A Simple Prayer, A Radical Idea

iexdvk ypohtw gxcniwdl ahqpbnxtv mlsgrzwe uykjblo esbaykhud

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

http://google.com google [url=http://google.com] google [/url]

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

hello world
hello world http://helloworld.com hello world
[url=http://helloworld.com ]hello world[/url]

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/ > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/ > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra > buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra > buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Wife of Muhammed was Christian. She was 40 when Muhammed was 25. Her son-of-uncle had educated Muhammed, "Varaka bin Nevfel" was his name, he was a christian priest.

and then an Arabic family carried the words of Muhammed to Byzantine Spain and India but dropped. and in these 1400 years, prayers and literature have been mostly shaped by Jacobson traditions.

Words of Muhammed in Quran ("Book to be Read") are readable with Bible and Gospels. and so is Origin of Species of "Darwin on Turtle".

to ease the flow, thanks to Peter Roe at Delaware University, vital is http://copland.udel.edu/~roe/TheCosmicZygote/fulltext.pdf

to live in the blood of anaconda is similar to being with the Gospel of Mark. the animated tv series for children are great guidance to be able to read. every morning i watch such animated series.

Miss Coulter has her opinions. Freedom of speech etc.
Jews for Jesus seems to have the same opinion but no one is attacking them.

The Washington Post seems to call out anyone to right of center to be an espouser of "Hate Speech".

Why won't the Post 'Dis' all the rappers that espouse REAL hate IE killing whites, cops, etc?

To Newsweek Editors,

First of all, how can you have atheists as your "beliefwatch" reporters? What kind of biased and condescending rubbish is that?

Of course, I already know that you people (and most people in the media business) are materialists. So it doesn't really surprise me. But what surprises me is the lousy and unprofessional journalism exibited by this woman called Lisa Miller who interviewed Sam Harris on Oct 30 2006. The last sentence that she made in that article was the most devastating against any journalistic ethics you people may claim to have.

Here is her quote exactly: ".......in which he debunks such unreasonable concepts as free will."

Those are HER own words, not the person she was interviewing. Who the heck is she to be saying that free will is "unreasonable" without making it clear that it is just a matter of opinion? Like I said, this doesn't surprise me much because I'm already aware of the nature of most people in the media business. They usually lack ethics and principles and are mostly materialists and atheists. But at least try....just try...to be NOT SO BLATANTLY BIASED!

Dave

I recently read an article online at msnbc.com and I wanted to know who this Lisa Miller was. In a story about a comedian who had made a profane reference to Jesus, Miller had reported that there had "predictably" been an outcry by Christians about the remark. She then went on to say that the outrage was "led (also predictably) by William Donohue of the Catholic League,". Up until the point she said, "also predictably" I would have assumed the article to have no position on the matter, but I found her paranthetical comment to be telling.

The English language can be both brassy and subtle; the comment regarding Jesus by the comedian was brassy while Miller's comment was subtle. Now, if I had just written; " the (so called) comedian", it would have been obvious to the reader that I objected to the comedian's characterization as someone who is funny. The tone of Miller's comment about Donohue also conveys its own editorial. There is a tiresomeness that is attached to the characterization "also predictably" much like the news announcements that accompanied Harold Stassen's run for President.

As I said, I wanted to know who this person was and I came upon this website. I am happy that Ms. Miller has found her own spirituality and may she live long and find enduring peace in her faith. But,in the future, I will be reading her commentary about anything Christian with a jaundiced eye; the same way her commentary is written.

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

I was a kid who liked to find out how things worked. In high school I took every science class offered and even petitioned the dean my senior year to take both anatomy and physiology (one class) and physics at the same time, because you typically were allowed to enroll in only one or the other.

In college I was a biology major, but took many physical science classes including chemistry 1,2&3, physics 1,2&3, math, astronomy and various other science courses. One class that caused a bit of an epiphany was a theoretical physics course taught by an instructor who was a doctor of high energy physics and was actually a top physicist.

Two things the instructor said had a significant effect on my view of the world. One was that we shouldn’t be intimidated by the material in the course because it really wasn’t that hard to understand, just hard to believe. Fact really is stranger than fiction.

The other thing the instructor said in response to my question pertaining to a reading assignment was that my question dealt with ultimate reality, that the answer was beyond the scope of science and better answered by religion.

I decided that it was futile to try to know everything studying science and decided to try a more transcendental approach.

"Why do we believe what we believe? How much of what we believe can we defend in the court of evidence? How much of what we believe to be objective is really subjective? How much of what we feel with psychological and emotional certainty can be proven with philosophical certainty?"

Hank Hanegraaff, President CRI

Stephen Hawkings is one of the worlds leading theoretical physicists. Inducted at age 32 into the Royal Society, one of the worlds most imminent societies, Hawkings is considered by many to be destined to rank with Galileo, Newton and Einstein.

More than a few scientists think that the facts of the Big Bang, as they are slowly uncovered, could at the very least suggest the work of a Creator or creative force. It may soon become evident that science will never be able to take us to the exact moment of creation - only up to that point where philosophy, metaphysics and theology begin. Stephen Hawkings has made a tentative foray into this uncertain area. "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones.
But I think most scientists shy away from the religious side of it."

A few years ago, while thinking about the meaning rather than the numbers of the universe, Hawkings and a few colleges worked out a principle that some scientists considered heresy, but others thought put the universe in the right perspective.

Hawkings principal was based on a classic thought experiment. It took as a first premise that all the features of our every day world, the subatomic world, and the cosmos itself are determined by a few basic physical laws and constants, perhaps no more than fifteen. These have been discovered by science and include the masses of the elementary particles and the relative strengths of the basic forces that operate between them. Hawkings, together with Brandon Carter and other colleagues, discovered that an extremely delicate balance exists in nature. For instance, if the strong force that acts on quarks, neutrons and protons of the atomic nucleus were just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other element could exist.

If the strong forces were just a bit stronger in relation to electromagnetism (the forces that regulate the way that leptons like electrons and neutrinos behave), then an atomic nucleus containing just two protons (diproton) would become a stable feature of the universe. That would mean that hydrogen would not exist, and the stars and galaxies would have evolved, if at all, far differently than the way they have.

If the constant of gravity were stronger, by a small factor, our universe would be small and swift. The average star would have only 10 - 12 (for those of you who are not science geeks the upper number is called a superscript and if positive counts for zeros after a number, if negative, decimal places before) (.00000000000010) times the mass of the sun, and could exist just about a year, hardly time for a complex biological phenomena such as mankind, to develop.

If gravity were less powerful than it is, then matter would not have congealed into stars and galaxies and the universe would be cold and empty. It is, however, precisely because gravity is so much weaker than the other three forces that our galaxy and our solar system was able to come into existance. As Hawkings points out, the growth of the universe so close to the border between collapse and eternal expansion that man has not been able to measure it, has been at just the proper rate to allow galaxies and stars to form.

"In fact", said Hawking, "A universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."

From "Stephen Hawkings Universe", John Boslouh, Avon Books, 1985.

"The harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority, that compared with it, all the systematic thinking of Human Beings is utterly insignificant". Albert Einstein.

The consensus of the worlds leading physicists is that space and time is only a hint of an underlying reality. Gary Zukav “The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics”

Robert Shapiro is a professor of chemistry at New York University and an expert on DNA research and the genetic effects of environmental chemicals. In his book "Origins" he explains, based on evidence, what is known and what is not known about the origination of life on earth.

The first premise of Darwinian evolution and a common presumption throughout history has been that the first organism was formed by chance. An appropriate mixture rearranged itself at random until a living cell emerged. Such thoughts were widely held up to the time of Louis Pasteur, when the complexity of even the smallest cells was not yet recognized. His experiments provided convincing proof against the spontaneous generation of bacteria. Yet the concept died slowly. "...Virtually all scientists today believe that living cells cannot commonly be generated from their chemical ingredients by random process." Shapiro devotes an entire chapter to looking at the details of life generation and the odds they represent.

"As a rough rule, we will consider that an event becomes probable when the number of trials available is the same order of magnitude as the adverse odds on a single trial." In other words, opportunities for, versus odds against.

As a maximum estimate, we can assume that the entire earth was covered by an ocean ten kilometers deep (over six miles), which was available for experiments. Further we will allow that space to be divided into small compartments of bacterial size (one micrometer on each side). We would then have 5 times 10 36 (five followed by thirty six zeros) separate reaction flasks. If a separate try was made in each flask every minute for one billion years we would have 2.5 times 10 51 tries available. That's quite a few opportunities, now let's look at the odds against.

Many scientists have calculated these odds; we need cite only two to make the point. The first was provided by knighted British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle. He and his colleague, N.C. Wickramasinghe, first endorsed spontaneous generation, then abruptly reversed their position. Why did they do this? Quite obviously, they calculated the odds.

Rather than estimate the chances for the entire bacterium, they considered only the set of functioning enzymes in one. Their starting point was the set of twenty L-form amino acids.

Amino acids occur in L and D forms (left and right) which are mirror image forms and have the same chemical energy, but for some reason only the L form occurs in living organisms. This fact accounts for raising the odds drastically. To duplicate a bacterium one would have to assemble two thousand different functioning enzymes. The odds against this event would be 1 in 10 20, multiplied together two thousand times, or 1 in 10 40,000. If we consider that the number of trials is a number with fifty zeros, opposed to a number with forty thousand zeros, representing the odds against, we can understand why Hoyle changed his mind. His estimate of the event was that it was comparable to the chance that "A tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Heavy odds but in fact, things are much worse. A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L form, was not likely to be available on the early earth. This situation has not even been approached by the very best Miller/Urey experiments. Nor does a set of enzymes constitute a living bacterium. A more realistic estimate has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist.

The answer computed by Morowitz reduced the odds of Hoyle to utter insignificance. One chance in 10 100,000,000,000. This number is so large that to write it in conventional form would require several hundred thousand blank books. We would enter one on the first page of the first book, and then fill it, and the remainder of the books, with zeros. The consensus among statisticians is that once an event faces odds to the 50th ( 10 50 ) power, that event is impossible.

In his book the "Intelligent Universe", Hoyle concluded "as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexities of life, it is apparent that it's chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance."

From "Origins-A skeptic's guide to the creation of life on earth", Robert Shipiro, Bantam Books. 1986.

Professor Philip Johnson is a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court, and has taught law for over twenty years at the University of California at Berkeley. He took up the study of Darwinism because he saw that the books defending the theory were dogmatic and unconvincing.

Specializing in the logic of arguments, Johnson subjects the scientific support of Darwinism to careful scrutiny. Viewed strictly from the point of view of logic and the accepted cannons of scientific research, the theory, Johnson contends, is strictly lacking in confirmatory evidence. He asks if scientists have put the cart before the horse, prematurely accepting Darwin's theory as fact, and then scrambling to find evidence for it. In the process, Darwinism it self has become a kind of faith, a pseudo-science held by it's devotees in spite of, rather than because of the evidence.

From "Darwin on Trial", Philip E. Johnson (Varsity press, 1991)

A.E. Wilder Smith is a college professor with three earned doctorates, He taught chemotherapy and pharmacology at the medical school at the University of Geneva , and is also a well known speaker on many other topics. He is author and co-author of over seventy scientific publications and more than thirty books which have been published in some seventeen languages.

The film series "Origins", which enjoyed great popularity in many countries, was produced by Wilder Smith.

Smith uses the sound lens in dolphins as one example of the difficulties encountered in attributing the development of sophisticated organs to natural selection.

Dolphins find their prey with the aid of echo location. They emit a sound usually of high frequency, the echo of which is then reflected back to the dolphin. In order to locate the position of its prey precisely, the dolphin must concentrate this echo just as the eye concentrates reflected light to form an exact image of the object reflecting the rays of light, "sound rays" are concentrated in the dolphins "melon" just like light rays in the eye's lens. For this reason one speaks of a "sound lens". The various lipid layers in the melon relay the various wave lengths of the echo in such a manner that they form a clear "sound picture". With the aid of this echo sound picture the dolphin can locate its prey precisely.

Such a sound lens functions on a concept based on two principals; (a) the speed of sound transmission in various lipids is not constant and (b) the synthesis of various sound lens lipids exhibiting the differing sound transport velocities. Such a sound lens can hardly have been constructed by means of random experimentation (hit or miss), for the synthetic chemical means for obtaining these various lipids are long and complex. If the wrong lipids have been synthesized, our dolphin could not have survived because he would wrongly have located his prey. Thus, for such a sound lens to be feasible, prior knowledge of the various lipids and the respective sound transporting properties is required. Technical know-how is additionally required to work out this knowledge. The synthesis of a sound lens represents a technical feat of a fantastic standard. "It is entirely untenable to ascribe such a technical feat to chance".

The same, of course, also applies to all other organs such as the eye, kidney, liver, intestinal tract, and the brain. The hierarchical combination of all these organs into a functioning organism requires even more concepts, and concepts of even higher order. "To attribute this hierarchy to chance and to the laws of nature which are not teleonomic, (conscious plan and intelligence) reveals such incredible incredulousness and naivenous that together with G.K. Chesterson we must attribute to Neo-Darwinians a readiness to believe anything they are told, as long as it is in accord with Neo-Darwinism!" According to Chesterson, this type of credulousness far surpasses all the religious credulousness and superstition on this whole planet.

From "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", A.E. Wilder Smith, T.W.F.T. Publishers 1981, P.O. Box 8000, Costa Mesa, CA 92628

Even Darwin himself in a chapter titled "Difficulties With the theory" from his "Origins of Species" states, "To suppose that the eye, with so many parts all working together...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

“Dr Anthony Flew now believes in God. I'm not sure how to express what a big deal this is. I believe it may represent one of the seven seals of the apocalypse. Soon dogs and cats will begin sleeping with each other and Michael Moore will be publicly repeating the Pledge of Allegiance.
Any halfwit can jump up and down denouncing God, but for a half-century professor Anthony Flew has been considered probably the number one living intellectual proponent of religious skepticism and atheism. If Madalyn Murray O'Hair had ever actually engaged in logical debate about atheism, it would have most likely been Anthony Flew's books she'd have read to bone up.
Now at age 81, Flew says he believes in some kind of God. Basically, over some period of time he's come to accept the "design" argument that says that there's simply too much complexity in DNA for life to have developed without some kind of intelligent guidance.” Blogcritics.org

There is evidence that the odds against the universe and especially life coming into existence by accident are astronomically high, but is there any evidence of there being any validity to any of the world's religions?

One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard's University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard Law School to it's eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous 3 volume work, "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", which is still considered one of the greatest single authorities on the subject in the entire literature of legal procedure. Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his 3 volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice." Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence of the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.

Dr. Frank Morrison, a lawyer who had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, had come to the opinion that the resurrection was nothing but a "fairy tale happy ending which spoiled the matchless story of Jesus." He felt that he owed it to himself, and to others, to write a book that would present the truth about Jesus and dispel the myth of the resurrection. Upon studying the facts however, he too came to a different conclusion. The sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to concluded that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. Morrison wrote his book, but not the one he had planned. It is titled, "Who Moved the Stone?" The first chapter, very significantly, is called, "The Book that Refused to be Written."

The literary scholar, C.S. Lewis, former professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, when writing about his conversion to Christianity, indicated that he had believed Christians "To be wrong."

The last thing Lewis wanted was to embrace Christianity. However, "Early in 1926 the hardest boiled atheist I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. " Rum thing," he went on. "All that stuff of Frazer's about the Dying God. Rum Thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once." "To understand the shattering impact of it, you would need to know the man (who has certainly never since shown any interest in Christianity). If he, the cynic of cynics, the toughest of the toughs, were not (as I would still have put it) "safe", where could I turn? Was there then no escape?"

After evaluating the basis and evidence for Christianity, Lewis concluded that in other religions there was "no such historical claim as in Christianity." His knowledge of literature forced him to treat the Gospel record as a trustworthy account. "I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myth." Finally, contrary to his strong stand against Christianity, Professor Lewis had to make an intelligent decision: "You must picture me alone in that room in Magdelen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England."

Professor Thomas Arnold for fourteen years the headmaster of Rugby, author of the three-volume "History of Rome", and holder of the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts.

This great scholar said, "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Brooke Foss Wescott, English scholar, said, “Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ.”

Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And not one shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraph or archaeology that would disprove this statement."

Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, has written:

"My faith began with and was grounded on what I thought was revealed in the Bible. When, particularly, I came to the New Testament, the Gospels and other writings of the men who had been friends of Jesus Christ seemed to me to make an overwhelming case, merely as a matter of strict evidence, for the fact therein stated. The same approach to the cardinal test of the claims of Jesus Christ, namely, His resurrection, has led me, as often as I have tried to examine the evidence, to believe it as fact beyond dispute."

The latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte.

Concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

One of the unique and fascinating aspects of the Bible is that in no other religious literature do we find the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy. Biblical predictions recorded sometimes hundreds of years in advance of their happening are fulfilled in minute detail:

The prophet Isaiah, writing about 700 B.C., names Cyrus as the king who will say to Jerusalem that it shall be built and that the Temple foundation shall be laid. (Isaiah 44:28; 54:1)

At the time of Isaiah’s writing, the city of Jerusalem was fully built and the entire temple was standing. Not until more than 100 years later, in 586 B.C., would the city and Temple be destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar.

After Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, it was conquered by the Persians in about 539 B.C. Shortly after that, a Persian king named Cyrus gave the decree to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. This was around 160 years after the prophecy of Isaiah!

The prophet Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, who would not be born for about a hundred years, would give the command to rebuild the Temple, which was still standing in Isaiah’s day and would not be destroyed for more than a hundred years. This prophecy is truly amazing, but it is not isolated. There are, in fact, hundreds of Bible prophecies which predict future events.

Josh McDowell, in "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", details sixty one Old Testament prophecies and their fulfillment by Jesus Christ. Space prohibits listing them all here but following are objections to some of these select prophecies and answers to these objections.

Objection: Fulfilled prophecy in Jesus was deliberate.
Answer: The above objection might seem plausible until we realize that many of the prophecies concerning the Messiah were totally beyond the human control of Jesus, such as--
1. Place of birth (Micah 5:2).
2.Time of birth (Daniel 9:25; Genesis 49:10).
3. Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14).
4. Betrayal.
5. Manner of death (Psalms 22:16).
6. People's reactions (mocking, spitting, staring, etc.).
7. Piercing.
8. Burial.

Objection: Fulfilled prophecy in Jesus was coincidental, an accident.
"Why, you could find some of these prophecies fulfilled in Kennedy, King, Nasser, etc.", replies the critic.
Answer: Yes, one could possibly find one or two prophecies fulfilled in other men, but not all 61 major prophecies!

H. Harold Hartzler, of the American Scientific Affiliation, Goshen College, in the foreword of Peter Stoner's book, "Science Speaks", writes: " The manuscript for "Science Speaks" has been carefully reviewed by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group and has been found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented. The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way."

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in "Science Speaks" to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability on reference to eight prophecies (1.-No.10; 2.-No.22; 3.-No.27; 4.-No.33 & 44; 5.-No.34; 6.-No.35&36; 7.-No.39; 8.-No.44 & 45 (crucified) ),"... We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that " we take 10 17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold fold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance should he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having then all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom.

" Now these prophecies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 10 17 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ.

"This means that the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10 17 of being absolute."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says,"... We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 157."

"This is really a large number and it represents an extremely small chance. Let us try to visualize it. The silver dollar, which we have been using, is entirely too large. We must select a smaller object. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so small that it will take 2.5 times 10 15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this line one inch long, and counted 250 each minute, and if we counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-inch line of electrons. If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 years or 6.9 times 10 21 years.

"With this introduction, let us go back to our chance of 1 in 10157. Let us suppose that we are taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one?" Such is the chance of any one man fulfilling 48 prophecies.

From "A Ready Defense Volume 1" and "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", Josh McDowell, 1990, 1992.

How Christianity differs significantly from other religions is a subject often discussed in our shrinking modern world. There is, currently a meeting of cultures, nations, races and religions on a scale unprecedented in history. In this jet age we are no more than twenty-four hours away from any spot on the earth. Television brings into our living rooms the coronation of a pope, the burning of a Buddhist monk and a Muslim ceremony conducted by a political leader.

Over 300,000 students from more than 180 countries of the world come to the United States every year to study in more than 2,500 colleges and universities in every one of the 50 states. Brightly colored saris on graceful Indian women and striking turbans on erect Sikhs are not unfamiliar sights in our metropolitan areas or small college towns. In addition, there are multiplied thousands of diplomatic, business and tourist visitors every year.

Many of these visitors find their way into parent-teacher organization meetings, service clubs and churches to speak on their cultural and religious backgrounds. They are sincere, educated and intelligent. They are often interested in learning about Christianity, and we may learn from them.

As one has contact with these friends from overseas and becomes aware of their religious beliefs, the question naturally arises as to whether or not Christianity is unique among world religions, or is it only a variation on a basic theme running through all religions? To put it another way, "Does not the sincere Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew worship the same God as we do, but under a different name?" Or, quite bluntly, "Is Jesus Christ the only way to God?"

In answering this question, it is extremely important that we first empty it of its potentially explosive emotional content. When a Christian asserts that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and that apart from him there is no salvation, he or she is not suggesting that Christians think they are better than anyone else. Some people erroneously view Christians as having formed a bigots club, like a fraternity with a racial segregation clause. If only the fraternity and the Christians were less bigoted, such people think, they would vote to change their membership rules and, in the case of the Christians, let in anyone who believes in God. "Why bring Jesus Christ into it?" we are often asked. "Why can't we just agree on God?" And this brings us to the fundamental issue.

Christians assert that Jesus Christ is the only way to God because Scripture says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Christians believe this, not because they have made it their rule, but because Jesus Christ our Lord taught it (Jn 14:6). A Christian cannot be faithful to his Lord and affirm anything else. He is faced with the problem of truth. If Jesus Christ is who he claims to be, then we have the authoritative word of God himself on the subject. If he is God and there is no other Savior, then obviously he is the only way to God. Christians could not change this fact by a vote or by anything else.

It is helpful to point out, to those who ask this question, that there are some laws the penalty for which is socially determined. There are other laws of which this is not true. For instance, the penalty for driving through a stoplight is determined by society. It is not inherent in the act itself. The penalty could be set at fifty dollars or at ten dollars, or the law could be abolished completely.

With the law of gravity, however, the penalty for violation is not socially determined. People could vote to unanimously suspend the law of gravity for an hour, but no one in his right mind would jump off the roof to test it! No, the penalty for violating that law is inherent in the act itself, and the person who violated it would be picked up with a blotter despite the unanimous resolution!

As there are inherent physical laws, so there are inherent spiritual laws. One of them is God's revelation of himself in Christ. Another is Christ's death as the only atonement for sin.

In proclaiming the exclusiveness of Christ, a Christian does not assume a superior posture. He speaks as a sinner saved by grace. As D. T. Niles, of Ceylon, so beautifully put it, "Evangelism is just one beggar telling another beggar where to find food." After defusing the emotional bomb, it is then important to move on to the important question of truth. Sincerely believing something does not make it true, as anyone will testify who has ever picked a wrong bottle out of a medicine cabinet in the dark. Faith is no more valid than the object in which it is placed, no matter how sincere or how intense the faith is. A nurse put carbolic acid in the eyes of a newborn baby, sincerely thinking she was applying silver nitrate. Her sincerity did not save the baby from blindness.

These same principles apply to things spiritual. Believing some thing doesn't make it true any more than failing to believe truth makes it false. Facts are facts, regardless of people's attitudes toward them. In religious matters, the basic question is always, "Is it true?"

Take, for instance, the fact of the deity, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christianity affirms these facts as the heart of its message. Islam, on the other hand, denies the deity, death and resurrection of Christ. On this very crucial point, one of these mutually contradictory views is wrong. They can't simultaneously be true, no matter how sincerely both are believed by how many people.

A great deal is said about the similarity of world religions. Many Christians naively assume that other religions are basically the same, making the same claims and essentially doing what Christianity does, but in slightly different terms. Such an attitude reveals complete ignorance of the doctrines of other religions.

Though there are some similarities, the differences far outweigh, and are much greater than, the similarities.

One of the similarities is the essence of the Golden Rule, which is contained in almost every religion. From Confucius's time we have the statement, in various forms, that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Many wrongly assume that this is the essence of Christianity. But if all Jesus Christ did was to give us the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule, he would have actually increased our frustration. As we have seen, we have had the Golden Rule since Confucius's time. Our problem has never been not knowing what we should do. Our problem, rather, has been that we lack power to do what we know we should.

Christ raised the ethical level and thereby made the requirements higher. This by itself raises our frustration level. But that is not all Christ did, and this is a major difference between Christianity and other religions. Christ offers us his power to live as we should. He gives us forgiveness, cleansing and his own righteousness, all as a free gift. He reconciles us to God. He does something for us we cannot do for ourselves.

Every other religious system, however is essentially a do it your self proposition. Follow this way of life, they say, and you will gain favor with God and eventually achieve salvation. In a sense, other religious systems are sets of swimming instructions for drowning man. Christianity is a life preserver.

D. T. Niles has also observed that in other religions good works are an "in order to." In Christianity, they are a "therefore." In other religions, good works are the means by which one hopes to earn salvation. In Christianity salvation is received as a free gift, through the finished work of Christ, the "therefore" good works becomes an imperative love of God. Or, as another has put it, other religions are do; Christianity is done.

Christianity is what God has done for human beings in seeking them and reaching down to help them. Other religions are a matter of human beings seeking and struggling toward God.

Because of this profound difference, Christianity alone offers assurance of salvation. Because our salvation depends on what God has done for and given us, we can say with the same wonderful certainty as the apostle Paul, "To be away from the body . . . [is to be] at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8).

In every works religion, however, it is impossible ever to have assurance. When do you know that you have done enough good works? You never know, and never can know. Fear persists because there is no assurance of salvation.

What salvation is, and what we are pointing toward, is quite different in the world's religions from what it is in Christianity.

In Buddhism, for instance, the ultimate goal is nirvana, or the extinction of desire. According to Buddha's teaching, all pain and suffering come from desire. If this desire can be overcome by following the Eightfold Path to Enlightenment, one can achieve nirvana, which is total nothingness. It is likened to the snuffing out of a candle. This is said to happen to life and consciousness when nirvana has been achieved.

In Hinduism the ultimate goal is also nirvana, but the term here has a different meaning. Nirvana is ultimate reunion with Brahma, the all-pervading force of the universe which is the Hindu's God. This experience is likened to the return of a drop of water to the ocean. Individuality is lost in the reunion with God, but without the total self-annihilation of Buddhism. Nirvana, in Hinduism is achieved through a continuous cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. As soon as any animal, insect, or human being dies, that being is immediately reborn in another form. Whether one moves up or down the scale of life depends on the quality of moral life one has lived. If it has been a good life, one moves up the scale with more comfort and less suffering. If one has lived a bad life, one moves down the scale into suffering and poverty. If one has been bad enough, that person is not reborn as a human being at all but as an animal or insect. This law of reaping in the next life the harvest of one's present life is called the law of Karma. It explains why Hindus will not kill even an insect, not to mention a sacred cow, though these inhibitions pose grave sanitation and public health problems. What seems strange, curious and even ludicrous to us of the Western world has a very clear rationale to the Hindu.

In Islam heaven is thought of as a paradise of wine, women and song. It is achieved by living a life in which, ironically, one abstains from the things with which he or she will be rewarded in paradise. In addition to this abstention, one must follow the Five Pillars of Islam: repeating the creed, making a pilgrimage to Mecca, giving alms to the poor, praying five times daily and keeping the fast of Ramadan.

Again, there is no possibility of assurance. I have often asked Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists whether they would achieve nirvana or go to paradise when they died. I have not yet had one reply in the affirmative. Rather, they referred to the imperfection of their lives as being a barrier to this realization. There is no assurance in their religious systems because there is no atonement, and salvation depends wholly on the individual's gaining enough merit.

Even the fundamental concept of God, on which there is a plea that we should agree, reveals wide divergences. To say that we can unite with all who believe in God, regardless of what this God is called, fails to recognize that the term God means nothing apart from the definition given it.

Buddha, contrary to popular belief, never claimed to be deity. In fact, he was agnostic about the whole question of whether God even existed. If God existed, the Buddha taught emphatically, he could not help an individual achieve enlightenment. Each person must work this out for himself or herself.

Hindus are pantheistic. Pan means all and theistic means God. Hindus believe that God and the universe are identical. The concept of maya is central to their thinking. Maya means that the material world is an illusion and that reality is spiritual and invisible. Brahma is the impersonal, all-pervading force of the universe, and the ultimate goal is for people to be reunited with this God in nirvana. Buddhism also teaches that the material world is an illusion. It is readily apparent why science came to birth through Christians, who believed in a personal God and an orderly universe, rather than in the context of Oriental philosophy. It is clear why most scientific progress has come from the West rather than the East. Why would one investigate what he believes is an illusion?

In Islam and Judaism we have a God much closer to the Christian concept. Here God is personal and transcendent, or separate from his creation. Surely, we are urged, we may get together with those who believe in God in personal terms.

But as we examine the Muslim concept of God-Allah as he is called in the Koran-we find he is not the God and Father of Jesus Christ, but rather, as in all other instances, a God of people's own imagination. Our knowledge of Allah comes from the Koran, which came through Muhammad. Muhammad, like Buddha and unlike Jesus Christ, did not claim deity. He taught that he was only the prophet of Allah. The picture of God which comes through to us in the pages of the Koran is of one who is totally removed from men, one who is capricious in all of his acts, responsible for evil as well as for good, and who is certainly not the God who "so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"(Jn 3:16). It is this totally distant concept of God that makes the idea of the Incarnation utterly inconceivable to the Muslim. How could their god, so majestic and beyond, have contact with mortal human beings in sin and misery? The death of God the Son on the cross is likewise inconceivable to a Muslim, since this would mean God was defeated by his creatures, an impossibility to them.

The Jewish concept of God is closest of all to the Christian. Isn't the God whom they worship the God of the Old Testament, which we accept. Surely we can get together on this!

Again, however, closer examination shows that the Jews would not admit their God was the Father of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was this very issue that precipitated such bitter controversy in our Lord's time. God we accept, they said to Jesus Christ but we do not accept you because as a man you are claiming yourself to be God, which is a clear case of blasphemy.

In a conversation with the Jews, our Lord discussed this question. "God is our Father," they said. Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God.... He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" (Jn 8:42, 47). In even stronger words he says, "You belong to your father, the devil" (v. 44).

Here, in our Lord's own words, we have the clue as to what our attitude should be toward those who are sincerely seeking God If they are seeking the true God, their sincerity will be evidenced by the fact that they will receive Christ when they hear about him. Missionary history has numerous examples of those who have been following other gods and an unknown god but who have responded when presented with the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ. They have immediately realized that he is the true God, whom they have been seeking.

Scripture is clear throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament that worship of gods other than the true God originates with the devil. "They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols" (Lev 17:7), and "The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God" (1 Cor 10:20).

Of the great religious leaders of the world, Christ alone claims deity. It really doesn't matter what one thinks of Muhammad, Buddha or Confucius as individuals. Their followers emphasize their teachings. Not so with Christ. He made himself the focal point of his teaching. The central question he put to his listeners was, "Whom do you say that I am?" When asked what doing the works of God involved, Jesus replied, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" (Jn 6:29).

On the question of who and what God is, the nature of salvation and how it is obtained, it is clear that Christianity differs radically from other world religions. We live in an age in which tolerance is a key word. Tolerance, however, must be clearly understood. (Truth! by its very nature, is intolerant of error.) If two plus two is four, the total at the same time cannot be twenty-three. But one is not regarded as intolerant because he disagrees with this answer and maintains that the only correct answer is four.

The same principle applies in religious matters. One must be tolerant of other points of view and respect their right to be held and heard. He cannot, however, be forced in the name of tolerance to agree that all points of view, including those that are mutually contradictory, are equally valid. Such a position is nonsense.

It is not true that "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe it." Hitler's slaughter of six million Jews was based on a sincere view of race supremacy, but he was desperately wrong. What we believe must be true in order to be real. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6). There are many ways to Christ, but if we are to know the true and living God in personal experience, it must be through Christ, the only way to God.

From "Know Why You Believe", Paul and Marie Little, Intervarsity Press, 1988.

Jesus: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." John 3:16-21

Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6.

The Apostle Paul's jailer asked: "Sirs what must I do to be saved?"
He replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Acts 16:29-31.

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Romans 10:9-10.

Jesus prayed this prayer: "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise, and for revealing it to little children. Yes, Father, for it pleases you to do it this way!" Matthew 11:25-26.

Jesus: "Your heavenly father will forgive you if you forgive those who sin against you; but if you refuse to forgive them, he will not forgive you". Matthew 5:14-15.

The Apostle Paul: "I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved recognize this message as the very power of God. For God says, "I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them".

"So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of these world's great affairs? God has made them all look foolish, and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself as the center of God's wise plan for their salvation. This so-called "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weakness---Christ dying on the cross--- is far stronger than any man." 1Corinthians 1:18-25.

Finally, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people say “look at all the wars and killing that have been done in the name of religion”. Doing a little research I found since the advent of Christianity about 5 million people have died in the name of Christianity with conflicts such as the crusades and the inquisition. The Crusades were “Christian’s” response to Muslim attacks on pilgrims in the holy land that for the most part consisted of misfits that had little interest in following Christ’s command to love your neighbor and even your enemy. The victims of the inquisition were for the most part Christians being accused of heresy by a corrupt church that was far from following in the footsteps of Christ.

So that’s 5 million in 2000 years in the name of Christ opposed to over 100 million in the last century, ( 50 million for Stalin and 60 million for Mao, not to mention others) in the name of atheism. I think that’s an interesting reciprocal, 20 times the amount in 1/20th the time Everyone knows Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but not many know that he killed nearly that many Christians who spoke out against him and were among the first to go.

Consider this prayer at the end of Josh McDowell’s book, "More Than a Carpenter":

"Lord Jesus, I need you. Thank you for dying on the cross for me. Forgive me and cleanse me. Right this moment I trust you as Savior and Lord. Make me the type of person you created me to be. In Christ's name. Amen."

Larry Harmen

thank you lisa and rabbi also for your comments which added to my understanding

as a muslim i say countless times every day-

i testify that there is no god but god

WA AHASHADUWA LA ILHAHA ILALA)

it is a beautiful thing when we find how similar we really are

Lisa, thank you for that wonderful story. The Lord is God, the Lord is one. Blessed be God forever.

Rabbi, thank you for that educational piece. Could you explain the pillar of fire by night and pillar of smoke by day? I'd apreciate it, thanks.

Ben, what a limited understanding you have!

Lisa thanks for your story. Last March I went to my nephews Bar-Mitzvak in Santa Fe, N.M. He is adopted Hispanic-Indian young man who was rescued from a life of foster homes. His new father is Reformed and his mother Episcopalian. It was beautiful to witness. I have been struggling with the anger that has been leading to schism in the Episcopal Church over the events of the 2003 General Convention and the Ordination of Bishop Eugene Robinson. I had been attending a charismatic, fundamental Episcopal Church which was in opposition. I have never felt prouder of The Epicopal Church than the willing to offer a place and encouragement to homosexuals. I had been silenced by the overwhelming opposition of my local church. After seeing the love and inclusiveness at my the Bar-Mitzvah and the sermons of the Rabbi. I found the resolve to speech out for Eugene Robinson. I have been able to associate with a wonderful inclusive church where the Love of Christ is taught, shared, and inclusive.

There is actually a chapter in the Qur'an similar to the Sh'ma which says: " Say, He is God, the one and only. God, the eternal, absolute. He begets not, nor is he begotten; and there is none like unto him." God is not whatever our minds might picture him to be. The idea that God
can become a man is ridiculous. It is what a primitive man might believe. The early Christians were primarily Romans and Greeks; To them the idea of man being a god is not uncommon and far fetched. The Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythologies are full of such man gods. Actually Julius Caesar declared that was the living god and his son also said that he was the son of god. To me the notion of Jesus being equal to God is astounding. I don't understand and it boggles my mind how we can put a man on the moon and yet still hold to such a belief. Some believe that God made us in his own image. What image? this monkey image! please, give me a break. In the bible, God is described as riding on some type of angels called the cherubim, and he instructs his people on how to defecate. He says to carefully cover up all feces "for the Lord walketh in the midst of thy camp." (You wouldn't want the divine foot to step in your feces, now would you?) I know God dealt with the Jews at some time; however their records are really in bad shape. I see in the bible the word of God, the word of prophets and the word of man. Which is which is no telling

In Buddhism the understanding that their is no speration between life and death, is what you are feeling, I believe.

Good and Evil originate from the same place, the mind. Good and evil is measured by the outcome being either positive or negative om others not self.

In Buddhism their is the phrase, "Even a villian loves his wife and children," meaning even an apparant evil person possesses the ability to feel the same emotions as all other life, bot love and hate, good and evil. All the same source.

Belding, perhaps we could appreciate "good" by comparing it to "bad." And. We could appreciate "holy" by comparing it to "evil." The same can be said for up-down, left-right, (meant to say right-left) in-out, over-under,,,,

No doubt about it. There is or at least will be a God, a machine capable of making something, anyhing one desires in the way of material objects, from nothing.

God is a tool to be owned by many. God is presently used for many different unrelated things to God's primary purpose, creation. God's main use today is to verify Devil. Devil is the pick and shovel used to mine the gold of hell. When the Godless scientists themselves own God they will no longer deny It's existence.

http://www.hoax-buster.org page 10 and understand the distinguishing characteristics of the one true God, discover God for yourself. Making something from nothing is "about as fer as she can go." But people now own and will always own her.

Pam wrote:

"Afterall, it does explain the existance of evil -- including "why" a just god would allow the Holocaust to "happen"...."

It is a weak, and self-contradictory atheistic argument that God doesn't exist because He shouldn't allow evils like the Holocaust. So now we are dictating to God what He should or should not do? We, mortal, limited humans! Anger at God is nothing new, it is recounted in the Bible over and over again, the angry-at-an-unjust-God atheist is simply a modern version. In fact, anger at the way He uses his power implicitly confirms the existence of God.

Furthermore, without evil how could we appreciate the good? If it was perpetually light with no darkness would we ever appreciate it? With tribulation and suffering we find peace and love as we cradle closer into God's arms. THAT is the answer to those angry at God for allowing suffering. That peace and love is what Lisa Miller is describing above, and what we all will find if we turn towards Him.

More on Reductionist Errors:

And please, non believers, please, please stop making them. Or at least posting them as they are all the same--and getting very boring! Why keep explaining one thing in terms of another?

The following quote is the first essay in a handy little introductory philosophy book entitled "How to think like a Philosopher".

"[Discussing Thales's grand theory that all properties is the world were composed of water]...Thales was making a grand reduction. The properties of all objects in the world, be they metals, mountains, gases or people, were reducible to just one set of properties--those of water. So if you ground things finely enough, dissected them thinly enoungh or examined them closely enough, you would not find iron or stone or flesh, but water. [Thales was, of course, mistaken but he did live in 700 BC.} It might seem strange than anyone would want to explain one thing in terms of another, rather than treating it on its own terms, but this how reduction proceeds....

The taste of abricots, for example, could be reduced to the interplay of the molecules of the fruit with the receptors in our palate. But does this not ignore the sensation of what apricots actually taste like? After all, someone could know about the chemical constituents of apricots without ever having eaten one?"

Reductionist arguments

Pam has said Miller's experience was "all in the brain"--well, good Lord, where else would it be? In the liver?

Brain wave patterns in epilepsy might be composed of the same patterns as those when we listen to music, take drugs or--for a very few--sense the numinous, but it is not the same situation at all.

The components of the form do not equal the form itself. The bits and pieces of coloured glass that were used to make the great north stained glass window of Chartres are not the same as that great window itself. And if--God forbid--you smashed that window, the ensuing broken pieces would also not be the same.

If you mixed up the notes of, say, a Bach cantata, played them back to front or randomly, the results would be dissimilar. Yet they are the same notes.But one would touch the sublime, and the other would be a strident cacaphony. Same components (notes,) NOT the same music.

Pam wrote:

"Do not be afraid if one day you discover that the source of "God" was really (all the time) just the feelings emanating from your complex brain chemistry."

I never really understood the value of this argument... Love, hate, sadness, even reason and meaning, all that we are and all that we perceive come from our mind. Throw "God" and "spiritual" experience in there too. How is this supposed to negate any of it?

Not only was polytheism the prevailing form of religion -- and a radical departure from the norm -- when Moses brought the commandments from God to the Israelites. It was still an embattled belief when God came down to man in the form of the perfect Man, Jesus. The Pharisees were devout Jews dedicated to preserving the purity of their faith, and in that role, challenged Jesus with the question, "Which is the greatest commandment?" Jesus responded, [from Mark, the earliest gospel] "The most important one is this. 'Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." [Mark 12:29-31]

I have followed the "On Faith" discussions off and on, encouraged that an attempt is being made to unite the world's people through our shared beliefs and the recognition of our common humanity. As a believer, I was curious to locate the Sh'ma in the Torah or Old Testament because I wondered if it was also part of the Islamic faith tradition. Unfortunately, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away by Abraham at Sarah's urging long before the time of Moses.

Muslims, Jews, and Christians -- the three great monotheistic faith traditions -- share so much, yet humans practicing their "beliefs" have all -- Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike -- violated the spirit and the law of their faith by not keeping the second great commandment!

I am glad, Lisa, that the Sh'ma has revealed to you "...that these ancient prayers said over and over in times of yearning, or mourning, or simply out of habit, contain revelatory power, the power of history and ancestry and the invocation of a brave group of people who, thousands of years ago, decided that the Lord is One." You also say, "my breath caught again at the connectedness of my people."

I pray that one day you will also see and believe the truth and the power of the One behind the Sh'ma, and the power and meaning in the commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself."
If we believe there is only one God, then we are ALL God's people and all neighbors. My people and your people are one and the same.

You see, Lisa, I BELIEVE the Lord IS One. His/Her existence was NOT the decision of a "brave group of people." The One God spoke these words to the Israelites through Moses. And God, as Jesus, affirmed these commandments, and repeatedly reached out in love to everyone -- not just the Jews. In fact, he commanded us to "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." [Mark 26:15]

Thank you Lisa for your thoughts, and although there are very few comments, its a pleasure to read a conversation within onfaith that is absent the usual polemics.

I would like to offer an alternate translation of the Shema and a brief explanation. I translate the six hebrew words "Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad" as follows.

Translation: "Listen Israel, Adonai is our God, Adonai is the only God".

Explanation:
The Hebrew word Sh'ma is in the imperative form, and therefore is an active, rather than a passive form. "Listening" is active, indicating a conscious engagement by the individual; whereas "hear" is passive. "Hear" is a physical and involuntary act of the ear; "Listen" is a voluntary act of the brain (supported by the auditory system of course). Listen implies prior action. In the Torah, the Israelites respond to a charge from God by saying, "na'aseh v'nishmah", which is usually translated as we will do (observe God's commandments), and then we will understand.

"Adonai" is the way Jews vocalize the secret, unknown name of God - YHVH. The second pair of the three pairs of words simply says "Adonai" is our God, and in so doing indicates the relationship between God and Israel. The Shema declaration is part of a set of verses from the Torah. The following verses, which are always recited in companion with the Shema, describe the relationship of God and Israel as one of love.

The third of the three pairs of words - 'Adonai Echad' do literally say that Adonai is one. My interpretation of these two words is that we are proclaiming that the God we know as Adonai is the one and only God; not only the God of Jews but the God of all people. So I might also translate the six words of the Shema as something that Jews are saying to each other, as

"Listen, fellow Jew, Adonai is our God, and since there is only one God, Adonai is everyone's God".

And special to Pam - shalom to you Pam - there are many ways Jews understand God, including the understanding that God has put a piece of God's self into each of us. So I can reconcile the notion of a God who acts and speaks in history, with the notion of a God who is inside my brain chemistry. Since the Jewish understanding of God is that we are created with free will and the ability to choose, all kinds of evil, from historical events like the Holocaust to individual acts of unkindness, petty jealousy and so forth, as the failure on the part of humans to properly listen what God wants from us. And within the Jewish tradition what matters most is how we behave, and what matters much less, is what we believe.

You are a feeling a spiritual connection that seemingly extends to generations before you ever were born..

Do not be afraid if one day you discover that the source of "God" was really (all the time) just the feelings emanating from your complex brain chemistry.

Afterall, it does explain the existance of evil -- including "why" a just god would allow the Holocaust to "happen"....

Shalom to you!

Hihadist,

a lovely comment on Lisa's piece.

i am an atheist, but the incllusion and humanity and common feeling of your comment are waarming.
thank you for it.

Beautiful piece Lisa Miller.

Solitary and group prayers is a beautiful thing. In solitary, preparing for prayers and the actual act of praying, saying the words clears the mind, firm up the resolve and restore the faith in oneself. Even in your loneliest and most isolated moments, knowing God is there dispel all notions that one is alone.

In group prayers, one is balmed and comforted that one is among a group that shares the same hope and belief that we are all here together and accountable to and responsible for one another.

Peace be upon you.