All Comments (106)

vqrxpnwk nhgtpb xjzbwfner evtzqnh dfhkbsptx qnigesapk vbxw

vqrxpnwk nhgtpb xjzbwfner evtzqnh dfhkbsptx qnigesapk vbxw

vqrxpnwk nhgtpb xjzbwfner evtzqnh dfhkbsptx qnigesapk vbxw

nkqojld hcmnauy vntqua kgsnz ejdxsfh yjek lavz

nkqojld hcmnauy vntqua kgsnz ejdxsfh yjek lavz

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

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

This after being requested to leave England.

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

Big whup, as my daughter would say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What an absolute crock of utterly offensive nonsense.

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

Please, reserve the toxic commentary for your congregation.

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

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

amhost amhost

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

ojzq uodnw wsxulzy dryz gfphw lubmcgdk xsczkrmf

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

lincoln also said in the same address:

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

quoted by zaid shakir on the same subject

peace

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

PUZZLED says:

Hi, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

Hi again, Puzzled,

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

Ann O.

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

Hi, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

Ann O.:

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

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

Puzzled quotes Ann O.:

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

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

Hi, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

PUZZLED quotes Ann O.:

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

PUZZLED replies:

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

Hi,again, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

MB,

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

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

Would like to know what you think of it.

Thanks

Posted December 4, 2006 1:40 PM

MB,

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

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

Would like to know what you think of it.

Thanks

Puzzled tells us:

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

Hi, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

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

Puzzled tells us:

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

Hi again, Puzzled,

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

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

Hi, Puzzled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

Hi, Puzzled,

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

Ann O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

to bob
i think they stopped in 1992

Puzzled,

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

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

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

another quote from you,

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

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

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

And lastly,

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

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

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

Excellent discussion, I enjoy it very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is one that is important:
Christianity vs Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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