My Response to Old Maher's Response to New Maher's 'Survey'

So I guess I just wanted to respond to this email real quickly (3 pages quick! Ha!) because I think I actually agree with some of the stuff it says, believe it or not. A lot of it I disagree with, but I think I have always implicitly believed what it says about idolatry, even when I was a young lad going to Catholic Mass every Sunday of the first 18 years of my life. But I’ll be more specific about these things below.

I obviously don’t believe the answer to number one because of my belief in the transcendent unity of religion, what Dave calls my ‘universalism.’ To be a little bit technical here, I am not a Universalist (actually, after looking at this website, I am a universalist according to one meaning of the definition, but I'm not a universalist when it comes to universal salvation, or what it calls universalism in Christianity. I totally understand better where Dave is coming from on this issue now, we were using the term universalism in two different meanings. Dave was using it to mean this: 'In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that true and valuable insights are available in many of the religious traditions which have grown up in various human cultures' and I thought universalism only meant this 'Within Christianity, Universalism, universal reconciliation, or universal salvation, is the doctrine that all will be saved;' but according to Wikipedia, I guess Dave and me were both right in that we were arguing differents meanings of the word but were both wrong because I guess it means a lot more than either one of us thought. I guess that the below is then an explanation of how I believe in one tenet of universalism but not another, just like all of the other religions I have ever encountered, I'm even conflicted on Universalism!) A Universalist is somebody who believes that everybody, no matter what, will eventually be saved and go to heaven. There are actually passages in scripture which allude to this idea, but obviously, it is not a part of the doctrine of any major world religion, except Unitarian Universalism, and that might not even be considered a major world religion.

Regardless, I don’t think I believe in universalism, when construed as meaning that everybody, no matter what, will eventually be saved. People who hold this belief usually believe in reincarnation and that is how they reconcile immoral behavior with this doctrine, that the baddies just keep coming back and trying until they get it right. [I’m about to digress here a little bit, but stay with me and I’ll finish my point about how I’m not a Universalist after this next paragraph.]

Although I do personally lead more towards a belief in reincarnation rather then a belief in an eternal heaven or hell, reincarnation doesn’t fully convince me of the truth of universalism and I’m not totally convinced in the non-existence of heaven or hell. I read a book a few months ago called ‘A Divine Revelation of Hell’ by Mary Baxter and although it was totally from a Orthodox Non-Denominational Literalist Christian perspective, it made a lot of sense to me as to why the people it said were in hell actually were in hell. Besides condemning all non-married sex partners, gay or straight, to hell (which I obviously don’t agree with), there was a common theme among the people of hell that seemed to run throughout the book. That theme was that they all had a ‘bitter’ heart. It seemed like everybody the author and Jesus (who was her guide) meet in hell, they were all described as having a bitterness of heart and that was basically the reason that they were in hell. That idea actually made a lot of sense to me, especially because I tend to think the only criteria for salvation is pure agape love, regardless of religious ideology (thus the criteria for salvation is not good works or even correct belief, but a kind of emotional state of being), and if somebody was bitter, they obviously wouldn’t have this type of love in their heart, so they couldn’t be in heaven, so I guess the alternative is that they would be in hell.

Sorry to diverge from the topic a little bit there, but I just wanted to clarify my position a little better on this issue. I’m not certain about any of what I said above, about heaven or hell or reincarnation, but I think about them all and this book made me think especially hard about it. Anyways, how my position is more universal then that of the other religions, but not universalism, is because since my criteria for salvation is an emotional state of pure agape love, the criteria for salvation is obviously much more all-encompassing (maybe not, maybe this criteria actually makes it harder for people to get into heaven, I’ve never really thought about that until now) of members of different religions then any particular religion claims it is, but I don’t think that this means that all people will go to heaven, which is what universalism is. It just means that people across religious and cultural boundaries would go to heaven, regardless of those religious and cultural boundaries, because the criteria for salvation would be an emotional state of pure agape love and any of the major world’s religions, if used correctly, can be used as a means towards that end, but that is not universalism, as one can obviously see. In summary, my belief is more universalistic and all-encompassing in it’s acceptance of the diversity of religion and/or culture in the world, but it is not universalism per se because there is still a criteria for salvation that some will not meet, the emotional state of pure agape love, and those people who do not meet this criteria might end up in hell with all the other bitter hearts in existence. I hope this has clarified that my position on this issue; my position is more universalistic than any of the major world religions, but it is not Universalism per se, at least as Universalism is understood in his traditional sense.

I also don’t believe the answer to number two for the reasons stated above. However, there is a bunch of stuff in the answer to question number 2 which I think I do believe and it starts off when Maher writes ‘How can one determine which one [religion] is correct or if, in fact, all are correct? The method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the ultimate truth, and identify the central object of worship to which they call, directly or indirectly. False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination.

Thus, it may be stated that the basic message of false religion is that Allah may be worshipped in the form of His creation. False religion invites man to the worship of creation by calling the creation or some aspect of it God… By using the principle of identifying the object of worship, false religion becomes very obvious and the contrived nature of their origin clear. As God said in the Qur'an:

That which you worship besides Him are only names you and your forefathers have invented for which Allah has sent down no authority: The command belongs only to Allah: He has commanded that you only worship Him; that is the right religion, but most men do not understand ". (Soorah Yoosuf 12:40)

It may be argued that all religions teach good things so why should it matter which one we follow. The reply is that all false religions teach the greatest evil, the worship of creation. Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone’

I think that this may be the heart of the problem that I seem to have with accepting Christianity and it’s doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection and atonement. Or, to state this more accurately now that I reflect upon it, I think that this is the problem that I’ve always had with Christianity, ever since I was young kid going to mass on Sundays. I think it seemed contradictory to me to read all this stuff about God in the Old Testament, especially the parts about idolatry, and then go to a church with pictures and statues of people who we are supposed to pray to. One of these statues is even supposed to be a representation of this same anti-idolatry God, in human form, who we are supposed to worship as the very same God who told us not to worship him in any form of his creation. Doesn’t anybody else see the contradiction that I’ve had to reconcile, which I have not been able to obviously, ever since I was a little kid.

Basically, what it said in the Old Testament about idolatry and what I saw practiced in church every Sunday seemed to me to be completely at odds with one another. Maybe I was a little too young to understand it and I’m sure Alex could explain this to me in a way were it wouldn’t be considered idolatry, but I think it still feels like idolatry to me and I think it always has and maybe always will. This is what I was trying to say in my last email by claiming that I was leaning more and more towards a radical monotheism/monist belief, but I actually think that my monotheism, which is more like panentheism (which is a combination of traditional monotheism and pantheism), is even more radical and relies even more on negative theology then Islam’s does. But this Islamic belief would actually be subsumed under my more radical panentheism, but that’s a whole other conversation. I don’t know, I just wanted to comment that I think I’ve always believed this and that has been my problem with Christianity since I could remember. So does this mean I’m a Muslim? Anybody, anybody …

Personally, I don’t think I’m a Muslim because I don’t believe that ‘the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life.’ I also don’t think I’m a Muslim because I don’t believe that think ‘Jews and Christians belong to religions that sent by Allah but they are all corrupted. The only non corrupted religion is islam.’ I think all the religions, including Islam, have been corrupted and despite the fact that Muslim’s believe that ‘God promised in his book that he will reserve it from damage!’ I still think Islam is corrupted and not pure Islam as meant in the Qu’ran, even if the Qu’ran has been kept pure and correct by God, the interpretation of it is incorrect, vastly incorrect, in my opinion. I believe true and pure Islam is Judeo-Christian-Islam, despite what any book or scholar might say.

So I guess I’m not a Muslim, I don’t know, what do you guys think? Theologically, I seem to lean more towards this Islamic negative theology stuff and a radical panentheism and a rejection of Christian theology, but ethically, I am very, very heavily influenced by Christian standards of agape love and forgiveness and have even made this Christian tenet supersede the traditional criteria for salvation by making it more important than good works or right belief and by extending it to non-Christians as well. So am I more Christian, more Muslim, equally both, equally neither, what do you think?

Maher then wrote:

The criterion to determine whether one is a muslim or not, to muslims, is the acceptance of the following testimony: I believe that there is not god but God (Allah or God in which no greater can be conceived), and Mohammad is his messenger. You believe that there is only one god in which no greater can be conceived, so you are at least a half muslim. If you believe that Mohammad was his messenger, then you are a 100% muslim, regardless of the details of your belief. All muslims have to believe in such a testimony to be considered muslims, but the difference in details in their beliefs is what divides them into different sects/denominations.

My trouble with your belief system (i know you are still working on it, but for now at least), and with all the beliefs that have a certain, clear cut criterion for salvation (ex. bitter hearts), is that i don't believe that there are people who do pure evil because they like to do evil. Let me explain more. I never once witnessed or heard about a reliable and actual case of people or individuals who make bad things because they like to do bad things, and believed it. Let us just think about this case. and there are zillions of them: Dominick is a child that lives door by door to my sister. He is not even six years of age, but he is mean, has a dirty mouth, always on the streets, failing school, and he is most mom's worst nightmare to be around her kids. He is evil and has a bitter heart one may say. I have always wondered what makes this kid evil, and later learned that his mom works at a bad bar, rarely at home, and when she is, she often has a new guy in her bed. Dominick is being raised solely by his sister (few years older than he) and the streets. He breaks my heart. This child is on his way to be one of our society's criminals. Now can we blame him? How can anyone determine anyone's intentions? How can anyone judge criminals to be bad, when they subconsciously have no control over what they are doing? Every human being is a product of his surroundings, experiences and biological mix. You might not agree with me on this, but i wholeheartedly believe it. And if a person turns out to be pure evil (which i believe is not her/his fault but a product of his nature and nurture) then do they deserve to go to hell or be punished? I find that very difficult to accept or fathom. It is tough enough that they had to deal with such unfair circumstances in the first place. But you also need to realize that i don't give such people a permission to do evil or reward them for doing it. However, I never judge them (evil doers). I have my own system of dealing with these issues and in determining what is evil and what is not in the most part.I just thought i should point out such a crucial point in determining salvation, in my opinion at least and see where you stand on it. Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Dave then wrote:

there are millions of Dominicks.  Yes said and tragic as it maybe, Dominick will
be responsible for his own actions to society, his family, and of course, as i
believe, God.  God is no favor of persons.  Those like Dominick have access to
God, just as those who live a contributable and non-evil life.  At the same
time, Dominick is just as culpable for his own sinful nature and inherently
"separated from God " as anyone else. Therefore, i belive Dominick, if he knows
right from wrong, will be just as "guilty" in the sight of God, when it is time
for him to account for his life.

Maher then wrote:

I strongly disagree with you, and if God was in fact unjust as you describe
him, i don't believe in Him/Her/It!

Dave then wrote:

unjust?  well that is one way of putting it, i suppose. Or just but also
compassionate.    Since, as i have repeated over and over, God is no favor of
persons, then hell for anyone who doesnt confess and repent is hardly unjust.
oh well.  we can agree to disagree...

I wrote:

just to be quick about it, I think God will take into acount the cupability of
the person who does evil actions.  I disagree with you that they are totally
blameless and it is all a product of cultural indoctrinazation in it's various
forms, but agree with you in that many of these people who do evil actions are
not fully culpable in these evil actions because of this cultural programming.
That is probably a line that is going to be different in every single person
and I think that God will take that into account when deciding their fate.

I also think it comes down to willpower and that is why a person will never be
fully not-responsible for an evil action that they commit.  Maybe if a person's
will wasn't strong enough to overcome the cultural programming, they might get
into heaven because of the fight that they put up with it in order to become
virtuous, even though they continually lost that fight.  The fact that they
put up the fight means that they tried to do the right thing, but were unable
to because they just couldn't overcome and maybe they were never meant to
overcome, just to keep up the fight.  Maybe the attempt at creating an non-bitter
heart is what really matters.  I think God will take all of this into account
when judging these people, you have to, it wouldn't be fair if you didn't.

Now, if some people were put in shitty situations and just went along with it,
didn't do the right thing when they knew what the right thing to do is, if they
didn't even try, then i think these people are much more culpable and will receive
a sterner judgment once they stand Trial.  I guess your example is discredited
to me because of books about people who overcome those shitty things in there
life and perserve, in spite of all the bad things.  How do you explain those
people?  Did nature also turn those people into good people?  But how could that
be because this nature was suppossed to ruin them?  I guess I would ask you how
do you categorize these people?

Maher then wrote:

See Jason, this is my point. If God will judge people at the end and
every person has different circumstances, which i agree with, then
there should not be one clear way to salvation, like having or not
having a bitter heart, or believing or not believing in jesus, etc.
Also the definition of evil differs from one person to another, from
one culture to another, and from one group to another. What may sound
like an bitter hearted action to you, may not come across the same way
to me. And yes, if people were evil and became good, it is because
of their own unique path of life that led them to do whatever they have
done. You need also to put into account the subconscious mind, i can't
leave it alone because i am a psych major and i know that many if not
most of people's reactions to things is rooted in their subconscious
mind, even if their conscience mind tell them otherwise and even if
they think they are in control, they are often not. One's will power is
also very influenced in one's subconscious mind. I went through
depression for some time, and many of the tasks that people take for
granted, and do without even thinking about, were so hard for me to do
and often failed in doing them. I struggled so much with this issue and
still do and people often told me that i need to have a stronger will
power, but i knew otherwise. Will power is just influenced by the way
you grow up as well. It is an acquired skill and not an inborn
characteristic. Bottom line, if God will be the judge at the end,
humans should not bother making up a salvation criterion (it is God's
job and if he/she/it wanted to share it, then it would have been clear
to us without confusion. As of now, every religion has their own
criterion, and many individuals do as well, and i personally don't
think there is one that humans can ever come to a grasp of. The issue
is rather producing hatred and conflict, just like religion does.

Paul then wrote:

I agree with you 100% and that's what I think as well. That never made sense to me, the exclusive nature of religions kinda mocks the acceptance that they preach. You have to follow their worship or God's love will not be yours. That never made much sense to me either.

I then wrote:

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but grad school is starting to kick my butt. I've got lots to do but not lots of time to do it in. oh well, this will be a nice break from all the positivistic epistemology I've been studying lately that's been wreaking my brain.

The first thing that I want to say is that I agree with you about the individual criterion for salvation idea. I had that realization a long time ago and although I never got to read it, the book Sacred Contracts by Caroline Myss talks about that same kinda idea, although probably in a much less technical way and more general way then I would. What I disagree with (kinda) is when you say that 'there should not be one clear way to salvation' and 'Also the definition of evil differs from one person to another, from one culture to another, and from one group to another'

Specifically you are correct, every single person's pathway to salvation will be different for obvious reasons, since only God truly knows what's in the hearts of men and what their individual criteria for salvation is. But I think that there are some general concepts, some general objective ethical concepts, a Platonic universal if you will, that can be surmised from everybody's individual criteria into a larger standard criterion. I think that there is some uniformity in the criteria when you talk about the big concepts, the loaded seemingly undefinable words like agape love or justice. I don't think anybody's individual criterion for salvation would not, in some way, encompass these concepts. Of course they are going to be played out differently for different people and on some level you are right, what the examples of justice or love are in one culture may be different from what what they are in another culture, but I think the universal concept of love or justice, the definition of it, is the same across cultures, regardless of how varying the examples of it are in particular cultures. Just because we have a hard time articulating what it is and all we can point to to define it are examples of it, does not mean that that objective standard is not there. I could be wrong about this, but I cannot see an individual criterion for salvation that didn't include, on some level, the concepts of agape love and justice as part of that criterion. So I guess I agree with you but disagree with you at the same time or something like that.

I don't know how I feel about your subconcious mind argument. Marie doesn't believe in the subconcious mind and would think your argument is hooey. and I don't know about the interaction between the subconcious mind and the will that you are claiming there is. I guess if that connection is established, a lot of your points would be correct, but isn't there even debate among psychologists of the existence of the subconcious mind and it's interaction with our concious mind, much less how the will plays into all of that? I also don't know whether I agree with your statment that 'Will power is just influenced by the way you grow up as well. It is an acquired skill and not an inborn characteristic.' For some reason, I have a hard time believing this, because of all the examples of people being born in shitty situations but growing up differently. What was the difference in these situations? I think it was an innate trait of willpower, will you say that it was? An external trait of willpower, but then where did the ones who made it through get this external trait of willpower and why didn't the other ones who didn't make it through not get it, if they were in seemingly similar shitty situations?

Also, you say that 'Bottom line, if God will be the judge at the end, humans should not bother making up a salvation criterion,' but I would argue that I'm not making it up, but this is the conclusion I've come to after clearing through the confusions in the various religious criteria. I didn't make it up, I got it from scripture, and those people didn't think that they were making it up, they think they got it from God. To this you would probably say 'it is God's job and if he/she/it wanted to share it, then it would have been clear to us without confusion' and I don't think I believe this either. The adherents to the other religions will say that it is clear without confusion, in fact, this sounds like a line from the quran itself, only people like you and me, who have difficulty sorting out the truth claims of the various religions because were open-minded searchers after truth, even run into this confusion problem. Maybe he wouldn't of made it clear, maybe he wanted it to be confusing and a mystery so that it would take some effort to find it, maybe the effort to find it is more important than finding it itself, maybe god likes detective stories and this is one of the best, maybe it's not that unclear if we transcend to universal values, maybe it wasn't god who made it unclear, but the power hungry followers of Prophet (insert name of favorite religious founder here) who corrupted God's true message after the prophet was dead, which is something that I think has happened to every major religious tradition on the planet. I guess I need to make this short so that is all I have to say for now. What do you think?