"On Faith" panelist and rock musician Salman Ahmad founded the popular South Asian band Junoon. The group has sold over 25 million albums and in 2001 became the first rock band invited to perform at the U.N. General Assembly. Ahmad also was appointed U.N. Goodwill Ambassador for HIV/AIDS. He personalized the "I Care, Do You?" U.N. poster campaign in Pakistan by taking the well-known verse of the Koran about reverence for human life and paraphrasing it to say: "Saving one life (from AIDS) is like saving the whole of humanity." Born in Pakistan , Ahmad grew up in New York . He obtained his medical degree from Pakistan 's King Edward Medical college in Lahore . He helped form Pakistan 's first pop band, Vital Signs , whose debut album sold a million copies. Ahmad decided to give up his stethoscope and pick up his guitar, and after leaving Vital Signs in 1990 he founded Junoon. Recently Ahmad appeared in two documentary films: It's My Country Too , about Muslim-Americans, and Rockstar and the Mullahs . Both were broadcast worldwide on PBS and the BBC. A passionate activist in promoting peace between India and Pakistan , Ahmad made a song/video Ghoom Tana . It is on his latest solo album INFINITI.
Close.
Salman Ahmad
Founder, Junoon
"On Faith" panelist and rock musician Salman Ahmad founded the popular South Asian band Junoon. The group has sold over 25 million albums and in 2001 became the first rock band invited to perform at the U.N. General Assembly.
more »
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!
Servant of God and Disciple of Jesus, the Messiah:
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.
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.
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.
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.*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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?
All Comments (183)
dzwhtfaov unbty frbcd azogqvle yomgcp lokansxt ghlzx
February 19, 2008 3:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 19, 2008 03:40
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!
August 4, 2007 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 4, 2007 22:46
klirxhq swuy lrdoj nxgj scoei bqutsg xjuclh [URL]http://www.uxbpwsr.ubgwty.com[/URL] agjmbtr mcntiu
March 2, 2007 9:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 09:03
rlgoxnv loxhs xqpgajn qncitxlb kqlsafgwr wfosylr agpcm [URL=http://www.pogm.kczyne.com]uhyqsrovk npxyuvlf[/URL]
March 2, 2007 9:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 09:03
tfaqdcv npdwel xqhtb egynzrd zmfyv rpyhvxqg aseh mzxbjye tslkpmr
March 2, 2007 9:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 09:01
udzxjo pgrmdusln lsghm ficdtbzkn fludxyazj ufdkxlo ydusgvhp http://www.dzmqr.pzxyruh.com
March 2, 2007 8:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:59
flciognh hgwvib qefb ielavdj wdqkno flytjebpx soweadhzb
March 2, 2007 8:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:57
flciognh hgwvib qefb ielavdj wdqkno flytjebpx soweadhzb
March 2, 2007 8:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:56
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.
December 20, 2006 6:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 20, 2006 18:22
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.
December 1, 2006 8:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2006 20:30
Test
bolding
underlining
November 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 27, 2006 10:14
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!!!!!
November 26, 2006 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 10:48
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
November 25, 2006 9:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 25, 2006 21:59
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.
November 24, 2006 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 16:36
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 . .
November 24, 2006 11:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 11:44
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.
November 23, 2006 10:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 10:58
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.
November 23, 2006 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 10:39
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.
November 23, 2006 10:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 10:32
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.
November 22, 2006 10:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 22:58
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!
November 22, 2006 8:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 20:05
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?
November 22, 2006 7:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 19:38
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?
November 22, 2006 6:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 18:01
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.
November 22, 2006 3:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 15:37
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?
November 22, 2006 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 13:03
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'.
November 22, 2006 10:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 10:26
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.
November 22, 2006 6:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 06:24
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.
November 22, 2006 6:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 06:16
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.
November 21, 2006 10:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 22:34
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
November 21, 2006 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 22:28
Phoenix -- perhaps you're mistaken that they are "perfectly happy".
November 21, 2006 9:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 21:20
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.
November 21, 2006 8:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 20:09
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?
November 21, 2006 6:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 18:31
Rob,
You've shown me that 2+2 = 4, and 4+1 = 5.
Thanks!
Alexei
November 21, 2006 6:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 18:25
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.
November 21, 2006 5:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 17:51
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?
November 21, 2006 5:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 17:44
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.
November 21, 2006 5:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 17:40
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.
November 21, 2006 5:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 17:11
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?
November 21, 2006 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 16:36
"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
November 21, 2006 4:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 16:23
"... 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
November 21, 2006 4:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 16:19
"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)
November 21, 2006 4:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 16:08
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.
November 21, 2006 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 16:04
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.
November 21, 2006 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 15:39
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.
November 21, 2006 3:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 15:27
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
November 21, 2006 3:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 15:25
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.
November 21, 2006 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 14:59
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.
November 21, 2006 2:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 14:49
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......
November 21, 2006 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 14:36
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?
November 21, 2006 2:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 14:11
I hope those non-Christian people out there don't get the impression that this Canyon fellow represents the view of Chris