Who Prays and Who Pays?

have fun
Thank you

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion"

(If you don't know what he means, you haven't read the whole bible cover to cover.)

Same to you, Bill L

Just because mankind gets it wrong in their conciet, why blame God? Thats like saying how many kids are your parents going to have to have to get it right.
A seed grows through many stages, but its still the same entity. It may have some rotten fruit or twisted limbs, but the majority of it can still be healthy. Ateists though sometimes act like ash burrows and other parisitic insects to the Christian tree.

"Facts bounce right off faith."

With all respect, what an ignorant assertion.

Concerned - Facts bounce right off faith. For the truly faithful, I bet your info just makes their faith stronger.

(atheist)

To Phil (quoting Emily Litella):

You were kidding? Oh, okay, never mind...:)

JR

JR - I was kidding.

Anonymous,

Ask your pastor about the pub date.

Based on history, it appears to be published about every 400 years. Last one was I believe published in 1992, so 2392 CE? Stay tuned for an occasional update assuming B16 can get around limbo and the current immoral priest shame.

Concerned, thanks for the heads up on the revised catechism. What's that pub date again?

"How many religions will god have to commission before he gets it right?"

Since no religion can contain an infinite God, nor can all religions combined do so, the only answer is that God would have to commission an infinite number of religions to get it right.

The question then becomes, would God have to commission an infinite number of religions for the entire universe and any other universes, or rather an infinite number for each of the presumably tens of millions of forms of intelligent self-reflective life across the universe?

JR, logic will eventually lead you to the truth! Keep it up. God gave a promise to the Jews and will never break it. The Church is the younger brother of the Jews. Same God, but the adoption is to the Christian. The Jews are the people of God and so are the Christians by adoption.

(atheist)

To Phil:

I think the utility and purpose of faith is the point of these discussions, no?

To quote one of the faith-full above, faith is subjective, personal and irrational. I do not take issue with anyone who says "I have faith in something" and leaves it at that. I do take issue with those who say "my faith makes sense, here is why" or "my god has made these things, my god has decreed these things" and asks me to accept those things.

Logic has yet to fail me (which is not the same as saying that I know or understand everything). Faith has no meaning for me. JR

Jr - please, Bill takes it on faith. Faith is a wonderful thing, especially when logic fails.

(atheist)

To Bill:

Your arguments are forceful, but not logical. There's no limit on the length of time an organization created by man will or can last. It certainly does not follow that human organizations self-destruct "in no time flat" nor that a long lasting organization had to be "commissioned by god".

There are many man-made organizations that have lasted a very long time. The Roman Empire lasted some 1400 years. Various Chinese dynasties lasted many centuries, and China has been a civilized nation-state for thousands of years. The Ottoman Empire lasted about 700 years. So, to follow your argument, god must have commissioned all of these organizations.

You also argue that, since long-lasting institutions must have been created by god, and we know that Judaism has lasted longer than the Catholic church, god must have also commissioned Judaism. This presents an interesting contradiction with the point you made in an earlier post that Jesus started the Catholic church because the Jews rejected his teachings. Why would god establish Judaism and annoint the Jews as his chosen people, and then send his son to create a different church? How many religions will god have to commission before he gets it right? JR

The Catholic Church does not change doctrines {eating meat on fridays is not doctrine, but a practice}! There is no organization on Earth that has ever lasted as long as the Catholic Church. If an organization is created by man and only of man, with as many flawed leaders as the Church has had, it would completely self-destruct in no time flat. What organization can last like that if it had not been comissioned and protected by God? That is a negative proof, but a proof all the same. Nothing else comes close except that the Jews as a people are still around dispite being hated by so many, which is also a proof of being Gods' people.

Anonymous,

The Catholic Cathechism will again be updated and will at that time include what is currently being taught in theology classes at many large Catholic universities as I noted previously. Theology like life evolves.

(atheist)

There seems to be a debate about original sin. In the Catholic Church (where orginal sin was established) the belief is that original sin is part of human nature. Original sin as a construct is unique to Christian religions (particularly the Catholic). Unlike much of the rest of the bible and Christian teachings, it did not come from the Jews.

Original sin originated (sic) with Adam and Eve. In the beginning Adam and Eve were pure, they lived in a state of grace (innocent as the animals) in the garden of eden. Then they were tempted by the serpent and sinned, and were cast out of the garden - they (and all humans from that point onward) fell from grace. Original sin became part of human nature and we could no longer live innocent and free as the animals. According to Catholic teachings, each child inherits this stain of sin when it's born. This is the reason that babies who die unbaptized cannot enter into heaven. Original sin has nothing to do with our actions or choices it is there from the get-go (there are other kinds of sins to cover our sins of choice and action).

I've heard a number of interpretations of the metaphor of original sin. All of them have to do with defining what makes us different from the "dumb (or innocent) beasts. One is that original sin is free will. Another is that original sin is the evil that humans are capable of. There are other variants which I won't go into here.

JR

Phil C, words, mine especially, are inadequate. That doesn't change reality.

(atheist)

To Bill L:

We agree on much of the origins of the NT and early church history (although not all). It's clear that the Catholic church emerged as the dominant new religion in the 3rd century. But where you imagine a divine hand guiding this outcome, I see the ambitions of men, the random fates of history and the popular preferences of people. That comes, as you point out, from my rational nature.

By the way, I was raised Catholic, and was even once an altar boy. My personal opinion is that the church is a deeply flawed and insular organization, whose activities have little connection to Jesus' teachings. I offer that not as a challenge, I understand that you feel quite differently. I only want to point out that you and I have very different points of view regarding the church, and that perhaps it is best to agree to disagree.

JR

I had a really great cabernet sauvignon last night - not the best ever, but way better than anon's description of the blessed sacrament.

Concerned, sad to say, but these days "large Catholic universities," especially in rich countries, if left to their own devices, very often become extremely untrustworthy sources of information on the Catholic faith. [References below are to a more reliable source, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.]

Concerned says, "Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin." A gross oversimplification. Par. 404: Original sin is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act."

Concerned says, "Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist." Wrong. Par. 1279: "The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin..."

Concerned says, "Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home." Another absurd oversimplification. Par 1250: "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism."

Concerned says, "Communion is not Christ's physical Body and Blood since Christ exists as a spirit therefore has no physical form." The first clause is true but meaningless, since the Church never taught otherwise. The second clause is absurd. Christ is God and man, not a "spirit".

Concerned says, "Transubstantiation is a way of expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW [sic] present in the consecrated bread and wine in a special way." Ugh! This appalling statement reduces to infantile gibberish the most exquisite reality that any human being can ever hope to encounter in this life. Par. 1374: "In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. This presence is called 'real'....because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

With all respect, Concerned, your comments reflect the truism that a little knowledge—just a little, without genuine understanding—can be a dangerous thing.

I'm not a "conservative" Catholic—just an ordinary lay Catholic who sometimes feels called to help combat ignorance.

The subject of prayer relates directly to the subject of religions and their foundations.

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about these foundations?

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).

references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proof read or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.

references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the whim of Pilate, the false prophesy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.

references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years

Conclusion: Jewish, Christian and Islamic prayers have very little foundation to rely on.

Concerned, I am a believing Catholic. Neither conservative or liberal. Theologians nor univesities decide doctrines, but the Magesterium along with the Pope. Anyone can teach anything, but if it hasn't been taught by the Church {Pope and Magesterium} it means nothing.
Other churches do indeed have sacraments whether they recognize them or not, but they all {christians} have their roots go back to the Catholic Church.
Salvation is of Jesus Christ alone! If one doesn't believe or have never heard of Him before, they still could have salvation. If they are truely good people they are good through the love of God. God can save whom He wills whether a Christian likes it or not. I won't judge anyones salvation. I may not understand how someone can have salvation, but I'm not God.

Anonymous and Bill L,

You must be conservative Catholics. I recommend reading up on the historical Jesus.

Et al,

More on current Catholic thinking as per the theology being taught in many large Catholic universities to make a point about the reality of what actually happened in history.
( a bit off topic)

The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) .

Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.

Communion is not Christ's physical Body and Blood since Christ exists as a spirit therefore has no physical form. Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a
literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Jesus. "Substance" in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing and was not reducible to material appearance. Transubstantiation is a way of
expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that
"transignificantion" would be a better term today than transubstantiation.

The Sacraments of the Roman Catholic church are important for Catholics but non-Catholics receive equal goodness/grace through their own beliefs
which in the eyes of God are equal to our sacraments.

Concerned reminds me of nothing so much as the kid who finally realizes that his parents "do it" but can never, ever integrate that knowledge into a mature understanding, and just remains fixated on it.

Concerned, many things could have been different, but weren't! Your history, or understanding of it I should say seems to be induced by those funny mushrooms. You're just stirring up with these "historical" comments aren't you?

JR, if you're talking about extreme progressive Catholic "scholars" you'd be right.
Jesus had every intention to bring salvation to the Jews, but with their rejection, as it says in the Old Testament, "I shall take his key and give it to another". The key was the symbol of the Viceroy, second only to the King.
The Gospels were written by the disciples of the Apostles, some of whom were still alive and would have disputed them if they were wrong.
There were other writings at the time, many of which were written by gnostics. The gnostics claimed to have a secret truth that hadn't been revealed to the Apostles. Jesus didn't keep secrets of the gospel from the apostles Luke 8-10. The gnostics were apposed by the true disciples. At the time you knew ones reputation by ones master {silversmiths, carpenters, teachers such as Paul's claim of his teacher to prove his worthiness} and people knew the gnostics had no claims.
There were other churches established by other Apostles, the Coptics, Syrian christians, ect. All of which have the same teachings and accept the leadership of the Catholic Church. If you're talking about the churches in each city, read the writtings of early church fathers and the early councils and how they accepted the authority of the church at Rome { this during the persecutions of Cristians by the Romans}. These fathers are Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, also the Syrian catechesis, the Didache.
Constintine didn't care who won the struggle as long as his empire wasn't split. He himself was not a Christian {supposedly baptised on his death bed}. His contribution was to make sure both sides came together and settled their dispute.
Most doctrines were already held before the birth of Constantine. Ignatius wrote about the Eucharist and refered to the Catholic church circa 79AD. Baptism, repentance, Mary God bearer, annointing the sick, laying on of hands in annointing new Bishops and giving the Spirit, deity of Jesus, cannon of scripture, Trinity{ although the name was given at the council of Nicea the three in one were already held}. Later councils formalized or clarified what was already belived by the faithful. In the catecombs in Rome from the first century are found prayers for the intersession of Mary. The prayer "Sub Tuum Praesidium" was a common prayer around 250 AD.
The Trinity is not in the least contested within the Cathoilc Church and the Churches teaching are plainly presented for all to see! I don't think you're trying to undermine the Catholic Church, you've just been given some terrible mis-information.
Check out cathoilc.com for a more thorough explanation of all these points.

JR, you do seem to take a rational approach to things, I hope you continue researching.

Concerned the Cristian Now Liberated,

Got you there on the proposed name change :)

Nah, I am never a crusader. Only a pursuer of greater Jihad.

Jihadist to Crusader? Not a chance.

So very western to take religious meanings and terms and turn it into something despicable :)

For example, the swastika, an ancient sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism being used as a symbol by Nazis and mentally, visually associated with the Nazis and their atrocities.

And it would be authoritarian to insist someone else to change one's name, belief or culture etc. Freedom of choice remember?

I never ask you to change your name from Concerned the Christian Now Liberated to something else. I never know how to address you in short form - Liberated? Concerned?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, I really love you, but I am doing this at an airport lounge Internet hooked computer.

I came back to apologize to all atheists if I offended them regarding the Buddhist statue under a stupa anology in my previous posting here.

I'll see you Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, in a couple of weeks if you are still here crusading after Jihadists:) and other believers who do not quite share your faith and or views :)

Peace be with you.

PS Any good operas playing in New York?

Jihadist,

Yes, please change your name to Crusader.

If Muslims will not rewrite their book of terror, they should at least put asterisks by those passages not accepted by the moral global community with the following explanation of the asterisk. "These passages were added by militant scribes and embellishers using the Prophet's name. The Prophet could neither read nor write and it is concluded that the ideas presented are not his. In his goodness, he would not want to harm anyone to include non-believers."

These asterisks would apply to any book offensive to the moral global community where the Eight Commandments serve as the Rules of Life from antiquity and adopted by many.

Thou shalt honor thy parents.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou salt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not lie.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
Thou shalt honor your neighbor as you do yourself.

Mr. Moody, the points raised by atheists again and again against belief in God is that, there is not a shred of proof, no tangible evidence that God existed. They want scientific proof.

Which brings me to a particular statue of Buddha at Borobodur in Java, Indonesia. It is covered completely by a stupa. It is done deliberately so. You can't see the statue at all, but you know it is there. Atheists can't see and won't accept the statue is there, even if told. They'll need to break the stupa to know for certain that the statue of the Buddha is there.

Hay Stan, you might be right that "Reason is the fly-in-the-ointment that leads to bad religion" but it sure does lead to great science, doncha think?

All those wonderful cures for deadly diseases - yay reason!

"Reason" seems to be a common thread in many of the responses. Non-believers invoke "reason" in contrast to the supernatural. This makes no sense. It is one thing to be a non-believer in the supernatural. It is quite another to rationalize non-belief on the grounds of human reason.

Historically, the track record of human reason is abysmal. In fact, human reason has consistently undermined the faith of believers. Reason is the fly-in-the-ointment that leads to bad religion.

Is it more rational to believe in reason than in the supernatural? And if one fails to believe in the supernatural, is it necessary to believe in anything, let alone human reason? The notion that one must have faith in something is irrational if you do not have faith.

The very nature of faith is that it is the antidote to reason. Faith is irrational and unreasonable. That is why it is called faith.

The public prayer issue is a campaign by McChurch, the drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right, to impose the trappings of faith on the faithless. Biblically, it is the form of religion without the spirit, thereof.

Because one is a believer does not mean that one has to take leave of one's reason. The notion that Christian phrases underscore a nation as Christian not only defies the nature of faith but destroys faith as the basis for belief.

It takes no faith to carve the Ten Commandments over the courthouse door, nor does it take reason to remove it. Faith should care less about public prayers and slogans; reason should not be disturbed over the slogans of the faithful, unless, of course, unbelief is an irrational response to an inner conflict over the existence of a supreme being.

As for the destiny of unbelievers, how could anyone who has reasoned God out of existence care less about a Hell that, in his reason, does not exist? Unless, of course, human reason becomes something of a faith, in which case destiny on such thin ice is a far worse bet than belief in a supreme being.

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

JR

I really appreciate your clarifications and examples. I never knew. I now understand why the atheists are "up in arms" over their exclusion and vilification by the larger society.

Concerned

Iranians have access to the Internet. It is their choice to read or not, this site. There are thousands of Iranian blogs and sites.

As for books, both holy and secular, I am against all forms of deletions and censorships. Let there be abridged versions or King James version. But let the orginal still remain for both secular and holy texts.

Deleting paragraphs from reading materials one don't like is the first step towards censorship and authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The full text of Marx's Communist Manifesto and Mao's Little Red Book is still around. Likewise the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Good or bad, let it be judged, let it stand or fall by itself.

And please, Jihadist is a term coined by the west for a Mujahid. Look up the Muslim defination of Jihad, both Lesser and Greater Jihad.

Imagine that, even the word Jihadist has been so negatively potrayed that its very usage invoked fear and mistrust. Congratulations. Y'all have whipped yourself into a corner of fear and trembling by your own media.

If you want, I can change from Jihadist to Crusader.

(atheist)

To Bill L:

Bill, I'm not sure where to start, in responding to your claims. Here are a few things that biblical scholars (including catholic scholars) accept as reliable explanations of the time of Jesus and the centuries afterwards in which the catholic church was established:

1. Jesus had no intention of creating a new church. His mission was to reform Judaism, and to challenge Roman rule.
2. None of the gospels in the new testament were written by contemporaries of Jesus, none of the NT gospel writers ever knew or met Jesus. The earliest gospels that we know of today were written between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death.
3. There were many gospels written about Jesus and his teachings that were left out of the bible. Some of these conflict significantly with the gospels selected to be in the bible. No one today knows whether these gospels, or the ones included in the new testament, provide entirely accurate descriptions of Jesus' teachings or his life.
4. A number of different religions were established by apostles of Jesus in the 2-3 centuries after his death. There was quite a lot of competition between these churches. It was only after the political efforts of Constantine that the catholic church emerged as the victor.
5. Much of the new testament and catholic dogma was established during the time of Constantine, in an effort to solidify his rule through the establishment of a "state" church. It was Constantine, not Jesus (or even his apostles), who identified the catholic church as the "one, true church". Constantine also established the trinity, which to this day is debated hotly, even within the catholic church.

I am not trying to undermine the catholic church, I only want to correct your misperceptions. Everything I've written here is accepted by catholic scholars, but is not regularly shared by the church with its lay people. JR

Bill L,

Another viewpoint:

And that is the rub, everyone has their own interpretation of the Word of God. Four different books, at least five auxiliary books/epistles, competing rabbis, and competing stories just in the original set followed by translations and embellishments followed by countless interpretations, hidden codes and raptures. IMHO, God needs to have another visit to a mountain top to get the mess cleaned up.

Of course, there are the other religions that have the same God but different authentic Words. Very strange that our God could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics and economics.

I will stick with Mark's Gospel, the seven authentic epistles of Paul and the twelve Commandments (Eight if you are an atheist) along with the evaluation of these by modern biblical scholars to get some semblance of what God is trying to communicate realizing that good people of other faiths or no faiths are also God's chosen ones.

Bill L,

Another aspect of Christianity/Catholicism:

No one has yet noted the economic influence on the foundation of Christianity. How about this:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". HJ saw a good thing and continued preaching the good word but added "healing" for an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. I.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches and related aristocracies.

And there you have it, money is the real the founder/foundation of Christianity and actually the foundation of all major religions.

Bill L,

The foundations of the Catholic Church are on very shaky scriptural ground. Few examples, Pilate, a "free-willer" like the rest of us could just as easily shipped Jesus off to work the Roman mines. Therefore, the NT and Christianity to include Catholicism are based on the whims of a Roman governor i.e. no crucfixion, no resurrection, no dying for our sins without Pilate, "necessary accessory".

And Constantine would also be considered another "necessary accessory".

Other observations/conclusions:

"Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture not can they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”

Corncerned, you don't believe but want the new testament revised?

JR, the new testament was given to the Church by God and no one can revise it. Those who do, do so because the don't like the teaching of the Church! They are trying to alter how She teaches! The Catholic Church, being the Church established by Jesus, and taught and organized by the apostles of Jesus, decided what books went in and which ones didn't belong to the bible. The Church has the sole authority to teach doctrines as taught by Christ since He established Her and She alone has the unbroken line of bishops appointed dating back to the Apostles{ Catholic being both the Eastern and western branch of the Church}. If you don't like it don't belong.

(atheist)

To Jihadist: I appreciate your attempts to defend sacred texts like the bible by reminding us that "if...certain paragraphs and passages are edited out or deleted, it will open a floodgate..."

The issue here is that the bible has been very carefully edited several times, and many texts were left out or deleted. Most of this editing was done centuries after the original texts were written. The bible's editors, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and several times since, carefully decided which gospels to include and which gospels to ignore. These editors built a bible that reinforced the structure of the religion they were building.

If you are interested in how the bible came to be, and would like to learn more about the gospels that were left out, National Geographic has a very detailed and thoroughly researched presentation on the Gospel of Judas here: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html

and PBS created an excellent series on the origins of christianity, which you can explore here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

There are many more academic explorations on the origins of christianity and the bible. These two organizations are generally considered to be unbiased, with no religious ax to grind.

By the way, I disagree with your comparison of editing the bible to editing a modern book like the Satanic Verses. With the bible the editing was done long after the original authors had died, and even after many of the original texts were lost. Rushdie is still alive today, we have access to his original words. One could edit the bible in the 3rd or 17th centuries without fear that the original authors would object to the changes.

It's very interesting to discover how "the word of god" was crafted by various men...JR

Jihadist (change your name- contemporary dictionary definition "Modern-day terrorists often claim that they are carrying out acts of destruction, such as the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, as part of a jihad."),

Without changing the Koran, Islamics will forever be on lists of terrorists. Is that what you want???????

You also have not addressed the education in Islamic countries and the isolation of citizens in these countries, e.g. no access to the Internet. What are the controlling mullahs afraid of?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'd rather leave the Qur'an as it, like the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Odyssey etc. Let it be, contradictions and all. Just as Muslims clerics and scholar never revise, edit or ban the biographies of Prophet Muhammad PBUH over the centuries.

If the New Testament needs to be revised or deleted for certain parts, it would be up to Christians to do so. No Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews or Muslims asked for the New Testament to be revised or have paragraphs deleted.

Surely you would not want to delete certain paragraphs of James Joyce's Odyssey even, or Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

Think about it. It you ask for certain paragraphs and passages to be edited out or deleted, it will open a floodgates of demands for specific passages in other books to be done so. I can just imagine the hue and cry if and when Muslims ask for certain passages in Satanic Verses to be deleted.

I am dying to read the whole text of the Dead Sea Scrolls though.

(atheist)

To Jihadist:

I cannot speak for all non-believers, but I can assure you that freedom of thought and belief is very important to me. In answer to your question, as to why atheists sometimes go on the attack in their interactions with believers, I can offer one explanation (which I don't think justifies these attacks, but does explain them).

There are many religious people who, unlike yourself, insist on imposing their religious beliefs on others. I wish that all religious people adhered to your belief that religion be private, and kept out of state and public policy. But there many believers who feel they know the "truth" and that their beliefs ensure "morality". Given that certainty, they feel it is their duty to impose these beliefs on the rest of us.

This subset of believers insists that we say their prayers in our public schools, that we print the name of their "god" on our currency, that we place their decalogue on the walls of our courthouses, that sessions of congress begin with their prayers, that we pledge our allegiance to their "god" in school every morning, etc.

You also said that "atheists...are never persecuted or jailed for their unbelief" but that's not exactly how it has gone. Atheists have often been persecuted, and discrimination against atheists is commonly accepted, even legal today in many places. A few examples, out of the many:

* "According to a national survey by researchers from the University of Minnesota, Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians...as the minority group "most dangerous or threatening" to the American way of life.

* Said in a speech by President George H. W. (daddy) Bush "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

* The Boy Scouts of America's by-laws exclude athesists.

* In divorce cases deciding custody of children, atheist parents have been denied custody or visitation rights in South Dakota, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. (Imagine if they had been denied custody because they were jewish, or catholic.)

* The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4, amended in 2003) states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

* North Carolina's Constitution of 1971, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God....".

* South Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

* Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

These efforts to force a particular religious belief on the rest of us have put some atheists on the attack, figuring that the best defense is a good offense. Perhaps you can convince your fellow believers to practice their religion in private, and respect the separation of church and state. JR

Jihadist,

67% of the New Testament as per recent reviews by NT exegetes is not from the historical Jesus. These passages should be either removed from the NT or be footnoted as embellishments. The same should be done for the Koran/Qur'an using common sense and basic rules of life to remove the offensive, militaristic elements.

See Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus for an example of how to proceed in cleaning up the Koran.

Bill L and Unbeliever,

I can understand Bill L about unbelievers making fun of "intellectually challenged believers". It does get tedious when people keep calling you stupid and a moron.

As for me, let me put it this way:

I don't know what to do or say when someone tells me:

I'm into sado-masochism

I'm gay

I don't believe in God.

The thing is, when a gay tells me s/he is gay, or someone tells me s/he is into sado-masochism, they don't tell me I am stupid for not being gay or for not being into S&M.

Nor do anyone tells me I am stupid for not subscribing to communism, socialism, existentialism etc.

Freedom of thought and belief does not seem be subsribe to by non-believers when it comes to people who believe but only their assertions not to believe.

I have no problem if you don't believe. I never taunted anyone who don't believe for being spiritually bankrupt or souless etc.

Why do atheists, who are not persecuted or jailed for their unbelief, have to taunt believers for believing when I completely agree that belief is private and should be out of state and public policy. Nor should God be invoke by governments to justify wars and impose public policies due to certain religious notions as they interpret it?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Victoria is being polite. I am being polite. We both do not want to bring up quotes in the Bible to show up the militaristic aspects of it.

Victoria is a former Catholic and her discourses here in the On Faith threads are very civil. I am what she calls a monkey. Even if I am more flippant, irreverent and sometimes almost rude here than any Muslim who wrote in, I find it distateful to engage in one-upmanship, spit for spat, my religion is better than yours in quoting specific sriptures and acts and judge a whole community of believers by them.

We are not ignoring you. We just want you to read up more before saying anything here.

I love your prayers that you pasted in various threads in On Faith. Can't delete certain Suras in the Qur'an though. Let it be there. It would be censorship if you do that.

Would you ever delete passages or ban any books that are published? If you want all the Muslim world to practice democracy and have no censorship and freedom of thought, you should practice it and not call for anything to be deleted and banned. Let the people decide in the marketplace of ideas.

warm regards

Dear Bill L,

I've always been taught that it is rude to make fun of intellectually challenged people, so I'll just wish you a good life. Concerning my bleak and miserable existence, I'm having a helluva good time living it. Also, thank you for pointing out that I am god. I've been trying to get my friends to acknowledge that all my life. Unfortunately, they too, believe that they are god, so it seems we are at some sort of impasse.

P.s. Please keep your prayers to yourself. You really don't want my personal attention (see the old testament for references).

Wow! All you atheist don't go for anything higher than yourselves. So you are the height of evolution, your own god so to speak? What a bleak and miserable existense you have!

Victoria,

As always you give no references to substantiate your statements. And you always conveniently skip the miltant sections of your bible.

liberated are you going to post those same posts on every question?

i have a life- go look at shakirs post for your answer-

ok liberated-

im all for the world court dispensing justice-
a quiz for you-

whioh is the only country named by the world court as a proponent of terrorism?

tick tick tick bzzzzzzzzzzzz

answer?

the united states of america

From today's CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/03/iraq.cleric.ap/index.html

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Looks we should build a wall around the entire Middle East until these backward, immature, and irrationale clerics can have at it with each other.

And it is very, very disturbing that the Saudi government by their silence continues to support the vitriol for expanding the butchery between
Sunnis and Shiites. Considering the trillions of dollars in cash and investments, the Saudi political leadership could end poverty in all of the Mideast but they apparently fear the Wahhabi clerics. I say jail the terrorist clerics and send them to the Hague for crimes against humanity. Or maybe a UN/US/NATO take over of Saudi Arabia would be a faster resolution?

Victoria and Jihadist,

After reading your commentary about Islam for two weeks, you have not convinced me (and probably most of the other commentators) that flying on an airplane with any Muslim would be safe. You just do not make the case that the majority of Muslims have my best interest as a non-believer at heart. And that is very, very disturbing and sad.

Condemn the daily suicide bombers and condemn the daily butchery of Sunnis and Shiites by their fellow brothers and sisters and stop the "Islam is good" rhetoric.

Good reporting, Susan.

I wonder how many deaths can be attributed to the decisions of those attending the prayer breakfast?

You are intellectually "hot" and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Susan,
I think you are too cynical. So what, some politicians want to pray, eat breakfast, and talk about their faith with others. It is their constitutional right. If the fellowship prefers to remain quiet about their operations you paint them as sinister, but if they were in your face like the Christian Coalition you would oppose that too. These people can't win with you. Your cynicism keeps you from respecting these people and the exercise of their liberties, and that leads you to a place of being intolerant. And if you are intolerant of these Christians, how are you any better than them, cause you are condemned by your own standard. I don't think being a cynical hypocrite is anyway to live your life. Maybe you should rethink your need to pray - it might help you.

One of the problems in the United States that never seems to get connected or talked about is the way the educational system gets manipulated to aid in keeping the citizens 'in line'. Government systems, constitutions, civics, geography, history, etc., or a 'liberal' education, gets downplayed. Schemes such as "No Child Left Behind" gets pushed to take up educational time and resources. Things get pushed to let people that barely know how to get to the poles to vote or can be easily persuaded, to have the same say so as someone that has studied and served for many years.

Then things such as National Prayer Breakfast and "under God" gets slipped to us. The argument becomes words in the pledge to the flag when there ought to be rather a pledge to the Constitution instead of the flag, as the flag doesn't guarantee us any liberty except by inference from the Constitution.

Incompetence alone or even incompetence and greed don't adequately explain why this is done. So the assumption should be that there is something else at work.

A question should be: is this same pattern being followed in other parts of the world?

Robert B,

It is also more interesting for Muslims in the Islamic world to read about the views of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson in their media and their blogs about Islam and Muslims, just as it is for the west to read about what the President of Iran and Al Qaeda has to say about the west. And all the quoted again and again as "proof" of the venality and bigotry of the "Other".

Extremists views from either side makes for better copy and story in the media and to be used for propoganda to reaffirm perceptions and justifications of "us vs. them".

To Jihadist --

Your points about the variety inherent in Islam is well taken. Unfortunately, Islam is very much a mystery to vast majority of people in the West, so it's easier to think of it as a monolithic entity. In many ways, we haven't advanced much in our general knowledge of Islam since the Middle Ages, when Pope Urban II (mistakenly or otherwise) referred to the Muslims as "pagans".

You seem to have a really good handle on the Islamic world, so I'd like to ask you a question. You talk about moderate Muslim opinion being drowned out by extremist rhetoric. Why aren't we in the U.S. hearing anything remotely moderate out of that part of the world? Is it just that we're not paying attention? Is it because the moderate voices are afraid what will happen if the extremists turn on them?

Stan,

Islam is not as monolothic as you perceived. The Five Pillars of Islam are universally held as the prime article of faith. Regardless of the innterpretations, Shariah legal systems or main schools of Islam (Shafie,Hanafi, Hambali,Malaki, Jafari), practicing Muslims held fast to Five Pillars.

You are confusing Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The former are like Catholics, and the latter like Protestants. The Shiites have a "clergy" if you can call them that, with a hierarchy of Hojatolislams, Mullahs and Ayatollahs.

The Iranian Shiite Ayatollahs do not speak for all the Muslims in the world, nor do their fatwas (religious/legal opinions) is complied to by Sunnis.

The Grand Muftis of the Muslim nations are the ones entitled to issuing the fatwas in their own countries. Compliance with the fatwas are up to the Muslims. It is not enforable by state law unless gazetted. And rarely so, except for matters related to Shariah laws, including Islamic Family Laws now extant in many Islamic countries.

Of course that does not stop anyone claiming to be an imam of a mosque or a leader of an Islamic organization from issuing fatwas. Islam Online has many fatwas. Islam does not have a history of institutionalized excommunication. So, there are many, many shades of Islam.

All in a very long way to say, no one can really tell Muslims what to do, for we all think we have direct access to God and unless we agree with an imam, Mufti or Ayatollah in his fatwas.

I believe you are referring to Satanic Verses, the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon, Pope Benedict speech among others for the seemingly universally Muslim reactions, when the Muslim umma seems to be of "one mind".

Yes, and it was the Muslim masses driving it rather than their religous authorities or governments who, incidentally, jump on board to be religiously and politically correct and in tune. And to slam western double standards, decadence and hypocrisy in the process. Of course the more sober Muslim voices get drowned in the ruckus of the reactions.

Muslims, regardless of their level of piety, still do take exceptions to perceived libel and slander against the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and desecration of the Holy Qur'an. It is only on approaches in reactions, in response that they differed.

Unbeliever -- I know all of that about Galileo, but did you know that -- "It was not until three hundred and fifty years later, in 1992, that the Vatican pardoned Galileo and officially admitted that he had been right all along. ...
www.devine-ent.com/shows/inventors/galileo-bio.shtml

It took the Church a few hundred years, but they did finally admit their mistake - at least that one. Give them a few hundred more years and who knows, there might be married priests.

Stan - the grand plan may call for Muslims to integrate into faith. Then there was the case of the monkey that couldn't resist agravating the python, became lunch.

The grand planners have a larger plan no doubt. It appears to me that it began many moons ago and has been fermenting. I guess the question is: Is it beer yet? It's my understanding Muslims don't drink alcohol and for good reason.

The additional fear of hell put on their natural frear of death once lifted by a little booze buzz is impossible to resist from then forward. The fact that the more faith one has in hell the more addictive to drugs and alcohol one becomes is explained. That was a facinating part of HB that began on page 1 and has been burried somewhere if it's still there. If you looked this time last year there was the "snakes" to the "snake pit" to the "bridge" analysis of human thought processes that explained both addiction and martyrdom.

Muslims seem to me to have a lot more faith in hell than Christians that have more than Jews. Faith is hell is a very hard sale in China what with government intervention and the quality of Chinese jails. Makes the Chinese way of "faith" look attractive to those who would like to save the constitution. Have all the faith you please but please not in public for that leads to the takeover of government by faith. Governments are charged with the welfare of the people and people starve to death living on faith, no body.

Someone mentioned beards and that got my curosity going. What is the tradition associated with beards. I remember that many Afgans celebrated the deposing of the Taliban by shaving off their beards. Can someone elucidate me?

Bgone:

You asked: "Is it possible for faith to rule supreme when 1.2 billion Muslims are left out?"

Could it be that the Muslims are "like a light that you turn off and on". If the word goes out for them to keep their "head down and their mouth shut" is that what they will do? If so then they are not a threat to "the Devil and his angels" as he can send out the word. The "I-a-told-ya's" seem to have absolute control over the Muslims and seem to be able to communicate rapidly to all the adherents, and they then be "all of one mind".

So a question could be: is it certain they will be left out? Or simply incorporated in the faith?

Could it be that a lot of the fighting and other noise in the middle east is part distraction from the main event?

The Chinese are a different story but they seem to be able to adapt to and accept a decider and don't seem that interested in world domination. But by the same token don't want domination.

E. Favorite - Your remark about Galileo was mistaken. He was under house arrest for the last 9 years of his life and avoided being burned at the stake only through the intercession of the Medicis. The catholic church upheld the geocentric doctrine until Pope Benedict XIV lifted the ban on heliocentrism in 1757, though the printing of heliocentric books was not allowed until 1822. In terms of the protestant reformation, both Luther and Calvin thought heliocentrism was absurd on the grounds that it contradicted both scripture and common sense observance of the world. It was not until Newton that heliocentrism among the public was more widely accepted.

Ambassador - In reading your earlier post about the condemmed souls of unbelievers, my heart is warmed by your concern; if only everyone would accept christ into their hearts we could all live happily ever after through eternity. Unfortunately for you, many people find evangelism insulting and arrogant, even if it is in our best interests. I, myself, have always favored warmer climes and I suspect the company (e.g. Mark Twain, Huck Finn) I'll spend eternity with in the nether world will be much more amusing than with holier-than-thou priggs like you on those chilly streets of heaven, paved with gold.

By the way, I am part of the communist, jewish, atheist conspiracy of international bankers; you know, the ones who control the world's media and finance. Like any self-respecting jew, I'm an atheist secular humanist; in other words a moral relativist. Hope you don't hold that against me, but as true believers assert, without a belief in jesus, there can be no morality. I know this is true, because I rape and pillage every chance I get. I'm especially happy though, that Christians believe in Jesus, because you can just imagine the additional mayhem they would be up to, besides tousing alter boys and burning people at the stake, without their higher moral sense.

Finally, many Christians believe that the jews killed Jesus. I just want to say once and for all, it's true; we killed your lord. Get over it. We also drink the blood of christian babies, but only on passover. The one thing that irks me is that I wasn't in on the original nailing part (I wasn't born yet) and I hate being accused of something without the satisfaction of being guilty. Fortunately, the apocalypse is at hand and I've got my hammer and nails ready for the second coming.

TO BRAMBLETON,

In response to your 11:10 AM posting:

I don't remember anything in the 4 Gospels (or in any of the other Gospels) where Jesus was quoted as speaking out against sex. Or against pornography. Or against birth control. Or abortion.

There are too many assumptions about what Jesus supposedly believed on issues not mentioned.

Stan - the other religious concept is obvious, the high priest's role in government. I agree. It's not in the best interest of those of true faith in Christ. Sad to say, it's them form whom the high priest gets his power.

From the historical record: Eisenhower's little pay back, "under God" was followed a short time later by pope John XXIII abdicating his infalibility in the interest of creating a coalition of the willing.

Jews jumped on the band wagon because they saw equality for themselves, admission to the country club. How does Billy Graham feel kissing the pope's ring? It wasn't but a generation or two ago when his most fervent supporters were the KKK. "Papeists" were third on their "who to lynch next" list right after Jews.

The turning point of history can be summed with a single word, ecumenical. The fighting between Christian cults has moved from the street to the halls of government wearing a brand new ecumenical tux, faith.

That's what this blog is all about isn't it? Is it possible for faith to rule supreme when 1.2 billion Muslims are left out?

How about the 1.2 billion Chinese left out of faith? Do they count? I never thought I'd see the day when the only thing that stood between the constitution and the Bible was the Chinese. Either God loves the Chinese or hates the constitution.

I still say it's the Devil that makes them do that.

To Brambleton:

I must have put too much 'craft' into what I wrote. I wasn't attempting to state or imply that our country is being surreptiously converted to a traditional Christian concept nation, but rather a direct opposite. I was attempting to state that actions are presented as being for one purpose when the real purpose is something directly opposed, and to keep the people believing one thing so they can be manipulated to another.

The Iraq War is a case in point where one explanation is given when something else must have been intended from the start. The actions of adding "under God" and having a National Prayer Breakfast are clearly not actions which should have been done by our government under the Constitution; so the actions should be considered as purpose to surreptiously undermine the Constitution.

Subverting our Constitution is certainly not to the benefit of Christianity or a people wanting to live by Christian teachings. So then by deduction it is for the benefit of some other religious concept, while the people are led to believe that it is for the benefit of Christianity.

To Brambleton:You ask:

I would also like to ask PHAEDRUS which "fire breathing" obnoxious evangelicals he was referring to on this thread. Please name them and which post(s) you are referring to.

Specifically on this thread I was referring to posts number 7 and 8, both by "anonymous."

Stan:

The wind blows the boat to where the boat does not want to go. The wind is controlled by God?

The choices are two:
1) Kingdom of God
2) Democracy of God

The common thread is God. Think opposite God and up popps Devil. The Devil made them do that since the dawn of man but they come in the name of God.

The moral is simple. Always go with Devil. If things go well you will be credited with being in God's favor. If things go bad, and they have gone bad, then we didn't pray hard enough. God can't win and Devil can't lose.

Specie homo sapien will make an evolutionary change, an upgrade of mind or go extinct. Extinct is way out front in that foot race at present the way I see it. All I can do is laugh. It hurts way to much to cry.

The constitution is only a symptom of the condition. The universal "they" have been against it since the beginning because "they" have been running things since history was first recorded. "They" are God's representatives.

The unseen part of the iceberg is the money that is necessary to control the government from without. Eisenhower is not an exception to that rule. As Bush funnels billions of dollars, payback to the evangelicals Eisenhower "paid back" with that innocent looking, "everyone knows it's so" addition to the pledge, "under God" behind the smoke screen of fighting Godless Communism.

Let me clarify. I think you're on to something we'd be better off without. I'm afraid the fate of humanity hangs on decisions made by Bubba.

Yeah, Anderson, sola scripture, in secula, seculorum

Ambassador – Thanks for your detailed response. I asked not because I wanted a basis for belief but because I wanted to understand how people believe what they do. I expect to continue to be perplexed by this.

Clearly you and Robert think something very different is going to happen to you when you die. You think Robert is wrong because purgatory isn’t mentioned in the bible; Robert thinks his church would accept your beliefs. Both your and Robert’s beliefs are based on authoritative and ancient writings – either centuries-old church dogma or millennia-old scriptures. While the scriptures never change (at least since the invention of the printing press) people’s interpretation of them is constantly changing. Church leaders do occasionally change dogma (limbo, for instance, is no longer extant), at which point the faithful’s beliefs are expected to change. So while change is possible in both your and Robert’s religion, it’s usually a matter of human re-interpretation of existing information, not the processing and integration of new information.

I say “usually” because the Catholic church has occasionally accepted some new information, (e.g., Galileo’s proof that the earth revolves around the sun).

You explained why you believe the nice compassionate fellow who never heard of Christ is going to hell anyway, but concede that other Christians (perhaps of your own denomination?) don’t share that belief. What effect this difference of opinion has on this fellow’s circumstances in the afterlife, I cannot imagine.

I know that people often change religions, in some cases thus changing beliefs about their afterlife. So the afterlife would seem to take the form of whatever belief a given person holds and is changeable if the belief changes. The only other alternative I can see (within the paradigm of belief in an afterlife) is that one set of beliefs is right and all the others are wrong.

Considering the changeability of beliefs, even within Church dogma, it seems clear to me that it is humans who are doing the changing and coming to the conclusions about who gets into heaven and what you have to do and believe to get there. To me this says a lot about the inventiveness of the human mind and nothing about the probability or the mechanism of an afterlife.

To Brambleton --

I tend to believe that the twin fears of the American government becoming a theocracy or a force for the promotion of atheism are equally overrated. Still, it doesn't hurt to debate these ideas from time to time, if only to let the people in government know that we the people are paying attention... :)

Stan,

I think other historical facts would dispute your theory that America is on the path to becoming a Christian state. In fact, you could conclude the exact opposite. Abortion, Pornography, Condoms to secondary school children - these are all "values" that have become part of mainstream U.S. society. Do these look like Christian values to you?

(atheist)

I agree with Stan's points that reason undermines religion and that faith is irrational. I would like to add a point, which is that only reason can be shared and that faith is more likely to lead to confusion and conflict between people than than to an understanding.

A person's faith is inherently subjective and personal. My friend may see his god's golden glow or hear a heavenly choir of angels, but he can't show me his god or let me hear those angels. I can only try to imagine what he sees or hears. And if by chance I see a god but he glows red, or my angels are mute, then one of our faiths may be wrong - but which one?

For me to explain something that I think is true to someone else, I need to enable them to use reason to independently verify my claim. It's not enough for me to state my beliefs, no matter how strong they may be. I need to provide them with my evidence, allow them to test my ideas and verify my results. Given the inherent irrationality of faith and its unverifiability, I think that reason is the only way that two or more people can be sure they understand eachother.

JR

To: Susan Jacoby

It would be nice if the actions of setting up a National Prayer Breakfast and putting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance were done for altruistic reasons but alas that is probably not the case.

It would appear more of a part of the ongoing effort to undermine our constitution and convert the United States of American into a religious state, but not one based on concepts identified with Jesus of Nazareth.

It would seem that if a timeline was prepared since the Revolution of those types of actions, including the Book of Mormon, Skull and Bones Societies, in God we trust on the money, even down to the president stating that he is "The Decider", etc. that it shouldn't be that difficult to get the picture.

Also, remember to get the truth you have to take the opposite of what they say on many of the important issues where they want to keep the people naive.

To JR --

You are right about the origins of Limbo. At a time when infant mortality was incredibly high, some theological explanation had to be given as to where the souls of the innocent ended up. Some dioceses even gave midwives the limited power to baptize infants whom they believed weren't going to survive.

Later on, Limbo was opened to include those who were moral, but were not Christian Dante immortalized this view in the Inferno with his vivid description of the City of the Virtuous Pagans, which he populated with figures like Virgil, Homer, Saladin, Julius Caesar and many other figures of antiquity.

The Church is indeed looking at the concept of Limbo (which has never been officially adopted as doctrine) in a new light, especially considering the Church's activism in the political realm of reproductive rights. I, for one, am very interested in what the theologians will decide.

To Brambleton --

Hey, at least you know that Catholics are Christians. Several of the more evangelical Christians I've encountered accuse Catholics of being idolatrous.

As for your "conflict" with your father, I'm glad that the two of you can discuss things without ruining your relationship with him. Religious divides like this can indeed destroy the closest of relationships. I myself was baptized Catholic, raised Protestant and converted back to Catholicism before my wedding.

To E Favorite --

Protestants do not believe in Purgatory, both because it isn't explicitly mentioned in Scripture and because of their general emphasis on role of grace in salvation. Though the Catholic Church recognizes Protestantism as a valid path to salvation, I would assume that Catholic theology claims that Purgatory applies both the those who accept it as doctrine and those who do not.

(an atheist)

A while back someone brought up the subject of limbo and the other ante-chambers of heaven. Limbo was originally surmised in the middle ages, in answer to the question "what becomes of innocents, such as newly born babies, who die before they can be baptized?". Limbo, a place that is neither punishment nor heaven, became the solution. But there have long been philosophical debates within the church concerning the legitimacy of limbo. Recently the Pope asked a group of church leaders to study limbo, and it looks like limbo will no longer be officially supported by the church. Limbo will be in limbo, so to speak...JR

Hey Phil C

Sola Scriptura, isn't that how it is supposed to go?

Hey, Anderson, stop using your brain so much and get a little faith.

So God created Man and Woman, told them to be fruitful and multiply, then he created Adam and Eve and told them not to. Or were Adam and Eve also Man and Woman? Anyway Adam and Eve chose the first option and were exiled from Eden. They had two boys, Cain and Abel. This must have made the multiplying thing simpler, as who could Cain and Abel have married? But this was the age of miracles, or gay marriage and miracles, and so God destroyed all of humanity except Noah and his family and two of all the animals and birds and bugs and whatnot. But that still didn't help, so he took to a policy of whimsical and random genocide for a couple of thousand years. Finally, at whit's end, He decided He loved us so much he had his only begotten son nailed to a post, but it was all the Jews fault. I say different strokes for different folks, but if I had a relationship with Somebody like that, my first thought would not be to get down on my knees and seek a warmer, closer, more transcendent communion with Him.

"Reason" seems to be a common thread in many of the responses. Non-believers invoke "reason" in contrast to the supernatural. This makes no sense. It is one thing to be a non-believer in the supernatural. It is quite another to rationalize non-belief on the grounds of human reason.

Historically, the track record of human reason is abysmal. In fact, human reason has consistently undermined the faith of believers. Reason is the fly-in-the-ointment that leads to bad religion.

Is it more rational to believe in reason than in the supernatural? And if one fails to believe in the supernatural, is it necessary to believe in anything, let alone human reason? The notion that one must have faith in something is irrational if you do not have faith.

The very nature of faith is that it is the antidote to reason. Faith is irrational and unreasonable. That is why it is called faith.

The public prayer issue is a campaign by McChurch, the drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right, to impose the trappings of faith on the faithless. Biblically, it is the form of religion without the spirit, thereof.

Because one is a believer does not mean that one has to take leave of one's reason. The notion that Christian phrases underscore a nation as Christian not only defies the nature of faith but destroys faith as the basis for belief.

It takes no faith to carve the Ten Commandments over the courthouse door, nor does it take reason to remove it. Faith should care less about public prayers and slogans; reason should not be disturbed over the slogans of the faithful, unless, of course, unbelief is an irrational response to an inner conflict over the existence of a supreme being.

As for the destiny of unbelievers, how could anyone who has reasoned God out of existence care less about a Hell that, in his reason, does not exist? Unless, of course, human reason becomes something of a faith, in which case destiny on such thin ice is a far worse bet than belief in a supreme being.

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

AMBASSADOR FOR CHRIST - contrary to populare belief Adolph Hitler accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior only minutes before he died.

Hitler understood that suicide is a mortal sin so he had his vallet shoot him in the head and then fake suicide by crunching his dead jaw on a sionide capsule. You can check this out, the part about how he died. His skull has the bullet hole in it. When the vallet came forward with the "Oh Lord I have sinned" confession Hitler made he was paid to keep it secret but he told it anyhow on the QT.

E. Favorite,

Thanks again for your comments. You are correct, I am a mainline protestant, Southern Baptist to be exact. Therefore, you are correct that there are going to be differences between Robert's explanation and mine since I see no biblical evidence supporting the existence of purgatory.

Also, thanks for your honest questions. I've wrestled with these same issues myself in the past. I'll attempt to respond to them in order.

Your first question asked, "Would a person who sins a lot -- murders, rapes, and generally wreaks havoc -- be just as likely to go to heaven as a person steals one loaf of bread (assuming they both repent and accept Christ)?" That's the beauty of grace. No matter what sins a person commits, Christ's death will cover them all and that person will be declared righteous in the eyes of God.

Your second question asked, "What about a loving and compassionate person who lived in remote area where they were not exposed to the Bible and thus don’t know they’re supposed to repent and accept Christ?" This is a very fair and legitimate question that I've wrestled with over the years myself. After much study, I have basically found four positions on this issue: (1) universalism - the beliefe that all people will go to heaven no matter what you believe, (2) pluralism - as long as you believe something sincerely you will go to heaven, (3) inclusivism - those who confess Jesus will go to heaven along with those who never have an opportunity to hear the gospel, and (4) exclusivism - only those who confess explicit faith in Jesus Christ will go to heaven. After carefully studying what the Bible says on this issue, I affirm the exclusive position, even though it may not seem fair. As you can imagine, because I believe this position, folks tend to get upset with me at times.

But, I'll try to be as brief as possible, but I want to point you to some texts which speak to this. First, Romans 1:19-20 I have quoted in an earlier post. Also, Romans 2:12-16: "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." So, according to these two texts, God reveals himself through creation and through the human conscience. Further, Jesus stated in John 14:6 that "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In Romans 10:9-10, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

All of that to say that according to these passages, the Bible does indicate that only explicit faith in Christ is saving faith. But still, most will say that this doesn't seem fair. Again back to Romans: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" (Romans 9:14) A little further down, "You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:19-20)

I have concluded that this is part of God's plan and that's why I feel that evangelism and the words of Christ in the Great Commission found in Matthew 28 are so important for Christians to heed. If it is true that those who do not hear the gospel will still be condemned, then it should motivate Christians to step up their efforts to tell more people the gospel message. That's the primary reason why the Christian church has missionaries and conducts mission trips.

One other note; there's a passage in Luke in which Jesus seems to indicate that those who hear the gospel and reject it will suffer more in Hell than those who never hear the gospel. Luke 12:47-48: "And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."

Again, thank you for your honest and sincere questions. I hope that these explanations have been some help to you.

Robert B –

Thanks – I wonder how to explain the consequences of the differences between the Catholic viewpoint and Ambassador’s viewpoint (which I assume is mainstream protestant).

Are you saying that Catholics spend time in purgatory (based on their repentance/sin ratio), but protestants don’t?

Ambassador:

Thanks, you explained it very well. The only thing that’s confusing is that it doesn’t jibe with Robert B’s explanation. (Not that it has to, but still, it’s confusing – seems like you can’t both be right)

Also, a couple of things don’t seem fair --

Would a person who sins a lot -- murders, rapes, and generally wreaks havoc -- be just as likely to go to heaven as a person steals one loaf of bread (assuming they both repent and accept Christ)?

What about a loving and compassionate person who lived in remote area where they were not exposed to the Bible and thus don’t know they’re supposed to repent and accept Christ?

Ambassador:

Thanks for the polite response. I am quite familiar with many of the arguments you lay out. I remember reading the Book of Romans. Paul was a smart guy, in spite of some of the (possibly valid) criticism that is pointed his way these days.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still think that it has to be deeds more so than forgiveness for the simple reason that if we are all imperfect anyway, wouldn't god want people to really try hard to be good to our fellow man? Just like as a parent, I want my child to love me as much as I love him, but more than that, I want him to be a good person and as he grows up to become an indispensable member of society. I think god would care more about how we get along with our fellow man, much more than how we treat him (after all, he's the all-powerful and all-knowing god; he can afford to be the loving, understanding parent-figure).

But I am glad to see that we can have an honest conversation, even when we disagree.

I would also like to ask PHAEDRUS which "fire breathing" obnoxious evangelicals he was referring to on this thread. Please name them and which post(s) you are referring to.

Thanks!

Ambassador,

You have done a great job of discussing the issues that have been presented on this thread. We should be so fortunate as to have this type of dialogue on all the threads. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

In response to Robert's statement about Catholicism, I would like to mention that, as a Baptist, I do not believe in Purgatory or that "works" are the way to Heaven. My dad, who was a devoted Catholic and only attended church in Latin, and I used to go head to head on this issue all the time. It was sort of Martin Luther vs. The Pope, but without the excommunication. LOL.

Dear Ambassador for Christ;

Thank you for your honest replies and outreach, they don't go unnoticed.

To Susan;
I have also often wondered about prayer. I am quite certain the Christ already knows that I am going to say, and as I pray, often the answer to my problem will come to me. It almost sounds selfish to say that I am praying in order to love God more. But that is what He wants and that is what I want.

The most important prayer in the Bible exists in Matthew 15:21-28. It is the only time in the entire Bible where God changes His mind, and it is because of a prayer. We could debate all day long on if God knew this before hand; or if this prayer was the reason that in the Old Testament, it was prophecized that God would redeem both Jews and Gentiles. I am humbly of the opinion that her prayer radically changed(from the beginning) the Bible that God wrote.

The prayer said, "Have mercy on me, O Lord...help me...even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."

Why would she need mercy? Help? Willing to receive crumbs?

The reason is because she paid attention to the Law of God; she was honest when she compared herself to the 10 Commandments. Can you be so honest with yourself?

Answer these questions quietly:
Have I ever told a lie?
Have I ever stolen anything, no matter the value?
Have I ever used God's name a little loosely?
Jesus said, "If you look with lust, you are guilty of adultery already in your heart." and that hate is the equivilent of murder in God's eyes.
Have I ever lusted after someone that wasn't my spouse?
Have I ever held hatred within my heart?

Those answers are very important to your prayer life. I know that when I answered those questions I found myself to be a lying, thieving, blasphemous, murderous, adulterer at heart. I realized very quickly that I was guilty before a Holy God. Because good deeds have no basis in a human courtroom, I knew they had no basis in the Great White Throne Room, and that I was in trouble if I had to face God. I knew that because God said that, "All Liars shall have their place in the lake of fire." that I was not destined for Heaven, but for Hell.

But a prayer can save you. The woman said, "Have Mercy!" She recognized she was a sinner in the eyes of God and deserved something terrible; Mercy is when you don't get what you deserve.
Then she said, "Help me!" She recognized that the God of the Universe was capable of helping Her. In order to help Her, Jesus lived a perfect life devoid of all sin, He could honestly say, "I have never told a lie, stolen, blasphemed my Father's name, looked with lust or felt hatred." He was the only Man in history that could say that. But Jesus realized that we needed help, and in order to pay our fine, He willingly went to the Cross, died a criminals death in our stead. The woman prayed, "Yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from the Master's table." The righteousness of Christ can be attributed to your sake, even though we don't deserve them. The fine is paid in Jesus, we are free to go if we'll emulate the prayer of that woman.

Call out to God to have mercy on your soul, admit to Him every transgression you can remember and appologize for all those that you can't remember but He does, next thank Him for dying for you and allowing you to be forgiven; for when you didn't even deserve crumbs, Christ imputed on you His whole righteousness so that you can be redeemed to God and enter into Heaven.

After Jesus was killed, you know the story, He rose from the grave, delivered our souls from Hell, and ascended into Heaven, where He anxiously awaits your arrival.

Pheadrus,
You have no idea how many fire-breathing, end of the world evangelical types go into Muslim websites in English to remind us to repent or be damned for subsribing to a false religion, and to vilify the Prophet Muhammad in countless, creative ways.

Even having beards is a measure of Muslim being uncivlized and primitive it seems according to some of the postings there. There is also a lot of expletives undeleted as many of the sites don't censor the text of the postings. Quite entertaining in many ways. Not to mention irritating and infuriating in some ways.

Canyon Shearer and Concerned the Liberated Christian are very, very civil, reasonable and nice compared to the evengelical types that posted their thinking, observations and views in the Muslims sites in English.

Well done Susan, you are on the money as usual. I also have to wonder how many of the fire-breathing believers on this thread are the same ones who go on the Muslim-related sites and castigate them for being narrow minded and believing in something as ridiculous as allah and muhammed. Just because Christians no longer burn witches does not make their metaphysical beliefs any less irrational than the muslims they attack on those other sites.

As for the National Prayer Breakfast; not very nourishing for the mind in this reason-starved world.

Dear E. Favorite,

Thanks so much for your comments and questions; I'll be happy to elaborate on my previous post. The sin-debt that I referred to does not carry with it a sin/repentance ratio system which varies from person to person. (That was an excellent way to describe your question by the way.) In other words, all sin is sin, no matter which sin is committed. The Bible says in James 2:10: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Building on that point, the Bible declares in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If all have sinned and deserve eternal punishment for their sins, it follows then that all need to repent and accept Christ's payment for their sins. If all sin is appalling to God, it follows that there is not a sin/repentance ratio. I hope this helps to further explain my point. Please let me know if this clears up any misunderstandings that I may have conveyed.

Dear Puzzled,

Thank you as well for your very honest and candid responses. It breaks my heart to hear that you have been so disillusioned by the church. If you will permit me, I want to address one of your heartfelt questions. You asked, "Am I to believe that god would be so jealous (and even vindictive) to say those people who tried their best to live their lives well (morally) but just never got around to confessing faith in god are to be "cast down"?

If you will permit me to paraphrase your question (please correct me if this is an incorrect interpretation), but essentially I sense that you're asking "Why shouldn't those people be allowed into heaven?" For the sake of argument, may I shift the focus of this question from man's perspective to God's perspective? Let's then rephrase the question to ask, "Why should God allow these people into heaven?" If God is holy, just, and righteous as the Bible says that He is, and all people have sinned and are therefore unholy, unjust, and unrighteous, how could He allow them into heaven? In comparison to God, our "good" deeds are like "filthy rags". Isaiah 64:6 says that "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment." I will not get into the details due to their graphic nature, but if you do a word study on the original Hebrew text regarding the "polluted garment", you will find that even our good deeds are utter filthiness in comparison to God's holiness. So, again, how could he allow such things into Heaven? He simply cannot.

So, it's not a question of how He would keep anyone out, but it's a question of how anyone can get in? The answer, as I stated earlier, is by the grace of God and through the sinless blood of Jesus Christ. That's amazing grace, that He loved us so much that He sent His Son to the earth in order to make a way for us to go to heaven. Since I now know a little more of your background, you've probably heard all of this before, but I just wanted you to consider taking a look at the situation from God's perspective.

One last point to make regarding your question about confessing faith. The Bible says in Romans 1:19-20, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

Again, thank you for your honest and civil comments and concerns. I am very glad to see that we can hold a conversation like this in the midst of so many angry comments on this website. I will also be praying for you. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Have a wonderful evening.

Ambassador for Christ (and Robert B.):

Actually, I have been going to church all my life, having been raised Presbyterian. I now think of myself as agnostic.

Thanks for your honest (and earnest) answers. The thing is, I have been disillusioned as well as having come to a conclusion that it just does not make sense me (this belief in supernatural being).

Robert B.'s point is well-taken that for devout Christians, what is worse than to be separated from god? For an agnostic like myself, I don't really mind it (as it has no meaning to me).

The reason I am curious about the rather rigid nature of Christian faith (not unlike monotheistic religions) where for all who do not hold a particular faith, they will be getting some variation of eternal damnation, separation from god, hell, etc.

I am sure there were (and are) many good people who did not have faith. (For now, I will concede for the sake of argument that bad Christians were not really living by Christ's teachings.) Am I to believe that god would be so jealous (and even vindictive) to say those people who tried their best to live their lives well (morally) but just never got around to confessing faith in god are to be "cast down"?

I understand that being closer to god sounds like a great idea at first glance, but if you really think about it, does that lead to: "we have salvation, you are sinners"? Living in a pluralistic society and in a world where there are many different religions (and even within, different denominations and creeds), I worry about the real world consequences of such attitudes. I have no qualms with earnest people of faith (my parents are such people for instance). But I just wonder why really faithful Christians seem to tolerate radicals who parade as Christians (hypocrites, as Ambassador says).

I enjoyed this essay more than any one so far. Your last part about God potentially having poor aim should be pointed out to all at the prayer breakfast before all that praying begins. The smart one might leave but then there's probably no smart ones there, just the elite that have come to eat. They don't serve cake at breakfast do they? Strata can contain the same appropriate ingredient as cow pile cake.

Of course their Bible tells them that their prayers won't be answered, Genesis 3:19. So anything that comes of it will be the work of Devil, the "higher power" that's responsible for our involvment in Iraq.

Anonymous, you posted:

"Dear Concerned,

Wow, I bet you really impress yourself with what you undoubtedly believe is infallible logic. And I suspect your charity makes you feel good about being so superior to those less fortunate than you."

Are you actually criticizing Concerned for advocating charity? I mean, seriously, are you angered by his call to help others?

One more thing. You said,

"For those of us who do believe in God, one of the things that we pray is that God will have mercy on you and other aetheists, and that He, in His infinite mercy, will not cast all of your souls into the eternal flames of Hell."

Hilarious. Can't you see the inherent contradiction in a god whose mercy is "infinite" but who casts souls "into the eternal flames of Hell"? How could anyone miss that?

Personal prayer as described by many of the panelists is something private that certainly does no harm, gives them comfort, and is something that I would never mock. It tends to take a similar form regardless of sect, and I think it is a pretty basic human impulse, actually even for some non-believers.

But as you say, these stupid public events are really annoying to those of us who don't believe, and should be annoying to dignified practitioners of religion who do believe. I think these events trivialize their religion.

To E Favorite --

In Catholicism, sins are purged from the soul of a man in the realm of Purgatory. In this case, the amount of time in Purgatory depends on the "health" of one's soul, so it is true that the "sin-debt" varies from person to person.

Anyone who truly accepts Christ will eventually gain entrance into Heaven; it just takes longer for some than for others.

For the biblical support for Purgatory, I suggest you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia as www.newadvent.org and look it up.

Ambassador - I have some questions -

This “sin-debt” – I imagine it varies from person to person, depending on how they lead their lives, is that right?

Does a person who sins more have to repent more to be forgiven, or does anyone who accepts Christ gain entrance into heaven, irrespective of the repentance/sinning ratio?

Also, what is your source of information? Can I find this in the Bible?

Thanks

Dear Puzzled,

You asked, "Could someone be "moral" and reflect on one's own shortcomings to become a better person, etc., etc., without the rituals of going to church and praying?"

Thank you for your honest questions. Let me say first that I absolutely agree with your answer that yes, you can be "moral" without the rituals of going and church and praying. And yes, you can reflect on your own shortcomings to become a better person. But, the goal of becoming a better person misses the mark of the true Christian gospel message. This is through no fault on your part but is a result of many Christian churches that have "watered down" the gospel message. The true Christian gospel is that all have sinned against a holy Creator God and deserve eternal punishment for our sins in Hell. However, because of God's love for His creation, he provided a "propitiation" for our sins in the person of Jesus Christ. In other words, He sent Jesus (who never sinned) to earth to die and receive the punishment for the sins that we committed. Therefore a transaction does take place because God redeems us: Jesus paid the debt that we owed against God. When folks repent of their sins, and confess that Jesus Christ died for their sins and that He is their Lord, they no longer have a sin-debt to pay in Hell. Therefore, they gain entrance to Heaven.

That's the true Christian message. Becoming a better person isn't the ultimate goal of Christianity, but is an important byproduct of the real goal of salvation in Christ. The reason that Christians pray is because they now have a relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. They seek to become more and more like Jesus through spending time with Him in prayer and through reading the Bible. They go to church in order to praise and worship the God who loved them enough to save them. They also go in order to serve the Lord while here on earth.

Are there exceptions and folks (usually labeled as hypocrites) who attend for different motives? Of course. I would be naive and dishonest to claim otherwise. However, the true reasons for the church and for prayer are as I outlined above.

I hope this helps to give you some insight into these Christian beliefs. There is much more that could be said on this topic, but I'll stop here and see if you have any questions.

Thanks again for your questions, have a great day!

To Puzzled:

You wrote, "The question that I am wondering about is this: Could someone be "moral" and reflect on one's own shortcomings to become a better person, etc., etc., without the rituals of going to church and praying? I think yes. But is that compatible with religions like Christianity?"

Strictly speaking, Christianity claims that salvation is only given to those who have confessed Christ and lived moral lives. Medieval Catholicism posited that unbaptized good people who went unbaptized go to a place called Limbo, which depending on the source is either an antechamber to Hell (St. Augustine, Dante Aligheri) or a place kind of like the pagan Elysian Fields (St. Thomas Aquinas). In any event, the only punishment that the souls in Limbo receive is not being able be in the presence of God.

The modern Catholic Church doesn't talk that much about Limbo, though the idea is still debated by theologians, especially in the context of what happens to the souls of aborted fetuses.

Brambleton,

Thanks. I think that should the rational response. However, for so many I've seen on these threads, it is such an adversarial relationship: prayer (or, faith), otherwise, damnation (hell).

The question that I am wondering about is this: Could someone be "moral" and reflect on one's own shortcomings to become a better person, etc., etc., without the rituals of going to church and praying? I think yes. But is that compatible with religions like Christianity? I know most religions have a strong bent toward a "monopoly on Truth" but I don't know why that must be.

THANK YOU for bringing this hypocritical "National Prayer" thing to light.

I believe ALL Americans should look into the extensive influence the Unification Church and its members exert over the BUSH family. Pater Bush 41 is on their payroll. There are a LARGE number of Unification members in very high places in this Bush's administration.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/scoops/christian_mafia.htm

Puzzled,

Most (if not all) Christians would tell you that you cannot pray in order to avoid Hell. You avoid Hell by giving your life and creating a relationship with Jesus Christ. From a very high level view, prayer is the act to establishing fellowship with God.

Garak,

I would argue that the National Prayer breakfast is not a state endorsement of prayer. I certainly wouldn't agree with a morning prayer each day before the general Congress, but I don't think that's what's happening here. If the prayer breakfast is offsite of the Capitol, and is completely voluntary, I don't know what the harm is. Especially given the fact that no federal tax money is being used for the event.

I've asked this on other threads, but since it looks like there are a number of true believers here (esp. those praying for atheists' souls), maybe someone will oblige.

If you pray in order to avoid hell, then is that a transaction with god? You pray and give god your devotion and he pays you with not-hell (presumably heaven)?

Or, is there another reason for praying?

To Brambleton --

Ahhh, but how "voluntary" is the prayer breakfast really? Is not attending it a tacit admission of atheism or a declaration of hostility towards those who do attend?

I have no doubt that it is voluntary in theory. In practice, it gets a little more complicated... :)

Considering the mischief and mayhem that seems to accompany god wherever he goes, god and I have a general understanding; I don't ask him for anything, I'm one less thing on his very full plate, and therefore, he doesn't bother me at all. So far, it seems to have worked quite well for the both of us.

Dear Anonymous,
I've always favored warmer climes and I suspect the company (e.g. Mark Twain, Huck Finn) I'll spend eternity with in the nether world will be much more amusing than with holier-than-thou priggs like you on those chilly streets of heaven, paved with gold.

Brambleton: You didn't address the issue at hand. The issue is not prayer per se, but whether the gov't should involve itself; here, in the form a state endorsement of prayer. I'd like to hear your views on this.

BTW, when I was in grade school back in the 1960s, we said the Lord's Prayer in school. I asked my parents why they added something at the end that wasn't in the Catholic version I was taught. They told me the school used the Protestant version. I wonder, would Bush use the Catholic version in a room full of Protestant preachers?

Thanks for the clarification

E Favorite,

My post was intended as a reply to Mike K's discussion on the pointlessness of praying to God.

In regards to the Prayer Breakfast, I must confess ignorance; however, I don't see what the big deal is in regards to, what I'm assuming, is a voluntary event held with members of Congress.

Brambleton - what you say is fine for a church sermon or sunday school lesson, but it doesn't fit at a Government, business or political meeting.

Ms. Jacoby began by saying: "Since I do not believe in any supernatural being, I have nothing to say about prayer. The National Prayer Breakfast, however, is another matter."

I have to wonder why she even bothered to write this, since it does not answer the question posed by the site.

The Prayer Breakfast sounds more like a political organization than a religious one.

I agree with Mike K when he said asking for something from God isn't reasonable because if God is truly omnipotent it wouldn't help. I believe prayer is a form of self-meditation, and it can create a wonderful calmness & peace. An internal peace.

But the fusion of religion & politics leads to no good that I can see.

Religion to me is an intensely personal matter. Thrown outward, it becomes demanding, inflexible, to use a religious term, "evil".

Susan,

For those of us who do believe in God, one of the things that we pray is that God will have mercy on you and other aetheists, and that He, in His infinite mercy, will not cast all of your souls into the eternal flames of Hell.

Dear Concerned,

Wow, I bet you really impress yourself with what you undoubtedly believe is infallible logic. And I suspect your charity makes you feel good about being so superior to those less fortunate than you.

Rather than "hope" for a place called heaven, maybe you should consider praying for such a place.

May God have mercy on you, and all of the arrogant who are too proud to pray!

Brambleton,

If the act benefits you in some way, then perhaps it's a good thing for you. I certainly wouldn't attempt to diminish any benefit you claim.

My point is that prayer for the purpose of requests or thanks is inconsistent with a perfect, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent god.

Just an FYI: Although you may not have intended your comments just for me, the topic is not one that I "struggle" with nor am I rightly included in your "us" and "we" references to Christians.

IMHO, God started the Big Bang. He/She also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca six times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

Mike,

Many people struggle with the concept of prayer. Early in my Christian walk, I often wondered why I should pray when God already knows what the future will bring. Really, what's the point? But, as my walk turned into a run, I discovered that prayer removes the focus from my own self and helps me develop a closer relationship with Christ. What a blessing being in fellowship with the Lord!

The ministry of intercession is a vital part of our Christian walk and we can never attain to maturity by forgetting it. Chrisitians must remember that we have an enemy who is constantly trying to keep us from our prayer life because he knows the damage done to his kingdom through it.

Thank "God" for you, Susan Jacoby.

Susan Jacoby,

A very nice essay. Right on.

You don't pray, but do you meditate? Most people benefit from some focused activity to organize their minds and eliminate its clutter.

No need to involve an imagined deity, though. That merely clutters things up even more.

Best wishes.

I have to wonder what the point of praying to an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent supernatural being is.

Asking for something surely can't be the case, as such a being would already know your desires and already know how it was going to act. One couldn't change the mind of an omniscient being.

And, since such a being is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, it would presumably be required to act in a moral way regardless of requests. Not helping those in need unless requested to do so would negate omnibenevolent status.

Praying to a being with those three qualities is pointless.