This conversation was originally about...

Maher said: 'I think you started this when you sent an article entitled "indiscriminate israeli bombings". Well, in fact, the email had as it's subject indiscriminate israeli bombings and the article's title was 'Annan: IAF hit 'apparently deliberate,' which you can read right after my little intro to it, which starts below:

I think the israelis are just as bad as the 'terrorists' they are fighting. now they've killed 'clearly marked' u.n. officials andi've read reports of them bombing vehicles carrying civilians driving north to get away from the fighting and I'll include a linkto a picture and article of ambulances with bomb holes in the top ofthem. what intelligence could persuade them to bomb various automobiles driving north full of civilians to avoid the fighting and 'clearly marked' u.n. officials and red cross ambulances? iwould really like to see the investigation into these activities and believe this is gonna go down as a horrible human rights abuse by israel when all is said and done. i think the last figures I heardwere 40 israelis dead and 400 lebanese, no wonder the arabs arepissed off.

heres the link:

the picture

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

(i can't get this link to go right to the picture anymore, but it's a very interesting website nonethelesss)

the article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html

check out this link for the statistics on the gross inequality between israel and the palestinians:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

>Annan: IAF hit 'apparently deliberate'
>
>An Israeli bomb destroyed a UN observer post on the border in
>southern Lebanon, killing two peacekeepers with two others feared
>dead under the rubble. UN chief Kofi Annan said Israel appeared to
>have struck the site deliberately.
>
>Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman expressed his "deep regret" for
>the deaths and denied Isarel hit the post intentionally.
>
>"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement of the
>secretary-general, insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted
>the UN post," he said, calling the assertions "premature and
>erroneous."
>
>The IDF said in response that it deeply regretted the "tragic death"
>of the UN personnel and vowed to investigate the incident.
>
>The bomb made a direct hit on the building and shelter of the
>observer post in the town of Khiyam near the eastern end of the
>border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the UN
>peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.
>
>Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble, but Israeli firing
>"continued even during the rescue operation," Struger said.
>
>Annan said two UN military observers were killed with two more
>feared dead. The victims included observers from Austria, a Canada,
>China and Finland, UN and Lebanese military officials said, speaking
>on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release
>the information to the media. It was not immediately known which
>were confirmed dead.
>
>As reports of the attack emerged, Annan rushed out of a hotel in
>Rome following a dinner with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
>and Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.
>
>"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate
>targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in
>southern Lebanon," Annan said in a statement later.
>
>Annan said in his statement that the post had been there for a long
>time and was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from
>Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would not be attacked.
>
>"I call on the goverment of Israel to conduct a full investigation
>into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further
>attack on UN positions and personnel must stop," Annan said in the
>statement.
>
>Gillerman said "Israel is carrying out a thorough inquiry into this
>tragic incident and will inform the UN of its results as soon as
>possible."
>
>US Ambassador John Bolton said the Security Council was informed
>that four officers were killed, but he had no other information.
>
>"We're obviously very sorry about that. We're attempting to get
>information where we can to confirm the nature of the incident,"
>Bolton said.
>
>Since Israel launched a massive military offensive against Lebanon
>and Hezbollah guerrillas July 12, an international civilian employee
>working with UNIFIL and his wife have been killed in the crossfire
>between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas in the southern port
>city of Tyre.
>
>Five UNIFIL soldiers and one military observer have also been
>wounded, Struger said.

Maher then says: 'Alex then replied with something about Jesus christ being the solution. I replied to Alex and told him that i disagree and religion is behind all of this. Alex then...started the "just war" debate" [and] then i did the survey :)'

Alex started a conversation on just war theory, after my 'indiscriminate israeli bombings' email, and provided two articles which states the Catholic position on it, which are here and here, which is what started Maher's survey in the first place. Maher then wrote that he thinks that ' religion is behind all of this' in regards to the problems in the Middle East and Alex disagreed with him by writing this:

Ultimately, Maher, it is a problem that resides in the heart of men. I don't think you say "religion is behind all of this". Isn't this an oversimplification? Ideologies are the problem but not religion per se. What religion are you even talking about? What do you think is the answer? Once again I will repeat that the problem lies with individuals. Man (that means men and women) as a creature has duties towards God and to think that peace can be had ignoring this basic principle is simply illusory. After these nations destroy each other over power and greed then perhaps they will come to realize this.

Maher responded to Alex's above-mentioned statement below:

This is not an over simplification, it is just simplification, but let's get in a little bit of details. Do you think there is any religion without ideologies? According to my American Heritage dictionary, ideology is 1) the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspiration of individual, group, class, or culture 2)a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political , economic or other system. According to these definitions, especially the second, religion is not separate from ideologies. Every religion have certain ideologies that goes by and since no religion has clear answers to provide its followers about everything, and since there will always be conflict even between the members of each religion that leads to hatred because different people choose to believe in different things,and since religion brain washes people in many ways in certain ways, then religion is a source of conflict and hence it is a source of the problem. I am talking about any religion that promotes the idea that they are the only truth out there including catholicism and islam. And it is true that the problem may reside within the individuals, but it is because religion is not clear on many issues and the followers of any religion could interrupt anything differently, and therefore, religion is the cause of the problem once again for failing to provide clear answers to all of its followers to many issues in our daily life. You may say oh yes there is clear answers, but if there are, then just think about the different million opinions people have about any issue (pick one) in the same religion. If those nations are destroying others, it is also because of religion. The real conflict in the region is because of the hatred that religion promotes towards others. Jews don't like muslims and christians, muslims don't like the jews and christians, christians don't like the muslims and the jews, everyone of them thinks that the others is wrong, so they fight. Don't try to convince yourself that religion is innocent because it is not. Just from reading your answers to the 5-questions i sent you, i can see why, for as long as religion is the driving force in people lives, there will always be war and hatred.

What is my answer to the conflict in the middle east, mainly palestine/israel/Lebanon? Well, if i was put in a situation to change things, here is what i will do:

1. Realizing that no effective short term solution will take place, i will go on with my long term plan. I will implement a liberal education curriculum in schools that does not have religion, or any ideology (ex. communism) as its source. A curriculum that emphasize critical thinking that leads to liberal education. When i was in Jordan for 19 years, i was never allowed to think. I was never asked to read a book in any class. I was never asked to write an essay to criticize anything. There were certain stuff, mainly coming from religious teachings, that i needed to memorize. No thinking!

2. I will stop all religious schools (ex. catholic and islamic) and those that promote certain ideologies like communism (not that communism exists in the middle east, but i am using it as an example) from teaching anything except religion. People have the right to pass on their religious teachings to their kids, the right to religion, but when it comes to teaching the basic liberal education classes like literature, history, math, and all that stuff, i would not allow any religious oriented schools or teachers to do that.

3. Coming from a family that has its roots in jerusalem (both my parents, their families and ancestors) are from jerusalem, i know how hard this will sound, but i am afraid that it is the only solution to the palestinian/israeli problem, which is the main problem in the middle east. I would claim jerusalem (since it is the main problem there for the 3 major religions that exist in that region) and make it belong to no one. An international property that none of the palestinians/israelis, christians can claim as their own. that way they all can have access to it and use it equally without feeling that the other is doing any harm to them.

4. I would then divide the rest of palestine equally between Israel and Palestine and claim each as its own country.

5. I would also dramatically change how the UN functions in the process. Make it more useful, more powerful, and serves as an international force that have the human kind at heart, and not any specific ethnicity or ethnocentric beliefs.

D. Bachman's Response to Maher's 'Survey'

1. What religion is the truth and if any, is it the only truth?

First of all, religion, in my opinion, is the true hypocrisy, and can be a crutch of the weak minded, to quote someone else. My faith is a faith that involves a belief system, no works or fancy sacraments. I belong to the Evangelical Society of Friends(Quakers), but there is no one true religions. There is only one true faith. I believe that this faith is a wholly, utterly involved faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe Jesus died on the cross and this sacrifice has tied God’s grace to mankind. Confession of sin to him alone brings about salvation. This alone is what I believe is the true faith. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, so I take it at face value. I don’t believe sacraments or works do anything but provide a mode of ministry and worship.

2. what is your perception and beliefs about people who believe in no god, or believe in some other things like mother nature, natural selection, or any other things?

I believe these people are wrong, and are being fooled into thinking such things. I don’t think they are bad people, but wrong and in peril of going to hell nonetheless. Yes, God is a loving God. This is why he has provided a mode to salvation through his Son.

3. what do you think will be the consequence of people who do not believe in jesus christ as a lord, or doubt his existence in the first place for that matter?

Again, I think these people will not have a peace of heart/mind that they know for sure what happens to them after they die and will go to hell.

4. What do you think of the muslims, jews, Hindus, and others? do you thinkthey belong to religions that were sent by god like christianity? or do you think they are gone astray and in need of some missionary work?

I think Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and others have chosen the wrong faith. Perhaps deceived is the way to put it. I believe the Jews’ are going by the Old Testament and are faithful to it. However, I believe they don’t accept the prophecy of the Messiah coming already. And yes, out of love for our fellow man, missionary work or peaceful sharing of the Gospel is crucial. I would want people to share with me, if I did not know. I always listen to people’s views on this. But I expect the same.

5. Do you believe in hell and heaven, and if so, who will go to hell and who will go to hell? Who will go to heaven?

Those who accept Jesus as the personal saviour; those who believe Jesus is the Son of God; those who confess their sins to him.

Who will go to hell?

Those who do not go to heaven by the prescribed means in the first answer.

Sara's Response to Maher's 'Survey'

ok, I will try to answer your questions from my agnostic, ex-catholic, sometimes Christian wanna be (but I just can;t get there and probably never will) point of view.

1. No religion is or can be 100% the truth. Maybe they all have a grain of truth, maybe they all work off the same general principles, but I don;t believe that any religion, basically God interpreted by humans, could be right,.

2. My perception is that everyone is free to believe what they want, but really, who knows who is right and who is wrong. So believe what you want, but in this world, more importantly, let others believe what they want.

3. I hope nothing drastic as I am one of those. Pretty much. I have my days where I think MAYBE he was the son of God, but in general, I think he was the old time equivalent of penn jillette-a little magic, a little illusion, and a lot of opinions.

4. I don;t believe that Christianity was necessarily sent by god either. And if it was, definitely not in it;s present form. I believe religion is an offshoot of culture, not really an offshoot of God. And no, this doesn;t mean I don;t believe in God. It means I refuse to put my faith in any religion.

5. no. No heaven, no hell.

My Response to A. Catholic's Response to Maher's 'Survey'

1) First off, I disagree with the statement ‘Religious truth, i.e., the true religion by its essence is one since God is one and it would be contradictory to say that all religious beliefs are true.’ Just because God is one, does not necessitate ‘the true religion by its essence is one.’ It is not self-contradictory to assert that God can be one but that the true religion by its essence does not have to be one. God can still be one and various religious beliefs can still be true, the one doesn’t necessitate the other like you seem to state. Now you can say being God being one implies that the true religion by its essence is one, but it’s not a deductive argument, which is how it comes across in your statement.

I also don’t think that it’s contradictory to assert that all religious beliefs are true in the way you mean. Some specific ones may be in contradistinction to other specific ones and in this way, you are correct when you say that it’s contradictory to assert that all religious beliefs are true, but other than these specific ones, it’s not a contradiction to say that all other religious beliefs, that are not specifically contradictory to each other, could all be true. I’m not saying that they are, but it’s not contradictory to think that they are or could be, although it may be incorrect, as Alex obviously believes.

Also, again, what criteria does one need to use to judge between the exclusivist claims of the different religions of the world? Alex (and Dave for that matter), why should I believe the exclusivist claims of the Church of Rome or Luther against the exclusivist claims of the Qur’an or any other religious text? I have never met anybody that can satisfactorily answer that question.

2) Your statement ‘This “force” or whatever they call it must of necessity be a personal intelligence because of the great complexity and order in the universe’ is the argument for intelligent design, if what you mean is something different, it doesn’t seem like it. Philosophical note: Dude, you are such a rationalist, I love it!

Also, I love your statement (it may be the best bit of wisdom I’ve ever heard you state) ‘Simply put, the Catholic must have a supernatural love for non-Catholics,’ I think this supernatural love is a great criteria for salvation and can be found in people who are not Catholic. I think having this supernatural love is more important than what specific ideology you profess. That is how I’m a universalist, but it’s not universalism per se because there is a criteria for salvation, supernatural love, and if you don’t meet that criteria, you don’t achieve salvation. So it is more universalistic than Christianity or any exclusivist type religion, but, in reality, it’s just a more all-encompassing form of exclusivism of a more general type. That is how I’m not a Universalist, but more universalistic than the average Joe. So Dave, your right and your wrong, the paradox of existence manifested again, whaddayaknow.

3) Your quote ‘“He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Matthew, 12:30) can be contradicted with another similar verse in Luke (I think) which states something like, ‘If you are not against us, you are with us,’ I know for a fact that this is a bible verse because I remember bringing this point up in my Jesus of history/Christ of faith class and the professors didn’t have an answer for me to explain this obvious contradiction. Would anybody else like to explain it to me?

You also state ‘If God has revealed Himself in a certain way doesn’t it follow that He must be followed accordingly?’ so what would you say if I said that God revealed himself to me in a certain way (I’ve actually told you about this experience before, that it was very ‘Platonic’ to put it simply) and I am following him accordingly, but that way is the way I’ve tried explaining to everybody my entire life and stands, to some degree, at odds with the Catholic Church or Sunni Islam or whatever? Should I believe my own personal revelation from God or what God has revealed to whatever specific church claims he revealed it to him? Would you trust God’s revelation or what the church teaches? Anybody, anybody….

4) You state that ‘All these religions cannot possibly have God as their author’ but I disagree with this statement. All of these religions, for the most part, were founded by people who have had extraordinary religious experiences, it’s not contradictory to believe that while they all had an experience of God, they all interpreted it in different ways and this leads to the variety of religions, but that doesn’t mean that God wouldn’t be the author of these religions. In this type of interpretation, God would be a static kind of Spirit which these founders have an experience of, but then everything which comes after this or these spiritual experiences is their interpretation of this or these spiritual experiences. I guess you can say that the experience(s) can be mis-interpreted, and this is a way a lot of exclusivists go, but maybe the interpretation isn’t the important thing, but the fact that this specific person had this experience and the truth and wisdom they gained from it.

5) You state that ‘It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects, and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal suffering (this is most definitely a kind of universalism, a kinda ignorant universalism, but a universalism nonetheless). But it is a perfectly well known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of that same Church, and who are perniciously separated from the unity of that Church and from Peter's successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation. (Here’s the exclusivist catholic position again, they can’t both be right, this seems totally contradictory to me to assert both of these propositions, so which one is it? Also, why stop at this ‘ignorance universalism,’ if this is correct, couldn’t you have a more general type of non-Catholic universalism which extends not just to those ignorant about Catholicism, but those who are not catholic, doesn’t seem like to far a leap to me, but of course, I’m not catholic)

Lastly, I think that I agree with the statement that ‘Ultimately salvation is a gift from God,’ and that no matter what criteria we propose as the True Criteria or what criteria we follow for salvation, the final decision is ultimately up to God, regardless of any criteria, It decides our fate, as it should be, so, as Paul said, no man should boast.

A. Catholic's response to Maher's 'Survey'

1. What religion is the truth and if any, is it the only truth?
Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church as the true Church therefore it is objectively the true religion being the fulfillment of the Old Law (Old Testament). Religious truth, i.e., the true religion by its essence is one since God is one and it would be contradictory to say that all religious beliefs are true. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ says:
“I am the vine: you the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. If anyone abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth. If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will: and it shall be done unto you.In this is my Father glorified: that you bring forth very much fruit and become my disciples.” (John, Chapter 15)
There are many other passages in the N.T. which say something similar.
2. What is your perception and beliefs about people who believe in no god, or believe in some other things like mother nature, natural selection, or any other things?
There is nothing personal that I have towards people who do not believe in the Catholic Church but I can only say that beliefs which contradict what the Church has always taught are not correct. Now the question is do people even search for the truth. Someone who does not even believe in God does great violence to his reason for the existence of God can be known through the use of reason. Those who believe in some type of “force” whether they call it “mother nature” or what not, although they are being more logical than the atheist are a bit confused. This “force” or whatever they call it must of necessity be a personal intelligence because of the great complexity and order in the universe. (I am not talking about "intelligent design" I am not even sure how it is used by some) I am not too knowledgeable about natural selection so I cannot really say much about it but all I will say is that the soul that exists in the human species must have been created by God since it is a spiritual substance and cannot come out of nowhere. Christ wants all to come to a knowledge of the truth hence Catholics pray that all may come into His fold but this must be done with mercy and compassion but without watering down what Christ teaches through His Church. Simply put, the Catholic must have a supernatural love for non-Catholics.
3. What do you think will be the consequence of people who do not believe in jesus christ as a lord, or doubt his existence in the first place for that matter?
If someone dies in a state of disbelief in Jesus Christ’s Divinity they will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. I did not make this up but Christ Himself said it many times in the Gospels:
“He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Matthew, 12:30)
“If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)
“He that hath my commandments and keepeth them: he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21)
“If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love: as I also have kept my Father’s commandments and do abide in his love.” (John 15:10)
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
There are other passages which show the same.
The key though is that this condemnation is due to someone’s willful rejection of Christ. God gives sufficient grace for all to be saved, if someone refuses those graces he will be condemned. God wants us to freely come to him and does not force wills. If God has revealed Himself in a certain way doesn’t it follow that He must be followed accordingly?
4. What do you think of the muslims, jews, Hindus, and other? do you think they belong to religions that were sent by god like christianity? or do you think they are gone astray and in need of some missionary work?
As individuals I love those in the above mentioned religions but obviously their doctrines are at odds with Catholicism. God cannot be the author of all these religions for it does not make any sense. If I say God is x, y, and z, and someone else says that He is a, b, and c, and they are saying two totally different things then they cannot possibly be the same. What do I think of Muslims? I want to reiterate I have nothing against Muslims as people but their beliefs I can never accept. There are indeed similarities between Islam and Christianity but the one key difference concerns the very nature of Jesus Christ. Islam says that Jesus did not die on a cross, that He was replaced by someone else (correct me if I am wrong) while Christianity says that He willfully died on the Cross for our Redemption. This is a huge difference!! There are a thousand other differences. Same with Judaism which has never accepted Jesus Christ, and with Hinduism which teaches a plurality of gods, or even if you say they believe in one central god they believe in “sub-gods”, and their idea of reincarnation clearly contradicts the Christian notion of the uniqueness of each individual soul. And their idea of mercy for souls is quite at odds with Christian charity. All these religions cannot possibly have God as their author. So yes, they have gone astray which is why the Catholic Church has always stressed missionary work.
5. Do you believe in hell and heaven, and if so, who will go to hell and who will go to heaven?
Yes, it is quite simple. God rewards the good and punishes the evil because God is just. You ask “who will go to hell and who will go to heaven”. Frankly I don’t know if you want me to start pointing fingers. Only God knows. However God has clearly specified how He is to be worshipped. I understand many people believe in heaven but very few people believe in hell as if hell contradicts the goodness of God. God is not some tyrant who gets a chuckle out of sending people to hell. As I said before, God gives sufficient grace for all to be saved. He does not desire anyone to be damned. Yet if anyone has the grave misfortune of spending an eternity in hell they will know exactly why they were sent there. I should be more specific in laying down a statement I made before on Jason’s blog http://mindlessravings777.blogspot.com/2005/08/salvation-of-non-catholics-by-alex.html but the Church teaches that “outside the Church there is no salvation” and this follows from the premise that Christ established one Church, the Catholic Church [although I know many would disagree with this, I am only stating what the Church teaches]. There are some distinctions that have to be made for this dogma, a dogma which every Catholic has to believe but you can check Jason’s blog to see what I said regarding that dogma. Since I had this quote handy I shall just let you read what one of the Pope had to say about this dogma. Pope Pius IX (Quanto conficiamur moerore):

And here, Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, We must mention and reprove a most serious error into which some Catholics have fallen, imagining that men living in errors and apart (alienos) from the true faith and from the Catholic unity can attain to eternal life. This, of course, is completely opposed to Catholic doctrine. It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects, and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal suffering. But it is a perfectly well known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of that same Church, and who are pertinaciously separated from the unity of that Church and from Peter's successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been entrusted by the Saviour, cannot obtain eternal salvation.

God forbid, however, that the children of the Catholic Church should in any way ever be the enemies of those who are in no way joined to us in the same bonds of faith and of charity. But let them [the Catholics] rather strive always to take care of these people when they [those outside the Church] are poor or sick or afflicted by any other ills. Primarily, let them strive, to take these people out of the darkness of error in which they unfortunately live, and bring them back to the Catholic truth and to the loving Mother Church that never ceases to hold out its maternal hands affectionately to them, and to call them back to its embrace so that, established and strengthened in faith, hope, and charity, and bringing forth fruit in every good work, they may attain eternal salvation.

Now I could have easily given you short answers but the Catholic faith has a rich theology even so I did not do justice to those answers. Anyway I hope this helps. Ultimately salvation is a gift from God that the individual must work towards and must freely want. No one can force someone to accept the Catholic faith for if they do so it is not a free act. God wants us to freely love Him.

Maher's back!

He's part of the conversation again, our esteemed philosophy club president, here are my answers to your survey!

also, as far as christianity goes, i guess i'm like sara, was there a historical person named jesus, was he just a jewish version of the pagan godman, was he something else, a part of me thinks yes or no to all of these questions in different degrees depending upon what time of the day it is, that is really how i am on this particular issue. after reading 'the jesus mysteries' (probably the second most influential book in my life right now, besides schuon's) and other books about the ancient cults and how religion was in that part of the world at that time, i tend to think that if the Godman really did arrive and was really doing all the stuff jesus is suppossed to have done, he would have gotten A LOT more press then he did. these pagan godman cults had thousands of believers back then and they worshipped a godman just like jesus, but in different forms, since the time of ancient egypt, if that godman had actually appeared, in the flesh, i think it would have swept over this section of the world, these mystery cults, a lot faster then christianity spread and it just plain would have gotten more press but then i think, maybe not, and this maybe not is complicated and is tied up with how i view the ontological status of existence, it's a long story, but that's a matter for another time, i guess i just say that I think that it could have happened the way they say it happened, that's all. on to the questions

1. What religion is the truth and if any, is it the only truth? see transcendent unity of religion book for what i think about this, as far as it being the only truth, i don't know, i think it is, but i could be wrong, to me, it's just the best thing i've found and right now, the best thing i got.

2. what is your perception and beliefs about people who believe in no god, or believe in some other things like mother nature, natural selection, or any other things? i really don't know, you need to be more specific with this question i think, i don't have any problem with atheists, i think they are incorrect, but as far as salvation for them goes, i really don't know, i try to focus on my own salvation and not worry to much about others, that's between them and God, so i try to stay out of it, i figure i need to fix myself before i got around trying to fix others.

3. what do you think will be the consequence of people who do not believe in jesus christ as a lord, or doubt his existence in the first place for that matter? again, i really don't know, i guess i cannot believe that a infinitely omni-everything god would sentence any people to hell for anything, but if he does, he's gotta have a pretty good reason for it, but being sentenced to hell for not believing in another man's philosophy, which is ultimately what all this stuff boils down to, meaning it can be reduced to somebody's individual ideology (usually who your talking to at the time) which has certain shared features in common with other people's ideology and these features they have in common they call 'christianity' or whatever and of course, the variations of these christianities or whatevers are as different as the people you meet, although many will claim that there is a clear doctrine and that is what they are talking about, but even their clear doctrine is jaded by how they understand it and how they express it and i think on some level, by both the physiology of the person itself and the resulting 'mind' of the person. honestly, i really don't think that not believing in one of these individual christianities would be enough to throw you in hell and i think certain shared features of these beliefs are universal enough to where you don't necessarily have to believe in this specific version of it to believe in it. if we think of god as parent or teacher, which is how i like to think of It when I talk about it in thinking about this question, what parent or teacher would sentence their kid to hell? that is honestly the criteria i use to judge salvation, at least on some level, and this seems more certain and truthful to me than any individual persons criteria has ever been

4. What do you think of the muslims, jews, Hindus, and others? 'people...who need people...are the luckiest people...in the world' do you like my barbara streisand impression. i don't know, people are people man, they wake up, go to the bathroom, eat, read, play, have sex, eat again, find entertainment and art, go to the bathroom, have sex, eat again, have a cigarette and a drink, and go to sleep to start over again the next morning. more specificity please

b) think they belong to religions that were sent by god like christianity? or do you think they are gone astray and in need of some missionary work? see transcendent unity of religion book

5. Do you believe in hell and heaven, and if so, who will go to hell and who will go to heaven? i do believe in heaven and hell, although that's all i really believe in on this issue, they exist, in some way form or whatever, i don't know who will go where, i don't know what going there will mean, i don't even know what there is or is not, i guess heaven has something to do with god and hell doesn't that's about all i can say on this issue, i have my suspicions, but that's really all they are.

i don't know, the more i think about it, i think i'm becoming a more and more radical monotheist monist or something like that. a part of me thinks all we can know for sure about god is that It exists, that may be all god is, like a BEING IS, Existence of the universe itself somehow come alive in some way, and all these other stipulations about god are not about god but people's feelings expressions thoughts etc. etc. about god. i'm not saying they don't accurately describe their experience of god, whatever that means, but i don't think they can say anything about god from their experience other than what their experience of god is and that they think it somehow Exists, has some sort of existence to it. it's that negative theology of maimonides and some of the other medieval philosophers, even concepts like the oversoul, godsoul, love, unity, justice, oneness, paradox (a favorite of mine lately), omni-everything, which i really, really, really, want to ascribe to whatever It is, more and more i find myself not doing this, because i think it is incorrect and actually a form of idolotry.