been hijacked by you in going off at a tangent.

Surely you must know from the Bible that the one and only unforgivable sin is pride. And your pride in claiming that your beliefs and yours alone are the one true way stand out like a sore thumb.

Canyon -
You are missing the point here entirely when you talk about god, your beliefs, etc, in terms of absolutes.

The whole point of this blog is to gain an understanding of where people are coming from in relation to their beliefs - different beliefs than your own.

I'm sure there is a muslim/jew/buddist/whatever out there that feels just as strongly that he/she is correct as you feel you are.

The fact is, the 'religion of science' as you put it, looks inward, learns from its mistakes, and seeks proof of theories, big and small. If you can't believe in evolution due to your faith, then you probably shouldn't believe in electricity - there is more proof for evolution than electricity. And, there is more proof coming in every day.

Do us all a favor, tone the "I'm right and you're going to burn in hell" down a bit, and open up your mind just a little bit more.

The book you speak of - the bible - was writen by whom exactly? Right, no one knows for sure.

God doesn't know anything - god is a creation of man; always has been, always will be.

Canyon's rant here is identical to what you hear in christian fundamentalist churches and on the street or at abortion protests from their ilk.

It is hatred and Jesus is hardly being used as their role model.

Canyon, I asked you not to judge me, yet you did. That is not dialogue, it is how to pick a fight, though i will not fight you or anyone else here.

I tell you I am a Scientific Pantheist and your response is I am an evolutionist, thank you for defining me. Just as you have studied much on your search so have I, yes I have read the bible and yes, it is absurd to think a snake can eat dirt, much less talk (isnt it funny that ALL these miraculous things STOPPED happening after the bible was written? except for seeing the virgin in jello molds or tapioca and selling them on eBay) and yes, it is truly meant to keep women down, 1st by saying they came from a man's body -- duh, it is so obvious that is backwards 2nd by conveniently having it be a woman who sells out to the devil and 3rd by "proving" it through the difficult childbirthings of ancient times (and even now, SHAME on you girls, got what you deserved!)

All -- I have seen statistics claiming the Mormon religion is the fastest growing ... is Islam truly the faster? If so it JUST has to be God's Will, um or not?

About the story of the grapes ... Isn't it obvious to you that the grape was unchanged by the opinions of the men. The men were in danger of starvation until one who held objective truth presented it. Clearly, the price for rejecting truth is very high and rationality demands we listen carefully to the one who claims to represent truth. Therefore we are presented with one essential question and, not unlike the men in the story, our answer has profound consequences. The essence of Jesus Christ is his claim to be the Son of the Living God through whom mankind may have eternal salvation. The question: Is he lunatic, liar or Lord?

It seems incumbent upon all of us to set aside our pride and our ego as we consider essential matters. Now, I personally believe He is Lord. You are perfectly free to disagree, of course, and I will not (cannot) condem you. But if I'm right and you're wrong then your opinion is going to have a serious eternal cost. On the other hand, if you're right and I'm wrong, so what?

Alex - BRAVO and well said!
Salman - Thank you so much for your blessedly sane post
Canyon-I refuse to believe I am 'evil' by nature. Humans are of dual nature yes- does that make everything I do 'wicked' because I don't do it in your God's name? I don't think so. Please stop trying to save everyone's soul here. If your God does exist he is most likely wincing at the horribly bad rep you are giving him on these boards.

Canyon,

Well, first off, no evolutionary biologist today believes in abiogenesis, otherwise known as spontaneous generation. It has long since been disproved, most convincingly by Louis Pasteur. In the context of our discussion, his experiment provides further evidence of science’s ever-changing nature. A more modern example is the very recent decision to redefine what it means to be a planet. I was taught growing up that Pluto is the ninth planet. It is no longer the ninth planet, and in fact, it is not even a planet by the new definition. Science changes. Religion at its worst is reactionary.

Things need not be “better.” However, things do adapt to the specific environment.

In my case, I believe that we humans descend from prokaryotes. We’re talking about billions of years here.

No supporter of science “swallows” anything said by evolutionary biologists. The beauty of science is that good experiments can be retested to yield similar results. If someone is a doubter, all he needs to do is to follow the experimental procedure correctly, and he should arrive at the same conclusion. It is a huge misconception on your part to believe that supporters of science blindly accept facts. They do not.

Evolution is not a religion. It does not require blind faith (there are so many natural and laboratory experiments), although it does require a bit of imagination. As a fact (ie. allele frequency change in a population over time), it is beyond dispute. As a theory, it is debatable. However, there has been NO theory which is more complete. Intelligent design is a joke. It’s not science as there can be no way to test any of its hypotheses.

The theoretical portion of evolution attempts to explain where we came from.

I emphasize that the theory aspect of evolution did not, does not, and will never answer the questions "Why I am here?" and "Where am I going when I die?" Again, it did not, does not, and will never answer those questions, which are a part of metaphysics and not science.

The belief that speciation and macroevolution exist is no dogma as there is much evidence in genetics and the fossil record, to name only a few.

I have given you hypothetical and natural evidences for evolution (ie. change in allele frequencies over time). Perhaps when you ask for a proof of evolution you are asking for a proof of macroevolution. Although you deride Talkorigins as a “religious” website, they do have an article which documents macroevolution better than I can explain.

Alexei

Alexei,

Re: Context of 1 Tim 2; 1 Cor 14; and 2 John

Common thread to all these passages is the existence of false teaching that disrupted worship at the gathering of these congregations.
Canyon points out these statements were made specifically to the locals in these "churches." Canyon also points to "mixed opinions" by interpreters on whether the statements should be taken as generalities.
Though Canyon has decided on the conservative grapes, to me Paul's statements, and clearly John's stated purpose of writing, was to curb disturbances and stop false teaching.

Paul's statements are not meant to be dogamtic generalities, i.e. submissiveness and no teaching from women. Similarly 2 John may be interpreted as being intolerant and teaching intolerance but my thinking says a guy like John was more a proponent of love than that. His statement to me says tolerance goes only so far: do not let false teachers into the house (worship service) to spread lies during the time when you are in community to hear the truth of God's word. It does not mean "in general" be intolerant of other beliefs.

Also, Paul's true belief on women (and all people)follows:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

> (1) Extremists are successful hijackers

Yes because other people allow themselves to be sucked in.

> So what is the "truth" represented by the grapes
> in the Sufi story? My own interpretation is that
> the "truth" represents the individual's
> conclusions about the purpose of life

I think that is a reasonable frame-of-reference.

Sorry my friends on my short comments but I once read... Fear is the destruction of mankind.
Without fear there is no blame without blame there is no conflict. There is no fear in a relationship with the well-known greater once we understand, all we have to do is ask our inner self, of the wonders
life shows, we will in time all know.

To Beachwoman:

I applaud your comments, and I am saddened by your feelings of inadaquacy in terms of any book learning you feel is paraded around. I think like you do that religion is a supremely personal choice, and that it is no one's place but my own to chose my religion for me. Nothing annoys me more than the proselytizing of the Xtians, mainly. This is not to say other factions don't do this as well, but it is in the dogma to "convert" all of God's children. This I think is a bunch of hogwash. Another discussion on this page is about diversity and the strength it provides a cultural system. Without diversity, we would be boring and in the end lose interest in what made us all the same. Differences are what keep us getting stronger. If all of humankind were to come to a consensus to follow one religion, speak one language and elect one leader; I don't believe our species would last for long. It seems to me that what Xtian fundamentalists and religio-fanatics of all stripes are striving for is a modern Orwellian society. That terrifies me to no end. As a species we thrive on change, and on differences. It is these differences that prompts us to evolve into a stronger species.

So, beachwoman; don't allow any self perceived lack of book knowledge diminish the amount of truth you may hold. While others consider their books to be the ultimate truth, I would be willing to bet that most still feel their heart is a better guide.

Bright Blessings

To Canyon Shearer:

There is a "slight" contradiction in your arguments...

"...the truth is, of all of the religions of the world, only one gives it all up to God, the others seek to buy their way into Heaven.

The truth is that you deserve Hell, we all do, me probably more than most. There is NOTHING I can do to save myself, ...

...only after my punishment was paid, can I go free after I have appologized for my sins and promised to do my best to never do them again. ..."

Excuse me, but if you have given it all up to god and there is nothing you can do to save yourself, what good (or even need) is appologizing and promising to be good? Isnt this yet another form of payment (or bribery) for your ticket into your version of heaven? Even the very act of "giving it all up to god" is requires an affirmative step on your part. Seems like just different forms of currency to me.

The hands of fate play our game
We the players are given a name
Some are tame, others gain fame
Yet in the end, we’re all the same
Omar Khayyam

When a person is born in this world, he is a human being first, and then comes religion and then his citizenship to a country. So treat everyone like a human being first. These were the words my father said to me all the time when I was growing up. I grew up never having any kind of a bias or prejudice against any person. May he be a Jew, a Christian, an Atheist, a Shia, Black, Yellow or anything else that I’m not.

I never understood why religion has failed so miserably in its main purpose, which is to bring people together from all walks of life, all religions and all faiths. I don’t believe any religion teaches us to hate others because they have different beliefs and faiths. Rather, every religion preaches one concept, unity in diversity.

The concept underneath it all; people are people, who have families, who have aspirations and who want a peaceful life. I believe every person in this world is entitled to those things. Why should a person be hated for having a difference of opinion? Why must he not voice his opinion if he doesn’t agree with you? You can go ahead and disagree with him all you want but not to the extent that you develop a prejudice against him or hold biases against people of his belief and faith.

People tend to pick out the differences more easily and readily than finding out the commonalities. Why pick at things that divide us when you can EASILY find things that unite us? Every religion, culture, every country and every race is beautiful in its own right and to be ignorant about that and believe that your beliefs and your way of life is the best would be to live in a fool’s paradise. It is as narrow a view point that a fish has that lives in a pond and believes that is the world because it can not see beyond the pond.

People tend to fear change and the unknown. You cannot fear your fellow man for being different. The term ignorance is bliss is not applicable in this world anymore. We need to open our minds and our hearts to people.

We claim we are the most intelligent creatures in this world? I say prove it!

Canyon said:
"What would you do if I told you I believed that when we die our souls are whisked away to Mars where we start our own colony and create things that kind-of look like human features to confuse those on Earth?
It's wrong, isn't it?

But I TRULY believe that.

It's still wrong.

And you, my friend, are wrong."

Canyon, it never ceases to amaze me how far some will go to prove how ludicrous their own positions are. I have no idea if our souls are whisked away to mars to create another civilization. And frankly neither do you. Until someone returns from the dead to give testimony one way or the other, then no one will know. You base all of your faith on a BOOK. Yes, I know it is a good Book. It is the only book that xtians seem to want in their library, for it seems that is the only place to find "proof" for their beliefs. Don't you find it slightly hippocritical? Come on now, you are pushing yourself off on us as someone who believes he is enlightened, when you can't defend your faith with anything but the faith handbook. Why is the Qu'ran any less true than your bible? The Qu'ran is written in the words of Allah.(much more so than the bible is the word of God) So much of your bible is parable and metaphor. And while I believe that the metaphors and parables are good stories, and a strong foundation on which to build our lives, it does not make every word written within its pages right. The bible was not written by your God. It was written by man. And it wasn't even written completely within the lifetime of your saviour Jesus Christ. It was handed down wisdom that was compiled by the Romans. Why do you think that the Roman Catholics wouldn't allow the other books of the Bible included in accepted book? Because they cast Jesus as a man, a good man, but just a man. The books that remain cast him as god on earth. And if he is God on earth, to whom do you pray? Do you address your prayers to Jesus,(as in, "In Jesus' name we pray) or to his father? And if you pray to Jesus, does that make you a sinner for placing another god before the One True God? Answer that one for me.

Canyon wrote:

"[The Bible] is a perfect book, which none of the other religions can claim nor support."

Actually, quite a few can and do, the complications of which seem to be the purpose of the whole discussion. Here's the question in case you missed it in your mad rush to claim your personal monopoly on truth:

"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"

I think you're doing a splendid job in illustrating the difficulties.

Ha ha! Canyon said, "boughten into." What a douche!

Ed,

What would you do if I told you I believed that when we die our souls are whisked away to Mars where we start our own colony and create things that kind-of look like human features to confuse those on Earth?

It's wrong, isn't it?

But I TRULY believe that.

It's still wrong.

And you, my friend, are wrong.

You wouldn't base the end destination of a road-trip on how you feel, why are you basing the end-destination of your worldy life on the same feelings?

Also, I am not blindly fanatical about Christianity, I have studied it in absolute Truth, and it is true even in unpopular areas, it is true in science, it is true in life, it is true in marriage, it is true in the medical profession. It is a perfect book, which none of the other religions can claim nor support.

Alexei, I see your definition and I say that it is true, but it does not equal evolution! It is merely change in a miniscule sense, not anything that looks remotely like what evolutionists believe, no matter how many different things they call it...abiogenisis, macroevolution, evolutionary ladder...

What you are saying is that the things can become better things, then better things, then better things, then better things, then better things, then people.

I took out those middle things, and just said, things can become people. That is false when I say it, it is false when you say it.

I don't care if you say they aren't religious leaders, because their lies are swallowed as gospel by their followers, and that makes them leaders. Jesus Christ said it would be better for a stone to be tied around their necks and they be thrown into the sea than to keep spouting their lies. Yet unfortunately we are not brash enough to do it...

Science is not religion, but evolution is. It requires blind faith, huge imagination, and it answers the three questions:
1. Where did I come from.
2. Why am I here.
3. Where am I going when I die.
It is a religion and it's probably the worst one, your dogma is that things change into radically different things, everything else can be different, but that one thing is pure unadulterated dogma.

Please Post for me one proof of evolution.

Canyon,

Canyon, I thought you recognized how simple the definition of evolution is, but I have made a mistake. “Things changing” (ie. allele frequencies change in a population over time) means EVERYTHING in an evolutionary sense, far, far from nothing.

No evolutionary biologist has ever said that “things change they can suddenly become people.” Find me ONE respected evolutionary biologist who has made such an assertion. You will not find him.

I am unfamiliar with the six types of evolution you have listed. I believe you are the only one who uses such a classification.

Also, I am confused as to which religious leaders you allude to. I myself am not religious. If you are referring to evolutionary biologists, I would like to emphasize that they are scientists, not religious leaders. Their purpose is to uncover the truth, not claim that “A dude did everything.”
Special differences are very important. If two species can’t reproduce, they’re different species. It’s great evidence if only you would remember what evolution is defined as.

It is difficult anatomically, but two dogs can interbreed; they are the same species.
Canyon, I tell you, there are so many facts supporting evolution, but you choose to ignore them.

If nothing is changed from our discussion, I would like to stress that science is not religion. It is not based on dogma. It is based on change.

Alexei

Canyon:

Although it is touching that you would like me to be found, my answer is simply this; I have my spritual GPS, and it is functioning properly. You profess to have read these books, yet you still believe completely in the words of your apostles? I don't understand what it is about the xtian faith that leads them to believe above all others, that they are absolutely infallible. If you, Canyon, was born in Iraq instead of middle America then you would be a Muslim Fundamentalist as opposed to a xtian fundamentalist. Regardless of the religion, fanaticism is bad. Moderation is the key. And is it any wonder that Christianity is the only religion that puts upon its adherents the responsibility of proselytizing the world. It is not that way in Islam, or Judaism, or in my Pagan beliefs. We (the we refers to other religions) feel that it is up to you to find your own path. To be truly close to a belief system, we feel that you need to discover it yourself. We don't need to go out and forcefeed people our truth. We are perfectly happy to live and let live, whereas xtians aren't happy until all of mankind is suffering through our mortal lives to try and secure something after our deaths. You spend your entire life with the guilt of Adam and Eve's original sin, whereas we live our lives, (some more purely than others) commit our wrongs, hopefully help others when possible, and then die. Thankfully, my truth tells me that death is not the end for me; just as my birth wasn't my beginning. Because the soul is eternal, and I will be resurrected like your jesus, in a new body, with a new mission. I just hope that I am not punished in the next life and am forced to live another life as a xtian, devoted to an amalgamated god.

The common language Mr Ahmed speaks of is truth, something all religions have lost sight of.

Religions were only ever a prism through which truth could be revealed and observed but they have become self-important truths or dogmas to their followers, giving rise to division and intolerance. It's a function of the human ego, which religions were meant to hold in check. If you read between the lines of every religion, you see that its original purpose was to unite people (not by killing non-believers, leaving only followers who then kill each other because of more intricate differences).

How come they have created such divisions, then? The truth is, they were never meant to be taken so literally - or seriously. People should either understand that, or give up religion altogether, because they are intellectually incapable of seeing their true purpose. Or perhaps, too arrogant and egotistical to allow non-followers equal bragging rights in the marketplace of morality or ideas.

Religion is not the only truth; truth is the only religion.

to Tree House:

"It is interesting -- and a bit sad -- that a forum designed to open minds has engendered such hostility from a couple of viewpoints."

While that certainly is true, it is almost ridiculous for you to seem surprised by this fact. In almost all worthwhile "discussions", there is almost always a majority who believe they have the one and only answer, while a minority of intellectual minds will actually take the time to read all of the posts and THINK about what they have read.

As I stated in a previous post, I feel it is good for one to have faith although I don't believe in the sanctity of BLIND faith. Because according to one poster in particular, if the Bible said that the only way to truth would be to swim to the bottom of the ocean and stay there, then we would have one less poster in this forum. It is this blind faith, and undying devotion that leads to the misunderstandings amongst all faiths. Why do you think it is that undereducated people are the most likely to become so entangled in religious fanaticism?? With that thought, I will leave you with your thoughts.

Carol,
Much like you I am getting to the age where I suppose I should think about the hereafter. The older I have become the less I seem to worry about what/will happen on that day I finally close my eyes for the last time.

I have always had a problem with organized religion (since my early 20's)because I feel it is for the most part about money. All churches NEED money. I am always suspicious of people paying for their beliefs.

I wonder if common sense is my religion. If it makes sense to me which some of the religions other than the norm seem to do I have an easier time understanding their existence.

I must say I feel somewhat out of place on this page because as I see the majority of people seem very well educated and well spoken about their beliefs. I am what may be described as one the regular people here that speaks out of feelings more than schooled knowledge.

This afterall is supposed to be a blog for ones beliefs and feelings as well as education. So here I am to represent the people that may well be intimidated by others that will write paragraphs quoting their bible or books they have read on the subject of "their" religion.

Personally I thought maybe my interest in this page was to learn more of what people believe in instead of people preaching their beliefs to me. I think that what we choose to believe is a very personal thing and if it works for us that is all that is important. I am not here to try and make you believe as I do as it would probably not work for you.

So speak to me of what your belief has brought "YOU" and not what it will bring "ME".

Ed,

So you're saying what Islam says, "Don't ask Questions, for those before you asked questions and lost their faith." I don't have my Koran in front of me, but if you are interested in the Surah I can post it later.

The fact is that it is imperative to ask questions on these matters. If I were told that there were no Hell and that I wouldn't be punished for lying, stealing, hatred, or lust, then I would have the choice to believe the fallible person that told me, or I could seek out the truth and find out that, hey, we're all guilty before Holy God.

That is what I've done, at present I have read the Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Tao Te Ching, the iChing, The Origin of Species, Biology 101, and the Bible. Each of these copies is well filled with notes; the Koran was the last I read and it was my goal to write one note on each page, a feat which I surprised to be able to complete easily.

For that reason, I often feel the need to tell the lost that they are lost and should do their best to be found. Wandering around lost is no way to live.

To Canyon:

Although it is commendable for one to have faith, it is unfortunate when that faith is not only blind, but also deaf, and incapable of conversation. While you and the rest of the Christian Fundamentalists have your bullhorns set to full volume, you drown out not only people with valid arguments,(which I believe makes life more interesting) but also your supporters (which I am happy to see the numbers declining). Have you given any thought to the fact that the numbers of your faith are withdrawing? Is it any wonder that Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet? It is a religion based on submission to your one true God, but also on the commitment to raise up your fellow man. Regardless of his religion. It is not my place to judge, or to determine who is worthy of help. I, myself am not a Muslim, though I do enjoy studying the beliefs.

I believe that if you would just put down the bullhorn for a minute or two, let others have their say, then actually open your mind to "possibilities" then I think that any rational mind would come to the conclusion that your God, his Allah, and her Yahweh, are all grapes. They just have different names.

Alexei,

Those verses on women are directed to the churches in which they were written; however, Paul didn't write 34-35, He was quoting the men of the church. Verse 36, if you'd read on, says to sum it up, "Where did you get that? Did God only speak to men? What right have you to exclude women!" The 2 John verse is exactly what I'm doing here, it is not right for me to tell you, "Whatever you believe, that's fine." It's my job to fix your world-view so it alligns closer to the truth, that hopefully you will be Saved by the Grace of God.

There are mixed opinions on both the letter to the Corinthians and to Timothy, many feel it is good for women to be submissive to man, after all, look at the terrible condition of families where women have tried to work. I am conservative in this matter, I have seen the results of women staying home with the children and when they work, and it really seems like God had something there when He recommended women to be submissive. Not that women aren't equal mentally, physically they just seem more suited for work in the home, where-as men are more suited for lifting heavy objects. You cannot dispute that. Because the Bible doesn't agree with you doesn't make it wrong.

As for evolution, you have once again showed how washed your brain is. Because things change doesn't mean anything in the evolutionary sense, you think because things change they can suddenly become people.

There are 6 types of Evolution:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
6. Minor Speciation

Of these, only #6 actually occurs. Do not suppose because #6 happens that any of the others do, that is the biggest brain-washing technique of your religious leaders.

Because Species are changing into similar, yet different species doesn't prove evolution. For example, the Chihuaha and the Great Dane had similar ancestors, which, to say, was a DOG, and though continuing speciation they will continue to create dogs. Never will those dogs become cats, monkeys, or people, they will ALWAYS be a breed of Dog.

FWIW, I see why you have been confused by evolution, with the vast number of lies and mistruths that have been made up about it, it would be easy to fall for it, I fell for it for 23 years, as soon as you start actively searching the truth, believe me, the truth is more than evident. If there were a single fact supporting evolution, then perhaps I'd still be a believer.

Just to clarify, there are ZERO facts for Evolution, if there were, they would have been posted already. Talkorigins is a hyperreligious website and I don't go there. If they have ever come up with a fact, I'm sure you'll see fit to post it here, but I'm not holding my breath.

Canyon,

Would you place the following verses in proper context?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
2 John 1:10

It is good that you recognize that allele frequencies in a population can change over time. Since you believe that, you also believe in evolution as fact.

A mere mistake in meiosis can create a new species. If a plant reproduces and the resultant "new" plant has extra sets of chromosomes (e.g. 4n instead of 2n), then it is likely that this "new" plant will not be able to reproduce with its parent plant. Speciation has occurred.

If a population becomes separated geographically, and these two populations adapt to their environments over an extended period of time, it is possible that if the two populations were to reunite, they would not be able to reproduce with each other. Speciation has occurred.

I don't think I've been brainwashed so much as I've come to accept that common descent is more plausible than "One dude did everything."

There exists a wealth of facts supporting evolution amongst species. You can find them in any college-level Survey of Biology textbook. You can find plenty of evidence at talkorigins.org

Alexei

I like the wine story. I hadn't heard it before.

As much as I would like to argue with Canyon about his interpretation of religion and the Bible, I will refrain since he has his truth and to him it is THE truth. So congratulations to you, Canyon, now go away.

As to the rest, I like the wine story because it does speak to the oftentimes fundamental similarities that exist across religions. Each religion shows "the" way to some fundamental truth. I contend that God has revealed himself in many different ways and each way is, once stripped of all of man devisive rhetoric, just a different path to some universal truth that defies the understanding of humanity.

Or could it also mean that they can have the same answers to many (if not all) of these same questions, yet based upon their personal belief systems?

It IS a possibility after all, which is why we just might want to relate to each other as equals, in solving our common problems, for the good of all.

Fern, you made an excellent observation when you wrote that "The use of the word 'wine' therefore is a message about looking beyond superficial and literalist interpretations." That sounds like something Joseph Campbell might have written.

So what is the "truth" represented by the grapes in the Sufi story? My own interpretation is that the "truth" represents the individual's conclusions about the purpose of life, as well as the individual's way of dealing with the certainty of death and suffering. All humans must confront these during the course of their lives. In the story, the travelers might represent religions with different answers to the same questions.

It could have been an interesting debate, but, as usual, a few 'know-alls's set out to release their diatribes. Canyon, start to think for yourself (with your God-given brain) rather than blindly accepting the nonsense you have been fed.

Carol is to be admired for facing up to reality. It would be so easy, as we age, to seek and find refuge in the mumbo-jumbo of one religion or another. Valium for the masses. Having watched so-called Christians kill each other in the name of their own sect, in Ireland, and having seen two Christian nations (?), the USA and UK, invade another country on the basis of lies (supposedly to provide their citizens with security!), it is easy to see that religion is being used by wicked men to attain their own visions of power. Bush and Blair, far from being truly Christian, are vainglorious seekers of power. Anyone who fails to question what their leaders do, in their name, is guilty by association. Both of these men should be tried for war crimes.
But let us get on with living, and let us reach out to those who will dialogue with us, Muslim, Buddist, hindu, non-believer and Christian alike. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but not entitled to force it down other peoples' throats.

On the other hand, "Religious Faith" is a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Unfortunately, what follows from it is most often perverted into something quite different from enlightened-debate, rather, unenlightened divisions between peoples, and as we have seen throughout our common histories, Wars.

Mr. Neo, People have a desperately wicked side mostly, and the good side is unable to offset that.

I have not read the Golden Bough, but I remind you, and this you know, "It is better to trust in God, than to put confidence in men."

Mr. Shearer:

Your ignorance and smugness is appalling. People are have a good side and a dark side. Christianity is an amalgamation of many pagan religions and the Bible HAS been re-written. Read the Golden Bough. And if you say that that it is just a book written by a man , so is the Bible as well as the Good Books of every Religion. Wake up from the dream that you are living. You are no different than a child that believes in Santa.

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

Alexei,

I have previously visited the website you posted. It is an excercise in absurdity. Unfortunately there is no where for me to set the facts straight on that website. Almost all of the supposed contradictions are taken out of context, the others are just straight lies. If you'd like to pick a few of your favorites and post them here, I will set the record straight for you.

I am not aware of the example you gave, but you failed to realize that change does happen, that is true, but the frequency is not becoming a new species. It will never bee a cat, a dog, or a human, it will always be an allele. You have boughten into change-over-time, which happens, but it doesn't change-species-over-time.

What has happened to you with you hearing change-over-time is nearly the exact definition of brain-washing.

For the record, I grew up in a public school and was taught the pseudoscience of evolution. Once in 7th grade I realized that a scientist who was speaking at our school was telling out-right lies and had no idea on the origins of the universe, then at 18 I heard completely contradictory ideas on the formation of the Grand Canyon, and finally at 23 I realized that hey, there are ZERO facts to back up evolution amongst species, I'd better read some other books to find out the truth. Fortunately one of those books was the Bible, and another was "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" by Ray Comfort. If you are comfortable enough to e-mail me your address, I will send you a free copy.

With all love,
Canyon
noworries88@gmail.com

Read over the previous posts and count the number of statements containing the phrases "the fact is" and "the truth is". Read each of those specific statements and determine for yourself whether the statement is, indeed, "fact" or "truth." In most, if not all instances, the words "some" or "most" should have appeared somewhere in the sentence.

Canyon,

First off, the Bible is loaded with errors and contradictions. Please pay a visit to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). The author of the web site has organized all the absurdities (and the good stuff) in the KJV.

Second off, zero facts to back up evolution? The only thing I can say is that you were either taught creationism or you simply choose to ignore the plethora of evidence that demonstrates that allele frequencies do, in fact, change over time in a population.

That’s all evolution is. Shockingly, neo-creationists (ie. Intelligent design advocates) contest even that.

If you believe that an omnipotent being controls us all, I can respect that. However, if you doubt that allele frequencies change over time in a population, I cannot respect that. It is tantamount to saying that 2+2 = 5.

Alexei

To me the truth is: We live, we die and the Universe does not give a damn about any of us. Religion is a comfort that protects us from the truth. This does not mean we should act like the murderous animals that we are. Not at all. If anything, inside each religion is the same theme but we just don't want to see it because we are too weak to accept that truth so we rely on the fiction of a personal God to address our fear. That truth is: we (each one of us) have one life and we should make the best of it and accept the responsibility of loving ourselves, each other and the earth. God won't do that for us, we must do it ourselves.

My apologies for being so late in replying.

Rick, in response to what Buddhism believes. Buddhism is a coloring book religion, in that you get to make up whatever you want. It is the classic "Thou Shalt Not Worship Anything Before God" religion. Organized Buddhism believes that you get as many chances as you want to become enlightened, the leaders of that religion would never admit it, but it's easy to see from the outside, that the enlightenment is man's effort to become God.

Your close-mindedness on the Bible is appalling. If you actually had any interest to know the truth, you would read the passages you are claiming instead of pulling them off some random website; in which case, taken in context, there are no mistakes or contradictions in the Bible.

Admittedly, I know very little of anything. If Isaac Newton knew 1 percent of 1 percent of anything, then I know 1 percent of 1 percent of that. I have studied diligently in order to be able to be worthy of the title, "Expert in Evolution" and to know as much of the Bible as I possibly can. However, there are many things, which no one will ever know, but I do know, with certainty, what happens after death. You have created a religion of unknowing so that you can maintain your own beliefs without the fear or grace of God, and that will Damn you on the day of your Judgment.

Joe, even if you don't believe you are an evolutionist, you have put your faith in that particular religion, which makes it so as I can call you an evolutionist. If you are not an atheist, my apologies, for most who believe in evolution are.

I have it on good authority that the oil and coal underfoot is a result of a global flood, and that global flood was 4400 years ago, or 2400 bc.

You are welcome to continue believing in your religion, but please know that there are ZERO facts to back up Evolution, and if you'll honestly look for one, you'll find that to be true. Don't take your scientists presupposed ascertations as truth. Especially the super-religious things you said about the oceans of Antarctica. Just because man is stupid and hasn't found all of the species on the earth, doesn't mean that those newfound species are anything new.

Your presupposition of the editing of the Bible is ridiculous; open your mind. The Bible is a measurable representation of the Word of God, it is inerrant (people like you cannot find errors in it) and infallible (you cannot make it say something else or find something new that will disprove it). It has stood this test of time for over 1800 years and it will stand until the Rapture.

Please do not base your religion on man, read your Bible, and if you still think its wrong, then hey, more power to you.

It would be a shame for you to be damned to eternal torment because you trusted in a super-fallible human.

Don Freed, I only think on my own. I examine all information as it comes in; it strengthens my faith in the Bible as being absolute Truth. If you'd examine things and think for yourself, you would be fortunate to come to the same conclusion.

Finally, to get back on track, the core discussion in this thread is whether all religions are basically the same, like Grapes.

All religions, save one, believe that man is fundamentally good.

Christianity believes man is fundamentally bad.

Which do you believe? Are you a good person? If you said yes, please reexamine your life.

The discussion proves two points. (1) Extremists are successful hijackers - Canyon hijacked the discussion and rallied other extremists around him, just like Osama hijacked Islam for political gains and rallied other extremists around him. (2) This discussion proves the point of Salman's story - sticking to the literal will prevent you from understanding the underlying meaning of words.

Secondly, the story does apply to religion. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Parsis, and other religions I can't think of right now, all focus on salvation - whether through Mohammad, Moses, Ram, Buddha, or Jesus. So the means may be different, but the goal is the same, i.e. strive to be good, and if you think you are good, try to be better!

Finally, someone should moderate this discussion so that for people who seriously want to integrate their viewpoint with those of a different perspective can actually read the comments without cursing the monkey who evolved into Canyon, Osama, and their likes!!

Randa,

Where are you? Let's meet for drinks. :)

Greetings from Russia!

Yes, wonderful read. Lets eradicate man made boundaries and come close and understand each other while keeping alive the passion to unfold the mysteries of this universe and seek information!

loco-moco
knco-noco
woco:

"Spiritual seekers, of all paths, should treat themselves to the works of Rumi at least -- a delight for both the mind and the spirit."

owco-loco
loco-moco
pooco-mooco
boco-shmowco
loco-moco!

Rather than respond to others here are my own feelings about religion, and why I am a Scientific Pantheist:

What we refer to as religion was primitive (and despite that often amazingly advanced, unsurprising as humans were living closer to the Earth than most do now) attempts at explaining what we refer to as Nature and Gravity. And compared to what we now know I do mean, and it still is, PRIMITIVE.

Those among us who actually excersize our free will cannot help but see the most of the world falling into two camps: those who remain religious, often for purely social, societal or familial reasons, and the rest of us who prefer to use ALL the knowledge currently available.

Sorry, but if you are a fundamentalist of any type you for sure are ignoring an enormous amount of data that points away from you in EVERY way.

That said, the Pantheist chooses to glean the good of primitive technology and combine it with modern scientific technology -- Precisely why I often meditate or do Yoga before busting out my radio telescope to scan the heavens ...

"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"

This was the original question that is addressed by the panel. I guess Canyon's original post and all his subsequent posts have sufficiently answered that question.

Sufi is one of the most interesting expressions of the Muslim faith, and its wisdom is imparted most artfully in the tales and writings of the Sufi masters. Spiritual seekers, of all paths, should treat themselves to the works of Rumi at least -- a delight for both the mind and the spirit.

> "Wine is a commonly used metaphor for truth and
> knowledge in Muslim Sufi poetry and folklore."

The use of the word 'wine' is interesting. Since alcoholic beverages are forbidden to Muslims, a Sufi saying that he was drunk on "wine" would immediately stir up the fanatic. The use of the word 'wine' therefore is a message about looking beyond superficial and literalist interpretations. It is also descriptive as the intoxication of the nearness to God is ineffable and thus metaphors such as the wine metaphor are helpful in approaching putting words to the experience.

It is interesting -- and a bit sad -- that a forum designed to open minds has engendered such hostility from a couple of viewpoints.

For those who seek "proof" of a God or the validity of religious belief, the evidence can only be felt in your heart. I, and many whom I know and have been close to, have felt that presence and believe the evidence that we feel. I cannot deny it or ignore it, although it would often be more convenient if I could.

That is a starting point. Lets explore.

> "Wine is a commonly used metaphor for truth and
> knowledge in Muslim Sufi poetry and folklore."
>
> If the above is to be taken seriously, I'm wondering why
> this idiot is given any space here? Is this supposed to be meaningful?
> The guy looks like a dead afghan warlord.

Why shouldn't he be given space? They're giving YOU space, after all. And judging by the tenor of your post, one suspects samogon is your preferred "metaphor".

This way-too-prevalent willful ignorance, I guess, is what Issa had in mind when he warned us about trying to put new wine into old wineskins.

I was honored to see Salman here, I am a long time fan of this personality and musical force; and its heartening to see Salman Ahmad make an impact at an international level. He is an ideal rolemodel for revitalizing and healing the wounds and scars in this world and wanted to urge him to continue his struggle and hardwork to bridge barriers.

Canyon:
Where did you get your pure rote memory information? Your parents? Pastor? Sunday School teacher? Bible?
Your are brain-washed and don't know about it.
Try to think on your own now. It's about time.
So sad that you are in the box and don't know you are in it and don't even want to imagine what kind of box you are in.

TJ- People don't realize that's not my ethnicity not because I choose or don't choose it. Genetics chose it. My point is being racist based on appearances or titles for that matter. Instead we need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. We can't classify or stereotype a race or group based on the foolishness of others. I think there are fools in office (some not anymore) that have made us look horrible in the world society. Is that a correct view representative of all of us as individuals?

By the way, as for my drinking or going to bars. I do so at my own choosing and risk. I do so knowing it's a sin. I'm not proud of it but it's my own choosing. My mom wishes I wouldn't but she knows she can't force me. That's between me and God. That's what all our great religions have said. He has given us free will. He gave us guidelines to live our lives. When the day of judgement comes I shall face God, me alone.

I appreciate the open honest respectful dialogue.

Real - attend a course on Ethics in Science before you get too holy with your views. The corruption in science is real and impacts peoples lives. Blind Faith can exist in science as well as religion and that's the problem.

As you were so kind to tell me what you think of me, let me reciprocate. You are as dull and thoughtless as fundamentalists who can't believe anything other than what their priest told them. The only difference is your priest is the guy on the Science channnel. If you bought a mirror and examined your belief structure, you'd see your religion is Science and you've got a bad case of infatuation. Grow up and get over it.

Regarding taking issue with quoting from the bible in response to a comment another person made, it seems that I at least tried to leave them something to think about, something you appear to be totally incapable of. Did you even read it? Sorry I forgot, you don't own a bible because you are your own god. How convienient.

Out of curiosity - Have you read Stephen J. Gould and his observations on evolution? Have you read Stephen Hawkings and his thoughts on time and space? Do you own a science book or are you just a poser? Have you read any history of christianity, the jews or muslims, or does your knowledge spontaneously combust inside your little head a few seconds after you open your mouth? What makes you the expert?

Here's a clue for you -
You are not the center of the universe,
Your ideas are not original,
You are boring.

One of the problems with forums like this is people who think they are capable of independent thought prove they clearly are not.

in repsone to Randa Salem:
"I don't look Middle Eastern so most people don't realize that's my ethnicity. I also go out to the bars with my friends and live a "typical American" life."
---

People like You, are the KEY ingredient in resolving the future! Thanks so much, for being frank & honest... ;)

I really liked the story, some of the similarities in the teachings of the worlds religons has always pulled me towards a common creator. My Christian background has issues with it, but Jesus teachings always seem to point to it.
Wow, some of the post here suggest that a forum for dialouge has come none to soon. I hope this doesnt become a place for people to attack each other. If so I think we should leave God out of the conversation.

IN REPLY TO THIS:
"A really laughable article with no end result what so ever. A Muslim living in the US feels that he is better than a Pakistani. It is your mindless attitude and this same attitude has made things worse for others."
---

I doubt your sentiments above hold any truths.
As you obviously don't know what that actually means... do You? So I personally invite you to come to my home. Afterwards, if we can not resolve or find any mutual common ground between us, then I suggest... we BLOW one another up as a result of what neither knew to begin with. :)

Makes perfect sense to me & my family, are You in?

"Wine is a commonly used metaphor for truth and knowledge in Muslim Sufi poetry and folklore."

If the above is to be taken seriously, I'm wondering why this idiot is given any space here? Is this supposed to be meaningful?

The guy looks like a dead afghan warlord.

Is this Johnny Depp acting up again? Come on John, come clean.

your pal,

Bob

I would relate to Soulman's analogy. At the peak of tension between India and Pakistan, his music and views gained an immense following in neighbouring India, despite all the hostilities, even his own Government did not want him to go and talk about peace. It is not easy to goto an enemy country and dominate the media and attention. It just demonstrates that if we talk about bringing religions closer (or even countries), we can certainly use music (as Salman has done in the past), or art as a tool to do so.

Just ignore some of the stupid comments on this panel, someone should moderate this place for silly posting. Carry on with the debate, I have seen some excellent notions being discussed here, dont one or two morons ruin the debate.

> Mr. Ahmad, that's a touching analogy, but I'm
> afraid it just doesn't apply to religion because the world's religions really do say different
> things.

On the surface, that is true, as different books have different covers. A small book, "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" by Jeffrey Moses shows how the central themes are the same. There are quotes on the Golden Rule, speak truth, more blessed to give than receive, conquer with love, value of deeds, examine the self, judge not, spirit not letter, be wholehearted, God is Love and other topics, the same message is repeated in different words.

One is notable: letter not spirit. The Bible says "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life". A Sufi saying is "Let not scholars scrutinize the language of the wise too closely; the seers think more of the thought than of the words in which 'tis caught."

There is a Hadith of Mohammad which says the same thing. "The respected Prophet (S.A.) said: "The Qur'an has a beautiful outer meaning and a profound inner meaning." (Usul al-Kafi, vol. 2, p.599). He also said: "The Qur'an has profundity, and the profundity of that is deep too, up to seven inner meanings." (Tafsir Safi, vol.1, p. 39)."
http://www.hadith.net/english/prophet/succession.htm

By the way, I recently attended an event at my Catholic friend's church. It was put on by a group called the Children of Abraham. It included Muslims, Christians and Jews. It was a way for us to speak about challenges that we have and ways to bridge the gaps. Something was said at the end of it that has stuck with me: You don't have to be wrong for me to be right.

Let's just have mutual repect for one another so that we can have peace. I'm always curious about Christianity so I ask my friends. They're curious about my religion and we talk with CIVILITY. Sometimes we agree to disagree but that's OK.

**Here's a moderate Muslim speaking out everyone**

Hey Ali. How about showing some maturity? I wish people would stop with the disrespectful and ineffective personal attacks. That's what's devided us and made people fearful. As a Muslim Lebanese-American born and raised in the US it pains me to hear the rhetoric from the media and my government to use such polarizing language.

I'm a moderate who does not veil but does believe strongly in its values as a way to conduct my life without imposing it on others. My best friends are devout Catholics and we engage in converations about the similarities and differences between our religions.

I don't look Middle Eastern so most people don't realize that's my ethnicity. I also go out to the bars with my friends and live a "typical American" life. Last month during our holy month of Ramadan on different occasions I had coworkers who realized I was fasting but hadn't known I was a Lebanese Muslim. Immediately I had one guy come up to me and say "well why do you guys think you need to impose you're religion on everyone else?" And he went on about how we're all extremists trying to force everyone to convert. People shouldn't be presumptuous in their questioning. (By the way our religion does not say that. In fact it stresses that you teach a person once, only if asked, and leave them to themselves to make a decision. Only God can know what's in one's heart).

The funny thing is I've worked with these people for years and they hadn't had a clue I about my religion or ethnicity because I never talked about it. I'm not ashamed or afraid but there's never been any need or opportunity. These couple of ignorant guys are all of a sudden trying to say that I'm an extremist yet they hadn't had an iota of a clue that I was Muslim. That's pure stupidity and fear. That's what we need to change. Is being able to have an open dialogue with the REAL people such as myself who aren't using religion to futher political agendas.

Hey Salman, go back to wher u came frm, we dont need ur *ing grape story. easy to sit in the comfort of ur home and talk abt peace, tolerance. get a life man. find a vocalist , make some music. u r damn good at it.

Where's the evidencial proof of your god?
On another, can anyone tell me of one real tangible thing that mankind has got from all of this superstitious nonsense that we could NOT have without it?

Mr. Ahmad, that's a touching analogy, but I'm afraid it just doesn't apply to religion because the world's religions really do say different things. Christianity, for example, is centered around belief in Jesus as the path to salvation, and any religion that teaches otherwise must be, to the Christian, damning its followers to hell. (That is, if the Christian really believes what the Bible says.)

The many-words-for-grapes analogy works perfectly, though, for science, in which any talk of "Jewish physics" or "Portuguese astronomy" is perfectly ludicrous. The different languages in this case really do all point to the same thing. The world's religions contradict eachother in their core beliefs, so unfortunately the "grapes" analogy does not apply to them.

Mike wrote, "Apparently, the only truth is that understanding and tolerance does not come easily when everyone “thinks” their religion is the only “real” one."

True, but not every one on this planet thinks or claims that "theirs" is the only real one. That fact is always brushed aside due to the arrogance of monotheists who think they are the only inhabitants on this planet.

Nearly two billions (Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jains etc) do not believe in foolishness such as that theirs is the only real one! They are tolerant of other faiths. For ages, they have allowed the Christian and Muslim proselytizers to make inroads into their respective native populations.

It is only in recent years that some non-Abrahamic communities in India, Thailand, Philippines, China and Japan are raising their voices (thro laws and protests)against organized large scale conversion campaigns bankrolled for the Christians by western churches and their governments such as ours (faith-based initiatives) and for Muslims by the Middle Eastern Islamic countries and Jehadists.

The arrogance of the monotheists wont even tolerate a discussion of the healthy values of eastern faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism et al. But they are quick to point out the "evils" of Hindu casteism and the "inaneness" of Buddhism etc. They never look at the pillars in their own eyes while mocking at the motes in the eyes of others!

World peace cannot be preserved without a universal condemnation of proselytism of every kind and the exclusion of theocracies from the UN until they become secular. The UN Declaration of Human Rights ought to guarantee protections from the marketing campaigns of religious proselytizers, even if they are packaged with the veneer of social services.

Theocracies should have no place in this new Millennium. They are archaic. Religious pluralism must become the credo for the planet if we are to survive as custodians of world peace.

I enjoyed reading Salmon's post, and I loved reading the misguided dialogue that it produced. Throughout all of the comments, the lesson behind Salmon's story became clear. Apparently, the only truth is that understanding and tolerance does not come easily when everyone “thinks” their religion is the only “real” one.

I was raised in a Catholic family, went to religion classes and church once a week, and was indoctrinated with all of the Christian morals and stories. I found it all very boring. I realized that a “story” with various authors was a perfect way to describe my faith. Religion provides hope and comfort in times of sorrow, and ways to be a good person. We like to think of our departed loved ones going off into a better life, or a better place, and I think humans need that. We like to think that when we die, we will not be alone. The key word here is “think,” because religions are just theories, not facts.

I then went on to college and learned about other religions and belief systems, and found them fascinating. (In fact, I now enjoy teaching about them to young minds in my high school freshman Global Studies classes.) Different groups of people in different parts of the world develop different answers to the same questions.

“How did we get here?” This a question that no one can answer with any truth. As we are finding in archaeological evidence, mankind has been around a lot longer than the invention of written language. There are no “primary sources” that tell us the answer. And so, every culture develops their own creation story, and as a previous comment pointed out, they can be quite unbelievable. So the argument here is, “Who’s answer is more believable?” We all know how Canyon would answer that, since he has already proven his close-mindedness. (Oh darn, it looks like I’m going to hell and a life of eternal damnation because of my heretic thinking.) Which leads to the next question:

“Where do we go from here?” The fact of the matter is, nobody can be sure of the answer to this question. Yet, various religions claim very different certainties. All of the answers come from people who have never been there, and in my mind, that makes all of the answers merely guesses. Actually, they would be educated guesses, thus hypotheses. The only truth here is that nobody knows, and nobody can be right.

“How does one lead a good life?” This question provides one of the only good things, in my mind, that can come from religion. It also provides the common similarity of all faiths: each belief system instructs followers to be a good person. Every teacher, from Confucius to Buddha to Laozi to Jesus to Muhammad, all teach similar lessons. Confucius was teaching “The Golden Rule” to rulers and students in China more than 500 years before Christ walked the Earth claiming divine messages!

These very influential people had incredible ideas, and at the same time that they were different, they were also very similar. How difficult is it to respect all of these teachings? And how is one to say that one is right and the other is wrong?

An example of a religious problem is Muslim extremists, who use terror tactics in order to punish the Western colonial powers, so they can then kick them out of their backyards and then institute sharia law. One can also find evidence in Christian fundamentalists who shoot doctors that perform abortions (simultaneously ending a possible abomination and breaking one of the Commandments). People that stray from the original message of each faith are the problem. Men and women that highjack a decent message to further their own pursuits are the ones that stand in the way of real conversation and tolerance. Look no further into the past than the Christian Crusades, where Pope Urban II used the pretext of a holy war to further his economic gains and riches (Holy land came with a lot of perks in a time when land holdings determined wealth, which the Catholic Church had a lot of!)

We only have to look at Canyon, who is so sure that his position is the right one, even as he strays from his savior’s teachings to love thy neighbor, and thy enemy. (By the way, I love it when people claim that the Bible is the word of the lord, while just like many sacred texts, they were written down well after the supposed incident happened. The Bible was compiled by taking all of the written accounts of Jesus’ life and mixing them into one source, with many accounts excluded. It was done by order of the Roman emperor Constantine, just so Christian priests would stop arguing over which “truths” to teach. He did it to unify the early Christian church so his empire would be more stabile. It is pretty funny that the Koran has an entire section dedicated to the Virgin Mary, while the Christian Bible only mentions her a few instances. Evidence that the Catholic Church has always tried to put women down.)

Like Khurram said earlier, no matter what faith you are, we all bleed red. So at what point can we say, “Is this all worth it?” Just respect each other, no matter what name one uses for grapes. It’s pretty simple.

Islam promotes dialogue and discussion, not just non-religious topics, but also ones pertaining to Islam itself. For instance, if the view of Islam is not clear on some aspects of life, but they promote a consensus of opinion to resolve the issue. Similarly, it promotes dialogues through which its followers can interact and live a better life with others, including those outside the sphere of the religion.

If we all draw from the same well for our sustenenance,why then do we argue so much over who the well belongs to? I would argue that the major religions of late have allowed the arguments over ownership to overwhelm the truth of the common good we would like to draw from that well.

Is it just me, or does it seem that there is already a leaning toward leaving out the opinions of non-western religions because "westerners" want to debate instead of converse?

It grieves me to say that the arogance of many in the US might be the reason we cannot set aside our beliefs and find "common ground".

Maybe we don't really want to.

linda marie

Salman's an extremely gifted musician (finest from South Asia), a person who has been very instrumental in building bridges between people with opposing views, lifestyles, languages, cultures etc, and his thought on the whole thing is truly valuable indeed.

Re: Grapes, dogma, truth and fables.

I am an agnostic Christian. I am also an agnostic scientist.

I believe that we function as humans in two realities: an outer reality and an inner reality.

The outer reality is ‘objective’ while the inner reality is ‘subjective’. In the outer reality I am the agnostic scientist and in the inner reality the agnostic Christian.

Examples of outer reality are physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, astronomy, pain, reason, linear time, gravity, scientific writings etc.

Examples of inner reality are suffering, intuition, eternal time, love, art, poetry, literature (which inclues religious writings), music.

From the human symbol making ability we developed language. With language and symbols we began to think about the outer and inner realities. We developed ‘models’ to describe the outer reality and ‘myths’ to describe the inner reality.

An example of a model in the outer reality is the symbol we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle’s circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model’s utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons ‘do’. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a ‘hydrogen atom’ manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom ‘is’.

Models are descriptions of the way things might be, but never are.

Myths refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. In the inner reality we create myths. An example of a myth is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call ‘wolf’ to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called ‘wolf’, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried ‘wolf’ but the villagers didn’t come. Why? They no longer had ‘trust’ in what he said. We don’t know the historical ‘truth’ of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how ‘trust’ can be lost by acting dishonestly.

Myths are descriptions of the way things never were, but always are.

Models and myths have both real and imaginary components. In mathematics, real and imaginary numbers are essential for describing outer world reality using models. Imaginary numbers have essential applications in areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics. Without imaginary numbers modern science would be paralyzed. Likewise real and imaginary situations and persons are essential for describing inner world reality using myths. In common usage the word "myth" may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), yet "myth" does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions.

In the inner reality we have free will and in the outer reality we do not. In the outer reality the only option is to state “I accept” - what is, ‘is’. In the inner reality, however, we have the option “I choose”.

For example, in the outer world we experience the sun’s heat on our face or hear the wind rustling the trees or suffer the consequences of an earthquake - we have no control over these observations – we can simply experience them through our perception. The physical experience regardless of how painful or how joyous can only be ‘accepted’.

In the inner world we might experience anger at something or someone. In this case we are not trapped with the single option of ‘acceptance’ for we can ‘choose’ to let the anger go. Pain, an outer reality, is not what makes us suffer. It is how we choose to deal with pain in the inner world that causes us to suffer.

As an agnostic Scientist can I rationalize the possible existence of God?

I would set up the following ‘model’:

Human beings are entities with about 80 thousands genes which gives them a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment (inner and outer). Humans are both spiritual and material, i.e. there is a mind and a body. Bacteria have fewer genes than humans, viruses even less, and prions (which cause mad cow disease) have even less if any. As we approach zero for the number of genes that an entity possesses one approaches the idea of ‘non’ life. For example, is a virus ‘living’, is it ‘spiritual’ or is it simply a material ‘thing’? At zero genes one might argue that one has entered the non -spiritual, completely material world and one can postulate from this particular model that such a world does indeed exist. Thus as a scientist I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of a material world.

At the other end of the gene spectrum I remain agnostic as to whether there exists an entity with an infinite number of genes. If there is such a ‘being’ then ‘it’ may be completely spiritual and non material and it may have a greater intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over my environment than I have – in other words it is a ‘Supreme Being’. Thus as an agnostic Christian and an agnostic scientist I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of a Supreme Spirit.

What I am opining is that we must be agnostic about our models and our myths. In the case of the model, the 'thing' that is being modeled might 'be' that way but usually we find in the outer reality – in the world of science - that further information will come along and the model will be dropped in favor of a new one i.e. the model might be that way but it usually never is.

Once we arrive in a state of complete knowledge about an outer or inner reality then we no longer have the need for a model or a myth we have arrived at truth i.e. something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.

A really laughable article with no end result what so ever. A Muslim living in the US feels that he is better than a Pakistani. It is your mindless attitude and this same attitude has made things worse for others.

Salman abusing Aamir Zaki just because Zaki is better than him is not Zaki’s fault :)

Salman should see himself in the mirror first before coming up with such articles.

Bye

I wish it was a semantic problem too. For what I know (and it´s not too much), it is a complete diferent point of view on how we live in the world. The example that comes to my mind are the suicidal bombers, or those who give their lives (as it was an heroic action!) in pro of their cause killing civilians, and of course themselves. I´m sorry for bringing this issue at the table, but, for me it´s clear that we have more than a semantic problem here. Is there any pararel of this suicidal mindset in hindues for example? why or why not?.

I believe Salman here is on the right track, when he talks about drawing the line in the middle, and following it, rather than devoting yourself entirely to the extreme right or left, a choice which many of us, especially Muslims are being forced to make. This also makes it very mandatory for us to make a sincere effort to understand each other. The lyrics from U2's one are very astounding, "we're one, but we're not the same, well we hurt each other than we do it again'.

I came to the United States as a student from Pakistan. During my time as a student, I met alot of people here, who I felt were extremely xenophoebic in their minds but were hesistant to say or do anything that would make that very apparent. Having brought up in the east, with free access to western media, I found it easy to adapt to the new atmosphere here. However, the same could not have been said for many people here who were relying on biased media to affect their mindset when dealing with people from other faiths, projecting a very extreme and generalized picture. They need to realize, everyone will bleed in red, be it Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists. Lets learn to live with each other, and then learn to love each other.

This entire piece is written from the assumption that a higher being exists. Prove it first...

Your response is appropriate, and as timeless as Aesop's Fables... one my favorites growing up as a child. I must be honest with you, and I say this only to prove the point you wish to make. I read your response last. Why? Because I knew you were Muslim, by the photograph. I didn't know what to expect. Which plays directly into your sentiments. What amazes me the most about the four replies I've made, one to each of you - is that it was this last one, that I feared to read the most, was the one that I personally identify with. Just as the one I read first, (being raised and schooled a catholic), offended me the worse. Thanks for adding a distinctive value to this panel...

To All of You who behave with etiquette, thanks and lets celebrate ALL the good things about any religion, and acknowledge the bad (For Canyon's info, I am a Scientific Pantheist, far from an athiest or evolutionist?, dont even label me with your dubious ideas ).

Canyon, OK dude, so all the oil in the mideast is only 2400 yrs old and was caused by a flood? Jesus Christ man what are you smokin?

I ask you polite questions about your lunatic fringe beliefs, and you respond with an attack, nice. WWJD?

ALL of you, if you think like Canyon the Christian who is nothing more than a bigot, or if you are a Hindu who keeps Untouchables at arms length, Shame! And Muslims, 72 Virgins waiting in Heaven!!!!! If there was a God She would turn over in her grave over this one.

Your "scientific" refutations on Evolution are hardly anything a trained professional would give recognition. (Oh, ALL, and by the way non-god fixated Asians are currently taking over the economic world while Christians and Muslims experience their new Dark Age.

Two Truths Canyon: 1. In the Southern Ocean around Antartica Evolution is extremely observable, and thousands of scientists are observing. As new species form they are shipped North to the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and some eventually under the Artic ( where a recent unmanned sub found many previously unknown species ) so Evolution is far from a "theory." And if you dont believe it, well watch a chinese engineer kick your butt down the street over the next five years economically while you squawk about your beliefs.

2. Your Bible was admittidally edited over and over so HOW is every word true?

Wake up Brother

This is for Canyon Shearer:
This is my Witness:
Science reveals the Glory of God.

Now on to other things -
As Christians - we need to spend more time at the Table.

People, don't let this great opportunity for dialog turn in to a dumping ground for single-minded arguments against others and for yourselves.

The purpose of dialog is to learn more about other perspectives and share more about your own perspective.

This thread is an ironic case in point: how can we have a conversation if we're each convinced of our own infallibility? We can't. We can only yell at one another.

Canyon Shearer, your ignorance of other religions is startling. For instance, Buddhism is not about "becoming God." In fact, Buddhism has nothing to do with God as it neither recognizes nor precludes belief in any god or gods. It is about the alleviation of suffering, both for yourself and for others. In fact, Jesus himself likely learned much of his own philosophy studying Buddhism in India and Tibet. There are stark and unmistakable similarities between the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.

And I realize that your mind is closed and you think you have all the answers (something Jesus would have warned you against), but there are too many contradictions in various texts of the Bible for it to be "infallible" as you claim. In fact, since you obviously take the Bible literally, it naturally follows that you believe that the Earth is flat (a claim made in several places in the Bible).

The truth is that nobody knows for sure the mysteries of life and death. Each of us searches for the truth in our own way. And as far as I know, there are only two religious factions who I have heard express the belief that all but they are destined for Hell and Damnation -- fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslim terrorists who pervert Islam. Those are the only two religious factions I've encountered that refuse to respect the beliefs of others.

p.s. Salman, that was lovely. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Cavin:
"What it does, is provide a system for testing whether an idea is wrong."

Sorry, you can not disprove something unless you know of something. Science proves things not disproves things.

"You can say it is highly unlikely He exists, but his reality is, in fact, not testable."

How do you know that it's not testable? Where are you coming up with that?

Thinking Out Loud:
"I respect their right to believe it, but that's their business.
Carol,
you might want to read and think about Matthew 7 and ask yourself if your religion was part on the broad and spacious road or narrow and cramped."

WOW! You are incredible. In one little space you go from telling people to keep their beliefs to themselves to telling others how to believe. Unbelievable.

Salman,

That story of the grapes is one of my favorites and carries truth. As is clear from some of the postings here, not everyone accepts that truth. That is unfortunate but a fact of life.

It's time, past time, for people of good will, whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, whatever, to uniteas if they were beads on one string.

There cannot be a discussion about religion if some or all of the particpants are fully convinced that they posess ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

The Genesis Story says they ate OF the fruit OF the tree OF the knowledge OF good and evil. That is four OF's. They gained some knowledge but it was at some distance from the source and it was not the totality of knowledge. For me this story is about the fact that we know something and we have a sense of responsibilty, maybe even great responsibility. Hopefully we also know that we know only a tiny amount and can deliver on only a fraction of the great responsibility we sense. Being responsible for this Planet and all of its inhabitants with uncertain means to carry out that responsibilty is our existential curse. The more I learn about Creation and the more I try to be a moral actor in Creation, the more I have to admit my limitations.

I believe there is ony one Creator. I believe that every religious tradition grew from the impulse, alluded to above, to seek that Creator and to somehow live in harmony with Creation. Because of my upbringing, my eschatological guide is Jesus. A major thread in Jesus' teaching is very critcal of the human tendency to impose religious rules. Often following these rules is way easier than doing the right thing. Forgive your neighbor 7 times? No! 70 times 7! Many of these rules are old time customs dressed up as coming from God. Far too many of them are abominations. e.g: There are Bible passages that say that it is OK to sell people, even our daughters, into slavery. NO, NO, NO, not under any circumstance!

For me, Jesus' admonition that we love the Creator and our neighbor as ourselves is central. No easy task. Indeed, it is the work of a lifetime. We see through a glass darkly now. We would do well to be charitable toward our neighbor's limited understanding of the Creator. Our understanding is limited too. Maybe we can begin loving our neighbor in that way. Later, face to face, we will understand more.

The story above reminds me of a fable that perhaps you've heard:

Mr. Snake approaches Mr. Turtle on a river bank and asks Mr. Turtle for a ride across the water since he can't swim the river himself. Mr. Turtle politely refuses to oblige, reasoning that if he were to give Mr. Snake a ride across the river, he would surely be bitten. Mr. Snake protests saying that it would be foolish for him to bite the one carrying him, since it would result in him perishing also. Mr. Turtle considers the argument, then agrees to ferry Mr. Snake over the broad river. When they are half-way across the river Mr. Turtle feels a sharp pain and realizes he has been bitten by Mr. Snake. As the venom is beginning to take effect, Mr. Turtle sadly and resolutely asks Mr. Snake why he bit him, since the biting will also result in Mr. Snake's demise. A wry smile came upon Mr. Snake's face. "I bit you because I am a snake Mr. Turtle; that is my nature."

Seems like until the moderate Muslim community comes out and vigorously and continuously condemns the terrorist actions of the radicals, there are limited opportunities for trust. I honestly don't care what they believe or what they call what they believe. I respect their right to believe it, but that's their business. I hope they will reciprocate, but I'm doubtful.

Carol,
you might want to read and think about Matthew 7 and ask yourself if your religion was part on the broad and spacious road or narrow and cramped. I always found this scripture interesting in that Jesus noted the time would come when there would be many claiming to be his followers and doing powerful works in his name, but he said he never knew them. This really points out that all christians are not Christ's followers. This seems self-evident to me.

A few years ago, there was a trend to wear these WWJD (What would Jesus Do?) bracelets. I thought these were interesting and a good mental model to apply to Christian religions and their activities. What I ask myself is - What would Jesus be doing if he was here today?

Canyon, you are extremely close minded. There is no point arguing with you because you don't even pay attention to what the other is saying and get personal so quickly. I hope you'll grow up (some day).

I feel the focus of this thread was lost rather quickly. The question is whether there is enough common ground for mutual revelation amongst those who may, on the surface, have radically different ideas about religious truth but, share a common belief in the transcendent and humanities place within that. If the answer is yes, then from this starting point a dialog between faiths would (hopefully) occur. A simplistic statement of one's belief and the blanket refusal of others is not helpful. Also, those who do not favor the idea of a mystical aspect of the universe may want to take their discussion off this thread. Science could never prove that God does not exist. Ever. What it does, is provide a system for testing whether an idea is wrong. It can never- by definition- ever prove an idea is right. And it can only provide information about ideas that can be tested. So to argue whether God exists based on science is ridiculous because there is no way to test for God. You can say it is highly unlikely He exists, but his reality is, in fact, not testable. I say this as an agnostic with little credulity for religion. I just hope ya'll get yer act together and stop yelling at and killin' each other.

You people are a JOKE! There is NO evidence of a God or Gods, ZIPPO. And there never will be any. This site just perpetuates the tribalism of different religions.

Dear Carol,

I've heard similar quotes to yours and I always disagree. Intelligent people have been through the ages split between theism and atheism, including great theists such as Galileo, Albert Einstein, Samuel Clement, Isaac Newton, Mohatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, amongst others.

It is an issue of pride when lost 'intelligent' people, who are rarely intelligent, though well schooled, claim that religion is an effort to calm the masses.

Religion is a human condition as well, all humans have some sort of religion. Atheists usually have faith in evolution, Nihilists(sp?) believe(key word) in nothing, Christians believe in Jesus Christ, Taoists believe in positive direction. It is impossible to believe nothing about your origins, your life, and your destination, and that is the definition of religion.

Religion is not the root cause of death, man is. Man caused death in the early moments of the universe(actually woman did, but I won't hold that against you. ;) ) by allowing sin to enter the world, for sin is death.

As for religion ruling the common people...have you noticed the United States? In which the common people are the ruling body? At least they were when Christianity was the primary religion.

No offense on your age, but like you, I often find retired people to be very closed minded when it comes to religion, even if their religion is getting them no-where fast. It seems like it would be the opposite, that it would be beneficial to pick the best religion right before you stand before God.

I hope that is the position you are in, for the most fearful thing I can imagine is to dive into death without knowing what is on the other side...it's like jumping off of the high-board at the local swimming pool with a blindfold on, not knowing if you're facing the right direction or even if the pool is full of water.

I hope and pray that you will realize that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to the Earth and lived a sinless life only to die on the cross for your sins, sins which you have had a lifetime to amass, for every lie you have told, every tiny thing you have stolen, every curse word spoken, or lustful glance made will lock the doors of Heaven to you, and only by Repenting and Putting your Trust in Jesus Christ, that He will open the gates for you, will you be allowed entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.

As I get older (heading to 70) I question my religious belief more and more. That seems to buck the trend. When people get older, they seem to get deeper in their religious belief -- especially when their religion offers them life after death. Therefore, that belief is a comfort to someone who is headed to "their last reward." Today, in this world of religion against religion, I think more of a quote I read. Wish I could quote it exactly but....written by a Roman official in the very, very, early AD's: Goes something like this: "Religion is thought to be true by the common people, a myth by the intelligent, and very useful by leaders and government." Well, if you look at the common people, they are, most definitely, controlled by their governments and leaders.
I'm beginning to believe religion is a myth and is the root cause of so many deaths in this world. The common people are led to wars and killing because the government and religious leaders, of most - stress the word most -- nations and organized religions want more power and riches.

Bwahahahaha, I'm sorry, but you made me laugh. I am here for discussion, I want to know what you think, and clearly you don't want to know what I think.

Your blind faith in the religion of evolution is apalling. I wish I could have half that much faith in my religion.

The recent Neanderthal hubbub that was in the news is ridiculous. Do you know which Neanderthal they are talking about? It's half a leg bone...it's 99.9% similar to a human beings...that means that it is 100% similar. It is the leg bone of a human being, there is no evidence to refute that.

The Creation story is impecibly supported by flood remnants all over the earth. Unfortunately we cannot go much farther behind the flood(2400 bc) because it erased much of the evidence...however it did create an incredible layer of coal and oil all over the globe.

You are basing stupid little things on your very basic understanding of anything. God has more than enough power to make serpents, donkeys and anything talk, humans that lived long, long lives because sin had not ravaged the earth, and women being punished for breaking God's law. Men have also been punished because men die from breaking the law of God. There was no death in the world before sin, after sin, there is lots of death.

There is ZERO evidence for your big bang, there is much evidence for "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth." It looks similar to your Big Bang theory, only not nearly so old.

There are no missing links out of Ethiopia, Lucy is a Chimp, and recently they found Lucy's daughter...which had the lower body of a human but the upper body of an ape...how stupid is that? Lucy, a Chimp, was somehow related to this ape looking thing? That's not science, it doesn't prove evolution, it proves scientists are blinded by faith in evolution and cannot adequately bring forth evidence.

You believe in science, you have placed your soul in the hands of science. Science doesn't even know how many PLANETS there are! Science can't cure death, it can't cure AIDS, it can't cure the freakin' Cold! And you've placed full trust in it!

Joe, please mix some Bible reading into your 'science'.

You'll find that sin has caused the death you see in this life, it is what will cause you to die, and you will stand before God and give an account.

Be aware that every lie you have told, every tiny thing you have stolen, everytime you've looked with lust, everytime you've stolen, it has been written on your conscience. The punishment is eternal Hell. If I were you, I'd start worrying more about that, and less about whether a bone chip belonged to your monkey uncle...

It is better to trust in God, than to have confidence in man. - Psalm 118:8

Canyon

A Response To Canyon Shearer:

Dear Canyon,

You seem, like any fundamentalist, quite sure of your views. You have studied religion enough to quote some subjective tenets of faiths outside your own, and you attempt to use them to put the others down and hold yours up.

Do you also follow science as closely? What is your feeling on the recent discovery that Neandertal DNA is 99% identical to Homo Sapiens (no, that does not mean they want to get married)?

Please explain.

Your creation story involves talking snakes, misogyny including a vengeful God punishing women with horrid childbirth pain, homo sapiens who somehow live for nearly a thousand years, and a lot of other "mumbo jumbo." I prefer the Polynesian Creation tale where the demi-god Maui lassoos the sun to get things going, but of course believe neither as anything other than primitive attempts to explain the unknows, and EVERY society has a creation tale...yet yours is the only true one. How nice for you Canyon. Why is yours true, and how does it trump the math theories proving the Big Bang?

Your ilk says we did not come from Apes, yet as we now begin to find, as in Ethiopia, areas of the earth where the fossil record is relatively undisturbed, over and over again the indisputable DNA evidence says, YES, WE DID! And, it happened millions of years ago, period. Radioactive decay is a physical reality and the earliest humans indeed came from Apes in Africa and migrated north over millions of years. Sorry Canyon, but unlike your faith, we KNOW this is true.

It is too easy to go on, Your creation tale is such a farce and not even entertaining as some are. The scientific evidence is irrefutable by the sane and educated. But, fear not, Science does not disavow God! We have no knowledge of what started the Big Bang (other the PROOF that it happened billions of years ago) and it could be that it was the intentional "work" of a much higher life form, or, perhaps, a joke or experiment gone awry ... Frankly that is absolutely possible though I personally doubt it.

Canyon, mix some Science journals into your reading, please.

Aloha, Joe

I am shocked at Canyon's post. Why come to a site like this, where dialog is the goal, when you have no interest in dialog?

Jesus often became exasperated with the foolishness of the apostles. Imagine His reaction to Canyon!

I am heartened by Mr. Ahmad's short article.

Canyon,
Therein lies the problem, christians have all the answers, and there is no place for discussion! How dogmatic. If God does not want me to think, he/she would not have provided me with free will or a cerebrum.

Sir Mohammad Iqbal's famous summation in his wine pourer poem, "You may call it different names but it is the same thing. But now it’s up to you to draw the wine from these grapes." is similar to the qintessential faith of the Hindus, called Sanatana Dharma (Eternal Righteousness) which states that "Truth is one, the wise call it by different names."

That "truth" has not unfortunately influenced the thinking of most monotheists. I am very glad indeed that Salman Ahmad has highlighted it in his comments.

It is no wonder that in Sir Mohammad's poetry, he reflects the pluralism of the Hindu philosophy. He was heavily influenced by the pluralistic ethos of the Indic traditions.

Sir Mohammad was born in British India's Punjab Province with ancestral roots in Kashmir and composed an ode to India called Tarana-e-Hind (Song of India). He was an Indian nationalist initially, but later joined Mohammad Ali Jinnah in working towards a separate homeland for Indian Muslims.

A good metaphore...assuming there was more than one truth, or more than one way.

If some other religion taught that man was hopelessly lost in his own deceit and could not save himself, that God was the only one that could do it by no works of man; then I might consider what you said to be close to the truth.

But the truth is, of all of the religions of the world, only one gives it all up to God, the others seek to buy their way into Heaven.

In Islam, Allah is merciful and our good works overcome our bad, that is called BRIBERY.

In Buddhism, you get to Try, Try Again, if you are 'good' you come back better until you are enlightened. That is called trying to become god, and it earned Satan his own personal hell.

Latter Day Saints believe they can pay part of their way into Heaven and God will pay the rest. That is called a works based religion.

The truth is that God is the most Just Judge in all the Universe, and you were created to mirror His image. When you lie, steal, curse, blaspheme, lust, and hate, you are reflecting poorly on the God that created you. His law says not to do those things...if you do, you will be punished, your conscience tells you these things.

The truth is that you deserve Hell, we all do, me probably more than most. There is NOTHING I can do to save myself, charity, volunteering, prayer, nothing will help because there is a punishment due for my sins. That punishment is eternal Hell. Hell is not a good place.

The truth is, fortunately, God, the greatest and most Just Judge in all the universe knows that a punishment is due of me, and in UNPRECENDENTED LOVE, came to Earth, and took my punishment upon Himself, for only after my punishment was paid, can I go free after I have appologized for my sins and promised to do my best to never do them again.

The truth is that Christianity is the only religion that claims truth and backs it up with creation, conscience, common sense, and an infallible Book.

The truth is; you must repent of your sins, and trust that Jesus Christ will save you from Hell.

The truth is that this is the only Grape, the others have become, or always were, raisins.

What if you don't believe in 'grapes'?

It was good to read what you wrote, Mr. Ahmad. As a "westerner" from the "Bible Belt" of America, I have not been exposed to many religions other than christianity.

I am here to learn. That's all. It seems to me if we could all set our "agendas" aside and listen to one another, it would be a giant step toward peace.

linda marie