|

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Dave's Response to ' My Response to Maher's Comments in 'This conversation was originally about...'

The end point of this conversation can be viewed here.

I wrote in that previous blog that 'the number one problem in the Middle East is that they have no independent, critical philosophical tradition.'

Dave then responded:

This is absurd. What region can say they do? EU? Hah. There is just as much diversity there. Americas? Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Domincan, Canada, America. There is no indepdendt critical philosophical tradition here. There is only fear. And once Israel establishes it won't take shit, the same relative peace we enjoy will result. I am not talking utter destruction of their enemies. Some restraint and a little less involvement from the "satan,a.k.a US) might go along way in the region.

I then wrote back:

>this is not absurd at all. the region that can say that have an
>independent philosophical tradition is any region where there is
>christianity, because if there is christianity there, then there is
>a great likelihood that at least some people in that place would
>have heard of baruch spinoza and biblical criticism, or the quest
>for the historical jesus, or the jesus seminar, or western
>philosophy. if a region has these types of ideas, then they
>practice critical thinking and the chances of radicalism and
>literalism being the dominant force is lessened.
>
>ask any muslim about what the latest research and findings in
>qu'ranic criticism tell us about that book or about the way it was
>put together or the time it was written? know what the answer is,
>the answer is that there is no qu'ranic criticism and this is a
>problem, no, in fact, this is THE problem in the islamic world right
>now, at least from an ideological standpoint. if there was an
>independent, philosophical tradition in the islamic world that
>tradition would have started this, along with other things, a long
>long time ago and we would be able to talk about 'oh, this early
>muslim complied this part of the qu'ran' or 'these passages in the
>qu'ran have a different literature style, so they must be from the
>later period' or stuff like that. questioning these things make
>more people open minded and less dogmatic and you might not have as
>many radicals if one of these radicals could read this stuff and
>come to question it instead of listening to what their iman tells
>them on blind faith and then going to fight jihad. if you had this
>tradition, i believe you would hear a lot more voices calling these
>radicals pseudo-muslims and you would have a voice, an intellectual
>voice from within the muslim world, calling for common sense and
>reason and true islam to be the order of the day, not this salafist
>wahabist islam you see today.
>
>look what happened to the vatican's power once the enlgihtenment and
>renaissance hit and much of this was triggered by criticism of
>religion and established power norms and structures. one can even
>go so far as to say that if it wasn't for luther, this whole
>attitude which started the enlightenment might not have even
>happened because no one would have been brave enough to stand
>against the church or their ideas. where are the luthers, the
>spinozas, the galileo's, the noam chomsky's in the islamic world
>today. there aren't any, at least none that i've heard of. if
>there was an independpendent, philosophical tradition there, these
>types of people would exist and the muslim world would be a much
>better place then it is now. heck, if they had this critical
>thinking, maybe maher would still be in jordan right now, studying
>philosophy, about to come out with a book about being is and how
>this is related to islam. it would probably be seen as heretical,
>but at least those voices would be there. those voices, today, are
>nowhere to be heard.

Then Maher wrote:

Have you thought about the politics in the Middle East as a possibility and a part of what is not allowing critical thinking rather than Islam? Critical thinking was a big part of the Muslim tradition in the past as they succeeded in stepping humanity many steps forward. Have you thought about the possibility that it might not be Christianity per se that has the "liberal" critical thinking traditions, but rather the tradition started when christianity was not in a total power or control of every aspect of people's lives? I mean, look at catholicism now..do you think they are giving their followers a liberal education? I don't think so. I agree that christian countries now might teach critical thinking, but when it comes to critically think their christian faith, do you think christianity (not the countries) is doing a good job? You can have critical thinking that is biased like having a blind faith (you can't question or critically think about) and believe that your religion is the only truth and other than that, you then could critical think other religions, science and things (like what Muslims did in the past and what christianity is doing now) !The needed critical thinking is a liberal one, free from all religions, i believe. I think all religions that brain washes people into thinking that their religion is the only truth is a part of the problem but I also think that this issue is more complicated than religion. Politics plays a big role here.

Maher then wrote:

I want to apologize. i reread your e mail in regards of the religious criticism and i think i misunderstood what you were trying to say and hence my previous e mail. Your statement that only any region that has christianity has an independent philosophical tradition, through my off. I thought you meant that christianity as a religion promotes independent thinking, which i don't agree with. But when i reread your e mail, i realized you did not mean that. All you were trying to say is that we don't see muslim independent thinkers like we see in the christian world. I agree with that, but again, i don't think it is because of christianity that promotes this, but rather because of the time period/s when christianity was not the dominant force in all aspects of christians' lives, which is the case today with Muslims who follow the perceived religious teachings.

I then wrote:

'All you were trying to say is that we don't see muslim independent thinkers like we see in the christian world,' not only that, but we don't see an philosophically independent critical religious tradition in the Muslim world like we have seen in the christian world over the last 500 years. Philosophy in the west has been criticizing christianity since the time of luther, where is it's analogy in the muslim world was what i was saying. You are correct, Islam had this up until about Averroes time, but then what happened? From what was said in our play or what I read, I can't remember, al-ghazali had a lot to do with this critical tradition being wiped out after averroes time because of his arguments for faith and sufism. If this tradition stayed alive and was able to keep critiquing religion, I think that the muslim world may even be farther advanced then the west is today. The first person who started a discipline called biblical criticism was a philosopher named Baruch Spinoza (there's even a link to biblical criticism in his wikipedia link) and he died in 1677, so we've had over 300 years of this tradition and if this tradition was in the Muslim world today, things would be a lot better, but it's not, so the radical fundamentalists rule the day. and your also right that Islam itself cannot be blamed for this problem but the people in power who do not promote a critical interpretation of religion, the politicians, the scholars, the imams themselves, are to blame for this problem. It is these people who make Islam 'the dominant force in all aspects of' their lives, which may not be such a bad thing, if there was a more critical understanding of it, but since this same force prevents them from starting a critical understanding of it, it's like a vicious circle that never ends. That's why I think the future of Islam is in the West and what is going on in the middle east right now, in some way, are the death throws of an outdated middle ages islam. But again, on this debate, I think we are more in agreement then we thought.

Alex then said:

While there are many excellent points being made I find that Catholicism in particular is being mischaracterized as if the followers of the Church were mere slaves to the "control" of the Church. This is an unfair criticism. You claim that the Church "brainwashes" people but this is another unfair and unjust assertion. What would you say about all the scholars in all the various fields whether it be in the sciences, law, medicine, historians, philosophers etc...who held/hold to the Church as the truth? Are these people fanatics because they do not agree with your point of view? Once again there is this major inconsistency. Divorce rational thought from religion and then humanity will flourish....right? I heard a statement about the Enlightenment which granted there were some major achievements made in the various fields but look at what we have today? Where is the peace so promised by man's attempt to divorce himself from God? You claim that Christianity does not promote "independent thinking" but what exactly does this mean? A cursory glance at the great scholars of the past and the present will show you that belief in a truth does not necessarily mean pig-headed view of the world. No, religion is the problem but man's attempt at solving all the ills of society is the solution. You want society to be composed of individuals who keep religion compartmentalized lacking the vitality to influence their "real" life. Dare I say that the modern problems we are witnessing today are not the problems of religion but man's systematic rejection of the transcendent. Only since the Enlightenment have we had the emergence of totalitarian regimes (the Middle Ages never had such entities) and only since the Enlightenment have we used technology not for the good of man but for his destruction (look at WWI and WWII). Writing during the horrific Second World War Christopher Dawson had this to say and if you are open-minded enough I hope you will at least think about what he had to say:

" But this is just the truth which the modern world has denied. It has put its trust in the 'arm of flesh'; it has believed the word of man rather than the Word of God. It has reversed the whole hierarchy of spiritual values so that our civilization has been turned backwards and upside down, with its face toward darkness and nonentity and its back to the sun of truth and the source of being. For a short time---whether we reckon it in decades or centuries is of small importance---it remained precariously skating on the thin ice of rationalism and secular humanism. Now the ice has broken and we are being carried down the flood, though we may delude ourselves that the forces that have been released are of our own creation and serve our will to power.

Is it possible to reverse this process? No human power can stop the progress to the abyss. It can only come about by a profound movement of change or conversion which brings the human spirit once more into vital relation with the spirit of God."

Difficult for modern ears but nonetheless this was not the "rantings" of some fanatic but a scholar in his own field who once taught in Harvard.

I don't understand this almost "religious zealotry" to divorce all the fields of knowledge from religion. Don't take this the wrong way but I see a species of pride involved which posits that "I must be free to think as I like". And that those who hold to religious truth are somehow deemed as "backwards" and "brainwashed" unfit really for modern society. I am sorry I humbly admit that man does not have all the answers. You think that religion had absolutely NO INFLUENCE in the intellectual realm which I find rather offensive. This is a purely rationalistic viewpoint influenced no doubt by the likes of those so-called enlightened ones of the 18th and 19th centuries. Hardly being "independent" in our thinking.

Seriously though what is your view on all these men and women scholars who were religious and held to objective truth? Do you readily dismiss their research and work as existing in a vacuum.

There are a few books which if one is open-minded enough I think would change one's perception of the role religion has played in civilization:

1) The Beginnings of Western Science by David Lindberg

2) Dawn of Modern Science by Thomas Goldstein

3) Dynamics of World History by Christopher Dawson

4) How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization by Thomas E Woods Jr

One last thing. You don't want religion to play such a dominant role in the live's of the people yet at the same time you want a rationalistic, "free", "critical" (whatever that really means), secular, humanistic, ideology to play an all encompassing role in the life of the individual but this is nothing other (in my opinion) than a substitute religion masked by the mantra of "independent thought".


|

Friday, August 04, 2006

Maher's 'Reflection on the past 2 weeks of emails' and subsequent discussion

Maher wrote:

First of all, i would like to apologize for somewhat initiating all of this debate about religion and hence filled your e mail boxes. But it has been a pleasure to me to hear from all of you, and i hope you have enjoyed it as well. I guess all i wanted from asking all those questions is to open our eyes and maybe give ourselves a chance to see things from the other point of view, and hence reflect on what we believe in and how it fits with our fellow human beings. Regardless of our differences in opinions and beliefs, and regardless of how we approach things, i am very reassured that we all share the very basic goal of our humanity, the goodness of our existence and the need to better ourselves and others. I especially meant all of this to Alex and David, who i admire very much but have a strong desire for them to experience what they might not be comfortable for; for i was in their shoes and i know where they are coming from.

To answer my own question about my confidence in my beliefs, well when i practiced islam passionately and believed in everything it taught, i was a 100% confident in my faith and that it is the only way to salvation. All of you guys/gals would have ended up in the hellfire if you died before accepting islam, for being so ignorant about islam (does that sounds familiar to Alex and David? I am sure it does. I believed about your religions guys just like you believe about other religions now). If it was not for homosexuality, i would have stayed a devoted muslim until i die. But being homosexual forced me to open my eyes to things i would not have otherwise and start questioning my faith. In my situation, i am very glad that islam opposed homosexuality wholeheartedly.

My confidence level now is somewhat different. I am a 100% confident that there is no one religion/denomination that possess the only truth. Just think about it guys, what are the odds for everyone of you (speaking to those who believe that their religion is the only way to salvation) to have been born in the only correct religion, or denomination for that matter? Are you that lucky and all your fellow human beings that don't fit with you are wrong? Think about the different denominations within your religion, how come your denomination is the one? Alex and David, according to both of your answers, you both will go to hell from the others' point of view. Your "Christianity is at odds" with one another? Alex, you are a 100% confident that Catholicism is the only way, and David you are a 100% confident that being Protestant, especially your sub denomination t(he quakers), is the only way? You are both christians, and there are over a hundred denominations within christianity, and many people within each denomination i guarantee you have a 100% confidence that they are the only way, do you honestly expect us to find that one and only one way to salvation? Now think about Muslims, the jews and all others..most of them hold similar confidence levels about their religions. Do you get what i am trying to ask you to see?

Paul,, i do agree with you that any religion that is filtered by humans like christianity and islam, is something that you probably should be cautious about. Sara, i agree with you about the existence of a higher power and your certainty of being uncertain is something refreshing.

In adiition, I am a 100% confident that there is a higher power in which no greater can be conceived. But now i am like you Jason, in the 90th percentile on my current belief system. I do believe, as some of you know, that our existence is an absolute truth, and everything that exists is true (actual), good (has a purpose), unified (ordered) and beautiful (has value). But the remaining few percents are for me still to work through. This certinity of mine is diffrent than that of the religous ones because, to me, this is universal and speaks to all humans equally.

Now, thank you all for participating in this. I want to especially thank David and Alex because i might have sounded harsh on you, so thank you for being great debaters and trying to think through these questions that i asked! It is highly appreciated!

Alex then responded with an email that stated:

I am not going to respond to all the points you just made but there is still the problem of rejecting objective religious and at the same time declaring that your vision of life is the correct one. Don't you see the problem? You claim:

"This certinity of mine is diffrent than that of the religous ones because, to me, this is universal and speaks to all humans equally."

How is it universal? How can you be so certain?

This is the ultimate irony of the said position. "There is no objective truth, but......this is how things are...." Oh and I beg to differ that your experience as a firm beliver in Islam is the same as mine. I am not going to argue about the veracity of Catholicism but I will say that the Catholic's outlook on life is vastly different from the Muslim's. You unfortunately only see a superficial similarity based on the question of "hellfire." Did you even read what Pope Pius IX said regarding this question? God does not condemn souls who are truly trying to follow the Truth and are following the Natural Law (the law written on everyone's heart) and who are positively ignorant of the Catholic Church. Somehow though such a person (no one can determine who fits this description except God) is united to the Catholic Church which is the only ark of salvation. And frankly Catholics must always exercise Charity towards their non-Catholic brethren just as Our Lord did to the Samaritan woman at the well. Islam and Catholicism are two very different religions so I think it unfair to claim a shared "experience" with me.

Sara then said:

I didn't take it that way at all when I read it. I didn't even see it as him comparing catholicism and islam at a belief level. I saw him comparing them only in their belief that their way is the right way, the only way. even pope pius IX believes that. He is simply falling back on the old standby answer that is in almost every religion about the unreachable because there is no better answer and no one can say to their church body "yes, we are sending lots of people to hell because you didn't talk to them". but in his answer he says they are only saveable because in their hearts they will be catholic even though they don't know what that is. but if someone knows what a catholic is, and still is a baptist, he believes they are going to hell. in that way islam and catholicism are alike. and they are not religions alone in that. catholics have a lot in common with a lot of religions, and simply making those comparisons is not insulting to the catholic church.

ps-more about pope pius IX and others who say that the uninitiated and uninformed will still go to heaven. If this is true then missionaries are doing a GREAT disservice to the uninformed. if they will go to heaven uninformed, but go to hell if someone tells them of jesus and they don't believe then in my view it would be better to leave them alone, let them stay uninformed, and let them get into heaven.

Alex then said:

If one views Catholicism as simply a religion which "condemns" people to hell than no wonder you have this aversion to anything it says. There is a deep spirituality and a long tradition of mysticism which many people seem to ignore and they view the Catholic religion as a mechanical religion which is full of archaic ritual and symbolism. It is also somewhat strange that there is this aversion towards the Catholic Church when it has been responsible for much of what is good in Western civilization, and which all of us are benefiting from.


Sara then said:

i know the history of the catholic church. my family are still very devoutly catholic. and I did much research in catholicism before i left the church. I felt i had to understand what i was either accepting or rejecting. None of what I say should ever be taken as "bashing" the catholic church. infact, if people do misperceive things I make sure to correct them. I stand up for catholicism as often as i "shoot it down". But there are many questions about the catholic church, starting with the foundation, through popes that might not have been popes, all they way to a church leadership that VERY possibly killed a pope in the recent history for being to liberal. and MANY many more things, that makes me question the catholic religion for their leadership and foundation alone, let alone some individual beliefs that are suspect. but I don't think catholicism is a bar to heaven like many. I just think it has many more hurdles you have to jump before you get there.

Alex then said:

Remember though the Church has sacraments which give grace to the soul. Those who are not Catholic would still have to follow the natural law perfectly and avoid sin, and this would be quite difficult without the means established by Christ to sanctify souls. Invincible Ignorance does not save in of itself but simply would not make that person culpable on that account but nevertheless the person would still have to avoid committing mortal sin. Once again I find it rather odd that anyone would say that no one religion could be true yet at the same time say that their own view of religions is the true one. And this idea of reveling in uncertainty and skepticism is somewhat absurd. The mind was made for truth and not for skepticism as the modern philosopher would have it. I will simply say that God gives suffiicient grace for all to be saved but it is up to the individual to correspond to these graces.

Sara then said:


so you don't believe that anything can be gained by questioning? personally, I think blind faith is overrated. if you have nothing but blind faith then you were never tested. i think the commitment of a person who has questioned, searched, and in the end still believes in god is much stronger than the person who never waivers and questions.

Maher then said:

I am not going to keep debating with you over the same issue, this is my last e mail to you in regards of religion at this time. If you read my words you will see that i said "this certainty of mine.." i meant what i am currently certain about no yours or anyone else's, which is different than my previous religious certainty i had, and the other certainties i witness by religious people like yourself and other muslims, jews, chritians and others. My vision of life is just that, mine, but religious people want their visions to be everyone's. That is the difference. If you think catholicism is the only religion that have mysticism and contributed a lot to humanity, you are merely WRONG! Look at what islam did to improve humanity and most religions. The only shared experience with you is having followed an organized religion and all i meant to say in my comparisons, is that people hold very strong convictions about their religions just like you hold about yours. Don't trick yourself into thinking that your passion towards catholicism is one of a kind. I am sorry that i was not very clear.

Paul then said:

Not to be all mutual admiration society or anything, but I really love taking part in this discussion. This, to me, is what the internet is all about, intelligent discussion.

I just read yesterday how Descartes was lauded as the most holiest of philosophers by proving the existence of God, something no philosopher had done before.

Dave then said:

I don't think much faith is blind faith. Mine isn't. I have tested it, departed it and come back to it.

Dave then said:

Just to play the devil's advocate, Alex, but most of the worlds problems are from or have a cuase affect relatinship with many of the problems. Easern Europe, Mid East, Caribbean...most of the problems have arisen from contact with catholic missionaries and the natives. Look at European colonialism to the entire world in the name of spreading the gospel. What do you get out of it? English, French, Spanish colonies. What did they bring to the new world?? Catholicism. I think the spread of the gospel is a good thing, but my god man, look at the Crusades and the Inquisition. They killed and murdered by the authority of the pope. That is not the peaceful spread of the gospel. It is the same thing we accuse the rest of the world of doing. Plus, a personal issue for me with the Catholic Church is the molestation scandals and the ignoring of the holocaust.

Just a few points to counter the "good' the lot of us are benefiting from.

Dave then said:

I don’t believe the sacraments have any supernatural influence on the soul. I believe they are mere practices to show obedience to Christ. Communion…remembrance of the sacrifice on the cross. Baptism…..outward confession of faith to other believers. This is how my faith sees the sacraments. My church now doesn’t even observe on a daily basis because all too often, over indulgence of the sacraments creates a tradition type atmosphere, thus, cheapening the observations.

Alex then said:

I am honest enough to admit that individual Catholics have been sinful and have misused their power in the name of religion. But in its essence Catholicism is a missionary religion (side note: religion simply means the relationship between man and God). It is interesting but you should read the life of Fr. de Smet (a Belgian missionary priest) who came to the United States in the 1800's and was loved by the Native-Americans and did not insist that they become Europeans. I am not saying all Catholic missionaries were angels but boy the generalization that there was nothing but strife between the two groups is simply a bit harsh. As far as the Crusades are concerned, the Seljuk Turks who controlled the Holy Land (also remember all of North Africa which used to be Christian was conquered by Islam) did not exactly make life easy for the Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. However I am not going to be simplistic and say "All Christians were saints and all Muslims were evil". The Crusades included a mixture of different motivations, some went because of the idea of expiating for one's sins, while others saw it as an opportunity to acquire wealth and power. Also remember in the beginning of the Crusades there were strict guidelines as to who could go on the Crusade (at least officially by the Church) but nevertheless many individuals did not heed this call. I refuse to simply condemn the idea of the Crusades outright because of our so-called Englightened age. Read the historians of the Crusades and you will see that they have a rather different view than the view often given by the mainstream. I am actually reading a book by Thomas F. Madden entitled The New Concise History of the Crusades and I thought I would quote him in his conclusion (yes I skipped all the way to the end, lol):

" For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love, but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place."

"It is easy for modern people to dismiss the crusades as morally repugnant or cynically evil. Such judgments, however, tell us more about the observer than the observed. They are based on uniquely modern (and, therefore, Western) values. If, from the safety of our modern world, we are quick to condemn the medieval crusader, we should be mindful that he would be just as quick to condemn us. Our infinitely more destructive wars waged for the sake of political and social ideologies would, in his opinion, be lamentable wastes of human life. In both socieites, the medieval and the modern, people fight for what is most dear to them. That is a fact of human nature that is not so changeable."

And I thought I would share another passage of his which is quite poignant in today's time:

"It is not the crusades, then, that led to the attacks of September 11, (you know my position Jason, lol, anyway) but the artificial memory of the crusades constructed by modern colonial powers and passed down by Arab nationalists and Islamists. They stripped the medieval expeditions of every aspect of their age and dressed them up instead in the tattered rags of nineteenth-century imperialism. As such, they have become an icon for modern agendas that medieval Christians and Muslims could scarcely have understood, let alone condoned."

As far as the molestation cases are concerned, it is a tragic failure of both the bishops (many covered up these criminals, and a sad case of sin) but how this has anything to do with the Catholic Church as such is beyond me. No where does Catholicism teach to molest children. All it shows is that like any society the Church is made up of saints and sinners, and it is precisely these sinners that Our Lord died on the cross for. As far as the ignoring of the holocaust...care to elaborate? If you are talking about Pope Pius XII I suggest you read The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII authored by Rabbi David G. Dalin and Joseph Bottum. I relate one story. The Chief Rabbi of Rome (Eugenio Zolli) during WW2 actually converted to Catholicism because of the charity of Pope Pius XII in saving thousands of Jews and even took the name of Eugenio which was Pius XII's first name. I leave with a few quotes about this episode during WW2:

“The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness… [is] doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.” – Rabbi Herzog (Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem

Pius XII “did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences.”
- John Levai (Hungary’s leading scholar of the Jewish holocaust)

“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth”
- Albert Einstein

“…for all they had done in various countries to save Jews, to save children, and Jews in general.
We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church.”
– Mosha Sharett (Israel’s first foreign minister)

“The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all the other churches, religious institutions, and rescue organizations put together. Its record stands in startling contrast to the achievements of the Internation Red Cross and the Western democracies.”
- Pinchas Lapide (At one time Israel’s counsel in Italy)

“…during the Second World War, Pius XII saved more Jewish lives than any other person, including Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler.”

Pius XII “…spoke out loudly against Hitler and [that] everyone saw him as an opponent of the Nazi regime…Pius XII secretly instructed the Catholic clergy to use all means to save as many human lives as possible…In Rome alone, 155 convents and monasteries gave refuge to 5,000 Jews. At any given moment at least 3,000 were saved in the papal residence of Castel Gandalfo.”
- New York Rabbi David Dalin

“The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas…He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” – New York Times editorial (Dec.25,1941)


Dave then said:

Awesome information on the Crusades. I still see it as a domination and conquer issue. Obviously, there were different people in authority in the different crusades, so the ideological differences are probably profoundly different. I still see it as a situation much unlike prosletyzing and missionary work. As far as the molestation, I have yet to hear a condemnation. Plus, the Vatican paid out settlements and looked the other way (transferred troublemakers). Contacting the authorities is the ideal approach when you learn of a molestation. I hold the Vatican and thus the Catholic Church responsible for the failure to protect their parishioners. I am confident there was a conspiracy. How could there not be. There is nothing, in my opinion, worse then molestation of children.

|

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?

|

Thursday, August 03, 2006

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

PLEASE read untill the end!

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

Islam is the truthful religion and it is the only truth out there. Evidences from the quran, Allah's own words!

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion".
(Soorah Al-Maa'idah 5:3)

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah (God) never will It be accepted of Him"
(Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85)

"Abraham was not a Jew nor Christian; but an upright Muslim."
(Soorah Aal'imraan 3:67)

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?

All people who do not believe in Islam and its messge will go to the Helffire and burn for daring not to believe in the only truthful relgion. People who believe in no god should not be considered as humans, who are they to even think in such dangerous thoughts! All beliefs besides that of God are crap!

"There are so many sects, cults, religions, philosophies, and movements in the world, all of which claim to be the right way or the only true path to Allah. How can one determine which one 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. For example, prophet Jesus invited his followers to worship Allah but those who claim to be his followers today call people to worship Jesus, claiming that he was Allah!

Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India. He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness.

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 Our'aan:

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 as Allah has explicitly stated in the Our'aan:

"I have only created Jlnns and men, that they may worship me" (Soorah Zaareeyaat 51:56)

Consequently, 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. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man:

"Verily Allah will not forgive the joining of partners with Him, but He may forgive (sins) less than that for whom so ever He wishes" (Soorah An- Nisaa 4:48 and 116)" (islamworld.net)

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?

Islam doesn't believe that jesus is a lord, he is merely a prophet like any other prophets including Mohammad peace be upon them. Those who believe otherwise will burn in hell.

"And behold Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary Did you say to men, Worship me and my mother as gods besides Allah He will say-"Glory to you I could never say what I had no right (to say')" (Soorah Al-Maa'idah- 5:116)

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?

Jews and Christians belong to religions that sent by Allah but they are all corrupted. The only non corrupted religion is islam. Allah sent all these religions with the main core message which is to worship one god. But christians and the jews have distorted their revelations and that's why islam came about and God promised in his book that he will reserve it from damage! All other claimed religions like budhism is a crap! All those who do not believe in islam are in a serious need of missionary work!

"And who is better in speech than he who invites to Allah and does righteous deeds, and says: 'I am one of the Muslims.'" [al-Qur'aan, Fussilat(41):33]

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

Of course i do. All muslims will go to heaven and all non-muslims will go to hell for daring not to believe in the oneness of God. It is just a common sense!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now,

did i scare you? That is exactly what i believed about 4-5 years ago. That is the typical confident answer of most educated muslims that you will encounter! That is Of course not what i believe now. I will comment on what i believe, which you probably got an idea about, when i wrote my reflection to the 5-question survey we did. But before i do that, i have another favor to ask you guys/gals. Answer this "simple" question, from 1 to 100, percentage wise, how confident of your answers are you about your belief in your religion or for not believing in it (don't complicate yourself). You can explain your answer, for example, i am 75% confident in my answer that there is no one true religion, but i have 25% doubt of me dieing comfortably while believing what i believe.

My answer: my confidence to the questions i answered above when i believed in them is 100%. I had no doubts whatsoever of my beliefs. I could have died comfortably then without me worrying aout anything because i was Muslim, followed the teaching of Islam and there was no better way for any human to live his or her life! My confidence now, i will reflect on it in my reflection e mail after i get your answers.

|

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

My Response to Maher's Comments in ' This conversation was originally about...'

A link to the original conversation to which I'm replying to is here.

I know I’m a little behind on the conversation, but I wanted to touch on a few things Maher said in his response to Alex. Maher stated that "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' and he states this argument in such a way that it looks like the previous statements seem to imply the latter statements, respectively. I could get into the logic of all of this, since I have my logic midterm tomorrow and that's why I've been behind in reading all this stuff, but I guess I won't bore you with that and just cut right to the heart of the matter.

Specifically Maher's statement that '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 what this means, paraphrased, is that 'because different people choose to believe in different things...there will always be conflict even between the members of each religion that leads to hatred.' I think here is the problem specifically stated and thus, I don't think it's a necessary feature of religion or ideology per se, but simply stated it's people's inability to accept difference. If these intolerant assholes were able to accept and appreciate difference, even on matters in which they disagree, none of this bullshit in the Middle East or elsewhere would be happening right now. I believe everybody who is reading this has accepted this difference, on some level, or else we wouldn’t be able to debate and discuss things like this, we would just be trying to kill each other or not even be having this conversation. So I guess it comes down to how much difference one accepts and how much of it they reject it and ultimately, the means they use to convey their rejection of difference. This ‘means used to convey their rejection of difference’ is the problem here, not religion.

He later states that 'I am talking about any religion that promotes the idea that they are the only truth out there including Catholicism and Islam' as being the source of that problem. What this statement assumes is that because these religions preach that they are the only truth, they are automatically intolerant and unaccepting of other religions because they are not the truth, and this is both true and false depending upon what each particular exclusivist religious teacher teaches to his/her followers about the treatment/acceptance of non-believers. So I believe, herein lies the problem in religion, but I don’t think you can blame the whole concept of religion or ideology for this particular fact.

I think Maher would now disagree with me and say that religion is the source of this problem because ‘no religion has clear answers to provide its followers about everything’ and restated, ‘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’ and specifically we might add, the treatment/acceptance of non-believers. In fact, in a lot of cases, the religion has plainly contradictory and conflicting passages about the treatment/acceptance of non-believers, especially in the Abrahamic scriptures and traditions. But just because religion is unclear on a truth does not cause it’s believers to hold any opinion, positive or negative, regarding that truth. That issue is left completely up to each particular believer and religion cannot be blamed just because it does not provide clear answers, especially in this particular instance, to every single one of the believer’s inquiry.

I think Alex would here appeal to his general and ambiguous concept of reason as the adjudicator in decisions like these and I think it’s appropriate in this instance, but that concept can, presumably, lead people into opposite directions (because there are no objective standards for reasonableness) with regard to the same issue. But that decision is completely an individual decision and cannot be blamed on the completeness or incompleteness of whatever particular ideology one believes in.

I do agree with your statement ‘The real conflict in the region is because of the hatred that religion promotes towards others’ with one minor adjustment, it’s not the religion itself per se, but the followers of said religion that are ‘promoting’ the hate towards others and they are using their particular religious ideology to help in this promotion, but it’s not the particular religious ideology that is doing the promoting itself, it’s the person.

In fact, because scripture is unclear and contradictory on this issue, I think that this lessens the culpability of religion even more on this issue because how can a particular religious ideology be culpable for the actions/behaviors/beliefs of it’s ‘adherents’ on issues that it doesn’t even have a clear stance on? It’s like asking me ‘What should I do?’ and I say “Well, there are advantages and disadvantages to all these actions, so I’m not really sure” and then you pick one of these actions, commit what we would call an evil action, and then say I’m the one at fault for not clearly telling you what action you should do. It is ludicrous to think that just because I gave you incomplete information and you made a wrong choice based upon that information that I’m totally culpable for your wrong choice. Each individual must make the choice based upon the information they had, and thus, since they made the choice themselves (the information didn’t make the choice), they are ultimately culpable for the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be. Ideologies don’t choose actions, they can recommend and prescribe actions and tell you the supposed consequences of your actions, but only humans choose what action they will take and thus, only humans are responsible and culpable for the consequences of those actions, whatever they may be.

I disagree with your statement that ‘for as long as religion is the driving force in people’s lives, there will always be war and hatred’ and believe a better formulation is ‘for as long as violent unacceptance and rejection of difference is the driving force in people’s lives, there will always be war and hatred’ would be more accurate.

Also, I totally agree with all of your points for improvement in the Middle East. I have said for a while now that I believe the number one problem in the Middle East is that they have no independent, critical philosophical tradition. I believe that your resolutions would go a long way towards solving that. Of course I’m totally biased though because I was liberally educated and think it is a very good thing, but in all truth, if the Middle East wants to keep up as far as globalization is concerned, a liberal education is most certainly the correct starting point, considering where they are at ideologically right now. I’ve got to go study, Peace Out

Maher then responded:

I agree with most what you have said, and when you said i might not agree, i actually did agree :), and i generally can work with it. But, for as long as religion was around, in the real life, there have been problems. Idealy, religion is not the problem, but there is not religion without conflict and hence it is a source of the problem..just make it simple..

|

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Dave's Reply to my Questions about his 'Survey'

1) What happens to those who are truly ignorant of Christianity? The American Indians (both north and south) before the Europeans came? Even some tribes who haven't been discovered yet and have never heard of Christianity? What's the criteria for salvation for these people or do they automatically go to hell? What about everybody who existed before Jesus?

Without a Bible to cite references, you will have to forgive me, plus I don't have the time while at work to reference the online Bible. But I do base my answers on what I believe the Bible to say. The Romans 3:10 says all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. This is our warrant and death sentence, as I understand it. God not being a favor of persons, leaves no one untouched with this condemnation. In John, Jesus says I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me. John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that WHOSOVER believeth, shall no perish, but have ever lasting life. In Acts, the eunuch comes upon a man in a chariot. The man was reading in Isaiah the prophecies of a coming Messiah. He asked the man in the chariot, What must I do to be saved. The man in the chariot says believe that Jesus is the son of god. Further teachings by Jesus himself say to confess your sins non-ceasingly. All have access to God, whether or not they have had formal instruction or preaching by missionary. The bible says none are without cause for not knowing how to find salvation. The bible talks of people looking at creation and realizing there is a creator, something beyond nature etc. Therefore, I believe the Bible is saying someone can reach salvation without reading the bible and/or being proselytized to. I sincerely believe that.

So to answer the ultimate question in #1, I believe they go to hell, but it's not automatic. Everyone that existed before Jesus' death was under Mosaic law. It is my belief that those who knew anything about law/religious order understood what Mosaic law was. Those who didn't, those in the outer stretches of the world, could find God through their own realization and acknowledgement. After Christ's death, Mosaic law ceased to be the salvation means and the world was under Grace, atonement by faith.

I believe Buddha and Muhammad, if the did not accept Christ, or in their cases probably, did not atone through Mosaic law, are in fact in hell. Again, All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. No man is without cause here. I also believe that any follower of Jesus could be in hell if they did not truly repent, even if this applied to the few chosen that were Jesus' personal friends.

2) How do you explain the religious diversity in the world? What about specific religious founders like Buddha, Muhammad, etc.? Is the Buddha in heaven or hell? What about Socrates? Were these founders just mistaken or misguided?

I explain diversity in the most simple ways I can fathom...people are diverse, as are their perceptions. Being involved in police work for the last 2 years, I have interviewed people with the same exact eyewitness account of something simple, yet I get two totally different accounts. This is how I can explain diversity in interpretations. I also believe in evil, and believe evil forces can be blamed in part to the perversion of the truth.