I think the publicity of this event is extremely important. Now, I'm an atheist; I don't believe in the reality of a metaphysical agential being. But that's not the point. The point is, that Islam, in itself, as an ideology about morality, about interactions of people, ought to be believed within two approaches: faith and reason. These two are the focus of Pope Benedict's superb Regensburg speech, Sept 12/06. Islam rejects the use of reason and insists only on faith. As such, as Allam points out, its focus is on:

"the preaching of hatred and intolerance in the face of the “different,” uncritically condemned as “enemy,” were privileged over love and respect of “neighbor,” who is always, an in every case, “person”; thus, as my mind was freed from the obscurantism of an ideology that legitimates lies and deception, violent death that leads to murder and suicide, the blind submission to tyranny,"

instead of:

"the God of faith and reason".

Now, again, since I'm an atheist, I'm not talking about 'the God' of faith and reason. I'm supporting the process of faith and reason. Just as Abelard, in the 12th c, proclaimed the right of the individual to 'dubitando' (doubt) and use reason to overcome this doubt, Islam is going to have to open its ideology to doubt and dissent.

That means that it is going to have to open its ideology to the role of the individual. After all, it is only individuals who can reason.

And the other component of this speech, is the focus on accepting Others as they are. Islamic ideology, as both a militant and inclusive faith-based ideology, rejects the right of Otherness.

Benedict, in his Regensburg lecture, in his other speeches, in this action of openly baptizing a Muslim to 'Otherness' or Christianity, is directly and openly challenging Islam to 'dubitando', to permit doubt, dissent and thus, the use of Reason.

"...it is time to put an end to the abuse and the violence of Muslims who do not respect the freedom of religious choice."

Those Muslims simply emulate the founder of their religion. As a homicidal lunatic, Mohammed instinctively understood the precepts of Machiavelli. And as the quintessential armed prophet, he would undoubtedly have approved of Niccolo's summary:

Therefore one must urgently arrange matters so that when they no longer believe they can be made to believe by force.

Or, as stated with particular eloquence in the classic Star Trek episode Mirror Mirror:

Terror must be maintained or the Empire is doomed. It is the logic of history.
--Spock

Without effective coercion and terror, Islam faces a future of ever-increasing defections and ultimate extinction.

Word of this has come up in a number of places, principally at the more triumphal of catholic sites pointing with pride at the pope.

A high-profile convert, "the pope and all his princes", a public spectacle...Sir! "Sit here, please!"

What about the poor butchered converts in Sudan? In Indonesia? The nameless, the destitute? Oh, them..."Sit at my feet."

Surely to Goodness, folks whether Christian, Jewish, or Other, are going to realize the sanity of Islamophobia.

ANY self-respecting or other-respecting person is afraid of a vicious animal. Since many are witnessing the yellow fangs of that vicious ideology it's no wonder the Blogosphere is weighing in, in a big way.

When it's a matter of survival, the Way, the Truth, and the Life take on a whole new significance!

Tenebrius:

Many Christians have been martyred for refusing to recant their beliefs.

In my fading memory, one of the first examples is Christians being thrown to the lions.

Perhaps it is the root of the saying: “I'd rather die as a free man than live in submission to a tyrant," or “I'd rather stand on my feet as a free man than on my knees as a slave."

That has always been the nature of life on earth, where the penalty of disobedience to a huge parade of civil authorities is death.

One of Christianity's fundamental beliefs is the separation of realms, that life on earth is not the only reality.

Whether anybody accepts that field of understanding which goes beyond, but does not contradict, scientific fact is up to each individual.

The only ‘control' taught by my church is self-control, with love and tolerance for all other human beings. There's absolutely no suggestion of control over others.

Some misinterpret their own rejection of the inexplicable timeless truths their parents tried to teach them as ‘controlling.' Yet, when a utopian totalitarian guru presents a means of controlling in which his adherents can justify their actions by a delusion of superiority, the same person will gladly give himself over to the political cult.

Politics is about control of others.

Religion attempts to give an explanation to questions like: Why am I here? What is my purpose?

Of course, answers to questions such as those cannot be given by a scientifiic measure and it actually takes some effort to learn. But ignoring those questions does not make anybody any more superior than their ignorance about, say, the field of molecular biology.

It's just a different form of willful ignorance.

What we will never learn from the MSM.
Excerpts from Joel Rosenberg's newsletter today:

"...But this particular baptism is just the tip of the iceberg.
{...]
Despite unprecedented press coverage of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East since September 11, 2001, one big story is generally not being told by the mainstream media. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are converting to evangelical Christianity and will be celebrating their first Easter this year, even amidst widespread persecution and the very real threat of death.
[...]
Today, there are well over 10,000 Afghan followers of Christ and the number is growing steadily. Church leaders say Afghan Muslims are open to hearing the gospel message like never before. Dozens of baptisms occur every week. People are snatching up Bibles and other Christian books as fast as they can be printed or brought into the country. The Jesus film, a two hour docudrama on the life of Christ based on the Gospel of Luke, was even shown on television in one city before police shut down the entire TV station."God is moving so fast in Afghanistan, we're just trying to keep up," one Afghan Christian worker told me, requesting anonymity.
[...]
One of the most dramatic developments is that many Muslims throughout the Middle East and even in the United States are seeing dreams and visions of Jesus. They are coming into churches explaining that they have already converted and now need a Bible and guidance on how to follow Jesus."

Osama cannot stop this unprecedented move of God among Muslims.

Charles Macdonald, hey watch associating Mchiavelli (a good guy) with a homicidal maniac.

waiting while the sword is sharpened.

It's interesting to contrast the suvbject of this post with the previous one with Al Suzuki

tenebris, if I understand you, you are deploring the publicity around the Pope's baptism of this one individual versus the lack of publicity around the vicious reprisals by Islamic fundamentalists against other conversions.

The acceptance of conversions has to start somewhere. Such a high-profiled public action is an open challenge to Islamists, both those who retaliate against unpublicized conversions and those who want to change Islam in the future.

noel, I disagree with the term 'islamophobia'. A phobia is an irrational fear. I think the reaction to both the 6th century frozen nature of basic Islam and the politicized version of Islam which is Islamic fascism, ought to be a rational rejection. Not an irrational fear.

Basic Islam and Islamic fascism are not the same thing, by the way; the former is a non-industrial, tribal societal and economic mode of life completely unsuited to the modern world. The latter is a modern political agenda to retain tribalism in the ME by militant force, and is, in the multicultural West, a pathological psychological reaction to isolation.

rw:

Suzuki is in a position of cult leader in a utopian totalitarian philosoohy. That particular cult, which has its prophets of doom, is self-righteous and judgemental.

Our new Christian brother has stepped into an understanding nearly two millenia old whose base is love and tolerance. He has voted with his feet by leaving a religions tradition whose main features are self-righteousness and judgementalism.

The contrast is interesting, for sure.

And if somebody actually does kill this man, it will prove once again the nature of Muhammadanism, that is, the branch of Islam whose adherents emulate the actions of the prophet.

http://www.townhall.com/video/Campaign08/1450_020908Dinesh

For the atheist.

This might help to put a little more teeth into this "faith and reason" consideration.

Langdon Gilkey is one of the major contemporary interpreters of Tillich. From his book "Gilkey on Tillich":

'Reason and the Ground of Reason:'
As will all finite beings, human reason has a depth or a ground, a ground that transcends reason and yet is present and active within the power of reason; an ultimate, unconditional, sacred dimension. This ground provides the essential basis for reason, the conditions that make the creative exercise of reason in cultural life possible. It is the unity of subject and object in the infinite ground of both that makes possible the correlations of being and thought, of external object and inquiring subject, that represents the conditions of knowledge. And it is the presence of order (Logos), encompassing both objective world and rational self, that provides the further condition for the relevance of logical method in the subject to the patterns exhibited by the objects. Thus confidence in knowledge, the awareness that we know, is based on apprehension of this ground of unity, a confidence in the harmony present in all out experience and so an assurance of the ultimate relevance of thought to being; it is our awareness of this uniting ground that establishes the "correlation" between what is inquired about and the inquiry that inquires. Without that assumed unity of being and of thought, the acids of skepticism erode the sense of the reality of our knowing, and certainty becomes infinitely elusive. ---end of Gilkey quote--

Set you free - You’ve missed the point. Read James 2 and gellen’s 12.49 post. You’re preaching to the converted (and to a TULIP-lover at that).

ET – not a bad grasp of things for an atheist.
:-)
The reality is that Christians have been told not to do things like this…making distinctions between one another, treating one person as more important, more worthy of association.

A man of his own free will seeks to join an organization, which of the will of its leaders allow him in. Its called freedom of concious and freedom of association. Freedoms you can find, subject to the normal limits, in any Western country.

Anyone opposed to that or says that somehow these freedoms are beyond the pale because they might offend someone needs to get their heads checked.

You can argue about the amount of publicity granted to it, you can even argue about whether you would do the same thing but there is no rational debate that can be had about it not being allowed. There is no common basis of facts or assumptions and any discourse around it is a waste of time and effort since there is no compromise.

If you meet someone like that, I am sure we can all think of a few, the only debate you can have is about the kind of society you want and what freedoms belong or dont. But that is a pretty short discussion since I cant imagine well in excess of 90% of the public would agree to any constitution that didnt involve freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

Of course freedom of speech is part of that package so that you can exercise conscience and association.

So apart from paid mouth pieces who need to say what they are saying because of their jobs anyone who advocates those other positions is so far out of the mainstream and fighting wars that have been settled for 100's of years.

The correct word for those people is reactionaries and counter revolutionaries. I am sure that is a label non of the faux progressives thought they would appropriately wear. It looks good on them.

Ten:

No problem.

There has been a Christian presence to the east of Rome well before Rome accepted Christianity. Even though it is under attack now in areas such as Palestine, the Christians there tend to be more of non-Jewish descent.

I know for a fact there was a time in the history of the traditional Pentarchy area outside rome when Muslims would give over one of their children to Christian monestaries and convents in the area and the relationship between Christians and Muslims in the middle east has historically been on much friendlier terms.

In fact, Saddam Hussein was a frequent visitor to Christian monastaries and convents in Iraq before he was deposed.

I believe we are now witnessing the inevitable return of most of the populace to a more palatable religion, since the peace-loving Muslim populace may have given up trying to reform from within.

Of course, that means the general trend would be for Islam to become more and more violent, but such is the flow of history which will eventually correct itself.

rw- agreed. Machiavelli was a smart guy; very pragmatic and not at all the Evil Machinator that pop culture sees him as.

greg in dallas - minor point, as I'm not a fan of Tillich, whom I see as a mystic, a religious version of Hegel and allied to Derrida and postmodernism - but the 'unity of subject and object' effectively ends the use of Reason and moves into Faith. An entity that can't differentiate between itself and an Other, objectively, can't reason.

RW, ET is correct. My point was simply that Machiavelli was an astute observer who catalogued the methods of psychopaths like Mohammed.

ET:

The Hesychast Controversy of the 14th century which involved St. Gregory Palamas marked another great divide between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Palamas successfully drew a distinction of knowing God in essence and God by his energies (workings or activities) through scriptural examples.

He argued the former was impossible while the latter was easier to define because it is easier to see His relationship to nature and man.

His main opponent, Barlaam of Calabria, went to Rome where his idea that philosophers had better knowledge than the prophets was more readily accepted.

That's about as simple as an explanation I can give on the difference between reason and faith in the context of Christian thought.

Eventually, Luther recognized that Rome had gone too far and the splintering of Rome began.

Of course, the Orthodox church was never against scientific study, that is study of the physically measurable phenomenon.

It is indeed good whenever someone comes to the Christian faith from Islam, secular humanism or any other belief system. I hope that all such conversions are based on spiritual conviction and not just philosophical preference. Those whose association with Christianity is merely intellectual are the ones who all to quickly surrender to the next "intellectual" craze.
Just as those whose connection with Christianity is emotional, or patriotic or any other of the miriad of reasons people claim to be Christian.
Unless the core beliefs of Christianity are truest truth; truth by which all other truths are measured the believer has the very real probability of being little more than a reed blown in the wind.

Gellen, thanks for the word on the Joel Rosenberg post. Worth reading in its entirety.

ET:

Well, yes, a "phobia" in medical terms has elements of unfounded or irrational fear. But words will be words, and people will "play" with them to suit their agendas.

Typically, "phobias" these days denote intense dislike. Depending on what side of the fences you are on, the "phobias" can amount to hate, and hate, as redefined, can be an indictable offense.

Any amount of reading or observing tells me that Islam is something best to be feared, rationally or irrationally.

How about a deliberate and rational analysis before your son has head his chopped off. Or before your hand is chopped off. Or before your daughter is stoned to death.

The yellow blood of Islam and the Red Blood of Christendom don't mix.

Can Islam survive without their prophet?

The idea of Islamic reform would presumably require that Mohammad must be rejected.

Mohammad claimed that Moses was a Muslim prophet. However, Mohammad broke all ten commandments, without repenting. And in fact prescribed the same actions for his followers. Mohammad also claimed that 'the people of the book' corrupted their texts. However, this statement doesn't stand up to reason when compared to the historical and acknowledged fact that Mohammad broke all ten commandments (Hadiths, Sira). Are the ten commandments corrupt, or is Mohammad and therefore his Quran?

Based on his recorded actions and sayings, it is irrational and unreasonable to acknowledge Mohammad as a prophet of the same Abrahamic God as the Jews and Christians. He broke the laws handed down to Moses from the very God that he acknowledges as Allah - Abraham's God.

What a conundrum. Christianity certainly wouldn't survive without Christ.

Another reason why I don't believe Islam can be reformed. Rather, as is being shown, apostacy seems to be the answer.

irwin:

It'll be a stampede of people voting with their feet escaping to a religion whose tenets are love and tolerance.

Osama bin Laden has shown people in the middle east the ugly side of their religion and a natural extention to the abuse and control they suffer through accident of birth.

This struggle will go beyond our lifetimes and it does pose an interesting end to its logical conclusion.

Before long, the converts to Christianity could well be the new missionaries to the increasingly-secular west, whose satisfaction with their own material success has blinded them to universal truths.

No matter what Christian denomination is their entry point, the search will continue until their discovery of truths, understandings, and lives lives found in the ancient Christian, pre-Reformation traditions.

It's too bad I won't be around to see that day.

syf,
I was wondering if you were hibernating. I see you're up to your old 'split the brothers' routine. Go for it.

Allam was Muslim by culture, not religious conviction. He went to Catholic school, and La Sapienza Univ. in Rome.

Ten. The Pope behaved as one of the servants of the Lord, as he does always. On Easter , it is traditional to receive the adult catechumens. Every parish does this. The pope always does this.

I can't stand the kind of 'reasoning' where someone takes something positive and makes an unrelated negative out of it. That the Pope baptizes one man can in no way be honestly turned into a slight against anyone else. Who has been slighted? Are people slighted when young couples from Michgan are married by him? When a Roman child receives their first Communion?

If you think Rome has been ignoring the Sudan, say so. You'd be wrong, but it would make more sense than what you are now proposing.

Iwestin:

We all find the truth in our own way.

Let me give you one example.

The Last Supper, as chronicled in the New Testament, occurred during the period known as Passover. And, historically, the crucifixion and resurrection occurred after the Last Supper.

So, would it be considered a division among brothers to point out that Passover is celebrated on April 20th this year?

There is also a long history in the Pentarchy's Eastern Orthodox churches of Moslem parents giving one of their newborn children to be raised in an Orthodox tradition.

The Coptic Orthodox, founded by the apostle St. Mark, still exists and its realm is quite independent from that of Rome, for both geographic and historical reasons.

Pope Shenouda III, based in Alexandria, Egypt, is considered the 117th successor to St. Mark. I have read Pope Shenouda's writings on the internet and he has a body of work which is exceptional and spirituality unquestionable.

Although the Pope of Rome is not the only Pope in the world, he is certainly the best-known among the western world.

In my humble opinion, even though I am not of his jurisdiction, Pope Shenouda III is every bit an equal as is the Pope of Rome. Both are to be respected as equal men of God and the fact he baptised Allam is to be commended .

Welcome into the brotherhood of Christianity, Allam. May your search for the ultimate truth bear great fruits.

Of course then there is the theory that Mohammed was actually a Roman Bishop who was on the outs and started his own offshoot.....an obscure one, likely discredited but fun to think about nonetheless.

Stephen:

Mohammad was never a bishop.

He was illiterate and the words he uttered were written down by a defrocked Christian priest (or bishop, I'm not sure).

This is a well-established and fact in the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the history that particular geographic branch of the ancient Christian church experienced.

I'm unsure if it's documented but I heard of the accepted fact from a now-bishop who was a heirmonk at the monastery at Mount of Olives for more than two decades.

lwestin - Y'all read James 2 yet?

I object to the politicizing of conversion, to Rome's treatment of Allam as a gauntlet to be thrown in the face of the Mohammedans. To treating a person as a thing in the ongoing institutional battle for influence.

To making "distinctions" between the famous and the forlorn.

Capisce?

I'll be willing to bet that Pope Benedict was quite the mischeavious kid. Joseph Alois Ratzinger probably never had to white wash a fence by himself - he seems to have a Tom Sawyer knack for using gentle suggestion to get others doing the dirty work.

This christian conversion is a bold statement about Islam that others will provide the commentary for...the Pope only needs to watch the sparks fly.

If thats the known story then that would explain the confusion. The writer is a filter, so it would go a long way to explaining some things if true, the crossover, the desire to be the next step in Chrisitianity....

Think about how many Christainas try to start new offshoots....from mormons to the clearly dangerous ones liek Branch Davidians and Jim Jones. A common tale I would say.

I dont know, have to do a little more research. Now I wonder which particular sect of Chrisitianity the priest/bishop came from? It might cast some light on that.

Of course I am sur eyou can imagine the reaction should you out forward a documented theory that the words of Mohammed might have been influenced by Christian and that it was a construction of the converstaion between the two.

Lets compare it to a couple of recent converts the other way....and see who you would rather have dinner with or move in next door.

One, you might have a nice neighbour, the others you have to fear for your life.

Not being either a Catholic, Muslim or Athiest, I am quite enjoying this thread. It is heartening to
see that people from every side of the issue can debate and discuss this topic in a calm, cool, and
civil manner.
It speaks volumes for SDA and It's participants. Well done!!

I see the same smugness in christian posters on this thread that all religions have. Our man-made god is the best and only true one and yours isn't. Oh, you're an atheist therefore you must be evil or unenlighted as we are better people because our god is great and all powerful. Trust me on this I have zero interest in trying to change what you believe, I just don't care so don't keep defending it. The big fear of religion particularly Islam is exposure to reason and knowledge and other points of view as its leaders lose power as their control slips away and it withers through indifference.

Funny that all empires and peoples had their gods, Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians or Persians that were omnipotent. Though some lasted far longer than Christianity almost all have disappeared into the dustbin of history, guess they weren't so powerful, most had never heard about the tiny area in the middle east where the bible was written and rewritten. The god of the Jews didn't help them when the Germans butchered them by the millions. Do you honestly think if the Israelies dropped their weapons and appealed to god to save them that the muslims wouldn't slaughter them all. Christopher Hitchens book "God is not Great" delineates the misery caused by religion and calls it a poison.

I am not attacking the basis of Christianity in the slightest and believe that Jesus existed and was a good man with a great message. You don't have to believe in a god to follow that message.

People have the right in our country to believe or not in anything they want to. Religion in my view is about power and control of others. Please don't attack me for not having any belief in a supernatural being and I will continue to defend your right to believe what you want.

Vatican
"High-profile Muslim baptized by Pope asks Muslim converts to "come out"

ROME, Mar 24, 2008 / 09:30 am (CNA).- A day after he was received into the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI during the Easter vigil, Magdi Allam, a widely known Italian Muslim, wrote a letter to his own paper on Easter Sunday in which he issued a twofold call: first to he encouraged other Muslims who have converted to Catholicism to come out publicly and secondly he called on the Church to be “less prudent” about converting Muslims."
"Allam says that the most decisive factor was his meeting with the Pope “whom I have admired and defended as a Muslim for his brilliance in presenting the indissoluble link between faith and reason as the foundation of true religion.”"
http://tinyurl.com/2v467t (cna)

Dave: "I see the same smugness in christian posters on this thread that all religions have. Our man-made god is the best and only true one and yours isn't."

I bet you see dead people all the time too. Don't choke on the chocolate easter egg.

tenebris

My point is exactly this> The Pope did not baptize Allam BECAUSE he was famous.(Had you previously heard of him yourself?) AND there is no extra benefit in reality to the pope being the particular celebrant. There isn't. You are trying to find a slight that doesn't exist. (The benefit only exists if you love the pope and would be personally pleased to have him be the celebrant, as with any other priest.)

Benedict , by accepting to add Allam to the list, knowingly accepted what may very well be dangerous consequences, and showed his flock how to stand courageously for their faith. That is not political. That is part of being faithful. This is why Catholics, including those in Sudan who are dying for their faith, are proud of him. He is TRUE.

SYF
I think that Benedict XVI would concur with your proclamations of equality. So would I.

Dave: "Religion in my view is about power and control of others."

You've obviously never experienced "religion" from the inside, then. Although there are religious leaders who exploit their positions, it has been my experience in the many years that I have been a practising Christian (not just a hereditary Christian) that most Christian leaders are humble servants and hard-working, too.

Most of them, in my experience, have had as their #1-priority helping those in need: spiritual, physical, and psychological; in other words, they try every day to "love [their] neighbour as [themselves]." They try to emulate Jesus' love for humankind. I've known many Christian ministers to sacrifice their time and money to help others, often people they don't know personally.

If you think, Dave, that religion is about power and control, it means you haven't checked your facts very well, but have bought into the secular humanist, post-modern, media, view of "religion."

If you actually were a part of a Christian community--for which, BTW, there is no membership fee or test to pass--you would experience, first-hand, all the charity work that goes on in every church, unsung and unnoticed but which definitely makes a positive contribution to those who are the recipients of Jesus' love via volunteers who are His hands, feet, and heart for others.

It's easy to criticize "the church" or "religion." 'A lot harder to roll up your sleeves, open your bank account, give up your time to help others. This kind of giving is going on in every Christian church the world over. If it was wiped out tomorrow, Dave, I suspect you'd notice a big difference to the world you live in.

"He who has eyes to see, let him see."

Dave wrote: "Funny that all empires and peoples had their gods, Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians or Persians that were omnipotent. Though some lasted far longer than Christianity almost all have disappeared into the dustbin of history, guess they weren't so powerful, most had never heard about the tiny area in the middle east where the bible was written and rewritten. The god of the Jews didn't help them when the Germans butchered them by the millions. Do you honestly think if the Israelies dropped their weapons and appealed to god to save them that the muslims wouldn't slaughter them all. Christopher Hitchens book "God is not Great" delineates the misery caused by religion and calls it a poison."

Actually Dave, not all empires had their gods. The Soviet Union, and Communist China were (and are) both expressly atheistic regimes, who outlawed religious expression to various degrees. Similarly the Nazi's did all they could to deconstruct traditional judaeo-christian religions in favour of the new "race/nationalism religion" which was based upon a supposed pre-Christian germanic mysticism. The Khmer-Rouge was also expressly atheistic.

It always amazes me when atheists will play the "Religions are the source of hate, and genocide" card while ignoring some of the worst genocides in history which were perpetrated by atheistic totalitarian regimes. It also amazes me when the sine of religion are trotted out, while the positive contributions they have made to the world are ignored.

Martin Luther King: Baptist minister
Mother Theresa: Roman Catholic Nun
Francis of Assis: Roman Catholic Monk
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Lutheran Pastor
Martin Niemoller: Lutheran Pastor

The list goes on and on.

Where's that list of egalitarian athiests who have lived their lives in the service of others, or (as in the case of Bonhoeffer) died opposing evil? Maybe they're out there, and I just don't know them. But I sure am getting tired of atheists who bitch about Rasputin, but pretend that Stalin never existed.

Another aspiring cult leaders pic. on SDA. He gets it all tax free as well with his foundation. The CBC provides the loves & fishes of this vaudeville act of climatologically farce.

So far only money, not the sky has fallen for this hero of the new world order.

They even fall for his machinations in the States.

Frankly it pays to be a prophet of the newest worldly fad. But than historically the false profits gag has always been enriching. Only the real ones need fear stoning, or other forms of killing.

Karl, as I stated its all about power and control. Stalin and Mao and their ilk made themselves into gods and are still worshipped by their followers who still follow their original religions as we see in Russia. Just as the Pope ordered the German catholics to obey Hitler and even celebrated his birthday religious leaders have always allied themselves with the those in power. The ongoing payment of billions by the Catholic church here in North America for the unforgivable abuse of thousands of little children in places like Mount Cashel or in native indian schools by other religions is not going away. Because you belong to a religion or not does not make you a good person or an evil one. Is Obama's reverend a good example to follow?

Again I am not trying to tell you what to believe and yes today's churches do great service in charitable work but so do the Shriners or individuals like Bill Gates. Very few of my extended family and friends follows a religion yet our fathers fought for our freedom, we all work in the community as drivers for cancer, cubmasters, nurses and in all sorts of charities. I guess we are normal middle class people.

I have read all the books and fail to see any difference between Greek mythology and the Judeo/Christian god. To me, to me they are all just man-made stories.

We have the best country in the world and a wonderful way of life and I will fight to the death to protect and keep it for my family. That's my belief

Dave writes, ". . . we all work in the community as drivers for cancer, cubmasters, nurses [sic] and in all sorts of charities. I guess we are normal middle class people."

Nope, we don't all . . .

It's mainly those who attend church who do that.

Sorry to disappoint, Dave--you sound like a good, but deluded (as far as Christianity goes) person--but your thesis isn't supported by the evidence.

(Dave writes, "I have read all [all?] the books and fail to see any difference between Greek mythology and the Judeo/Christian god." If you really mean that, I guess you're not too discerning or very good at language processing, Dave, but you're lucky that I'm a Christian and more bemused by your naive statement than offended. If I weren't a Christian, I could be off to a HRC, or, if I were of a more volatile religion, your life--if I knew who you were--might be in danger. You should count your lucky stars you live in a free--sort of--society, based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. I'm watching Rome. Check out the "community standards" there before Christianity. QUITE scary. And, it seems, if people like Dave have their way, those "community standards" will soon hold sway again in our post-modern, non-Christian states in the West. No more "drivers for cancer, cubmasters, etc.", Dave. What do you think of a society like that?)

Karl>

Not to debate religion but put forth a point of view, and to state outright that I am an agnostic not an atheist so that you know the angle of my point.

I find your comments regarding atheism as the cause of the worst atrocities as unpalatable as atheist’s views that religion is the sole cause. Obviously, any dictatorship that has murdered en mass or attempted a genocidal cleansing of its society is based on complete individual or group power attainment. Thus becoming the gods of their realm in any uniform or fashion, religious or otherwise.

You also mentioned notable religious figures for their genuine accomplishments but not the accomplishments of many scientists and leaders throughout history that most probably did not voice an opinion other than the religion in vogue at that time, for fear of persecution. To know their true feelings on religion is usually an impossibility today, but we do know that many found their science and art of war incompatible with Christian religious dogma.

There are obviously notable people in modern society scientists, novelists and otherwise who have made great contributions (I’ll leave you to google them) some who in polite company do not publicly express their religious views.

The shorter point I’m making is the hero’s of humanity you had listed was a narrow view and a biased religious one.

Pope Benedict is both a brave man and a fine pastor. Baptizing Magdi Christiano Allam was "all in a day's work" but will have its repercussions--for both men.

But, knowing that full well, they went ahead, in joy and confidence, both witnesses to the bountiful grace of "our Lord, Jesus Christ". I thank God that there are still men of mettle to stand firm against the particular forces of evil that threaten us today. (Amorphous "feel goodism" is definitely not up to the task.)

Dave:

Self control is totally different than control over others.

My church teaches ways of self control.

Many of the examples of past religions you cite were used by civil authorities to control the populace.

The concept of separation of church and state was first articulated by Christ and practised in the US Constitution, where state religion is prohibited.

The ‘Christianity is a means of control' argument is specious. I would challenge you to cite one New Testament example where Christ advocated for control of any human being by any other human being.

Like any institution, though, the church is populated by imperfect human beings.

There's no such thing as once you walk in, you're better than everybody else.

It's a lifelong struggle to be able to treat others with love and tolerance without being self-righteous and judgemental.

We have the example of those who made the attempt and not many, the people we know as saints, have even come close.

As Bob Dylan sang: Don't criticize what ;you can't understand.

game, set and match. To Dave

Religion has always facinated me by its very ambiguousness, and I am continually astounded by the friction generated at some times, and the animosity shown to others, on the same path in most cases. I used to consider myself, not an aethiest, but more of an agnostic. I joined a new religion that believes when you die your soul goes to a Car-Wash in Thompson Lake Nevada, and we haven't set of one Bomb or killed another person yet.

Well, as I said, at 9:41, "Amorphous 'feel goodism' is definitely not up to the task."

Really, norgib.

P.S. And how many millions of widows, orphans, the down and out, and just ordinary, in-need-of-dignity people has the Car-Wash in Thompson Lake Nevada helped out over millennia?

lwestin - click the link.

"...there was the embrace of top prelates of great humanity like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Monsignor Luigi Negri, Giancarlo Vecerrica, Gino Romanazzi and, above all, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who personally accompanied me in the journey of spiritual acceptance of the Christian faith."

Your comment that "[t]he Pope did not baptize Allam BECAUSE he was famous" is specious. Of course he did.

Let's not default into "protect the holy father" mode, OK? He's not Mohammed, and I haven't drawn any cartoons.

syf - "The concept of separation of church and state was first articulated by Christ and practised in the US Constitution, where state religion is prohibited."

Umm...no, by Moses, actually - unless you want to get all trinitarian and inspirational on me. And the "concept" was only as regards the partitioning of duties. The "state" was commended for dictating the laws of God. Now, don't go and do the OT/NT, things are different now, shimmy. Go read Romans 15 and 1 Peter 2. What was dictated was the "how"...

...which leads us to "state religion", which is permitted, even assumed, in the US constitution. It's congress that shall make no law...Individual states were free to keep their state-supported churches.

Tenbris:

OK, then.

Is there an approved state religion in the US and a persecution of all others who do not adhere to that ‘state religion?'

Moses, eh? Can you point me to where that's clearly articulated.

Must have missed it, or else Christ was only confirming the concept.

That render onto Ceasar and render onto God passage was said in a direct question posed to him by the Sanhedrin, which purportedly was the guardian of truth.

So, if it was a Mosaic revelation, it certainly was not understood in practise by about 32 AD.

Oh God .... a theology debate ..... for Christ's sake!

tenny
I've read about ten or so stories from different sources. None of them support your contention.

Do you follow what goes on in the Vatican? It was a REGULAR type event.

Have you ever read anything written by BenedictXVI? It might enlighten you as to his motivation. He definitely doesn't need My help.

Your 'proof' for your assertion merely makes my point. It shows Allam's pleasure in knowing these men and what they stand for. It was an important event for HIM and he was pleased to have men he admired in attendance. 'Natch. It doesn't go to show any 'political agenda' or subverting of the validity of the sacrament by the Pope.

Obviously you'd rather chase your tail then know anything real about the church or its spiritual leader. (Read something he's written.)

Enough time wasted on this! Pax.

Knight 99
“Hero’s of Humanity” scientists can be Christian too. Sir Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal being the ones that come to my mind. Both were known in their day to the general population as theologians, (Math and science where concerns of the rich.) Blaise Pascal was born wealthy, was a mathematical genius, “Pascal’s triangle”, “Pascal”s language.” he discovered the vacuum and hydraulics. After which he coined the phrase “All Men are born with a God shaped vacuum in their hearts” He invented the first bus system and then donated if to the people of Paris. Pascal died a destitute man because he gave his wealth away. He wasn't following the Church of the day, he was following her master.

tenny
I've read about ten or so stories from different sources. None of them support your contention.

Do you follow what goes on in the Vatican? It was a REGULAR type event.

Have you ever read anything written by BenedictXVI? It might enlighten you as to his motivation. He definitely doesn't need My help.

Your 'proof' for your assertion merely makes my point. It shows Allam's pleasure in knowing these men and what they stand for. It was an important event for HIM and he was pleased to have men he admired in attendance. 'Natch. It doesn't go to show any 'political agenda' or subverting of the validity of the sacrament by the Pope.

Obviously you'd rather chase your tail then know anything real about the church or its spiritual leader. (Read something he's written.)

Enough time wasted on this! Pax.

Knight:

There is no fundamental conflict between science and religion.

Both seek knowledge to explain. Science can explain the measurable, religion explains the mysterious.

There is no ‘scientific' answer to ‘why are we here?' or ‘what is our purpose.'

That is the starting point of religious exploration.

Most scientists before the theory of evolution did attribute their important discoveries to the inspiration they received from God.

In any event, a strong understanding of the inexplicable gave scientists the inner strength and confidence to pursue answers to which they could measure.

If a person has no discernable understanding of purpose, which helps focus his energies, it's unclear how he could even start a voyage to explain the physically explainable.

Jeanette>

“Hero’s of Humanity” scientists can be Christian too”

Of course they can. My point made to Karl> was that no one group holds a special privilege as scientists, humanitarians or dictators. Born rich or poor.

set you free>

“There is no fundamental conflict between science and religion”.

I would agree for some that statement is true but for others it is not.

“If a person has no discernable understanding of purpose, which helps focus his energies, it's unclear how he could even start a voyage to explain the physically explainable”.

I’m not sure what you mean with this statement? I’m assuming you present “understanding of purpose” as a Religious belief system, which obviously is not true to me. Otherwise civilization would never have happened. Children are born into this world every day and receive no religious instruction throughout their lives functioning and discovering quite well.
I don’t really want to get sucked into a religious argument of why we are here. Suffice to say I do believe religion has always played an important role in human societies. I just wouldn’t favor one over the other of the major religions (The death cult of Islam excluded) as each has its place in the society that shaped it.

svf - you're eating into work time, but just to close off the conversation:

Capital S - states may establish state-financed churches, congress (i.e., the feds) may not. A state religion does not imply persecution (Did you know the dutch have a state religion?).

As for the foundation of the separate duties of state and church, see Numbers 16:36 - 40

OMMAG - very droll

lwestin - Sigh. OK. Pax.

Knight 99

You misunderstand me. I am not trying to vindicate atrocities committed in the name of God, nor am I trying to imply that all atheists are bad people. I am merely pointing out that to compare religion at it worst to atheism at its best is a logical fallacy. It is an argument that belongs only in the self assured orthodoxy of one's sophomore year, and one would hope that a more humble and nuanced approach to things of this kind would emerge with further reflection.

Also, to say that dictatorships like Stalin's USSR have the effect of "... becoming the gods of their realm ..." is a nifty attempt at a dodge by hiding behind the skirts of Christian theology in order to bolster an argument somehow exonerating atheists from the crimes which have grown out of their atheism. As a Christian I would say that Stalin in effect made himself to be like God, and that that is a danger of atheism. When a dictator believes that he will not have to answer for his actions in this life, except in this life, he runs the risk of becoming a paranoid tyrant who will not blink at liquidating masses of people to serve his own ends, or to hold on to power.

But for an atheist (or an agnostic) to imply that the excesses of an atheist dictator are not due to his atheism, but are somehow linked however tenuously to the concept of God is a dodge, and nothing more.

My point again: I am weary of atheists who trot out the "so many atrocities committed in the name of God" argument when seeking to discredit religion, but who ignore the atrocities committed in the name atheistic utopianism.

Karl:

I'm with you on this one.

The utopian totalitarians of the 20th century were, by and large, atheists.

They, at least did not adhere to faith principles established in the 14th century Eastern Christian churches under what is known as the Hesychast Controversy.

Much of the utopian/atheist viewpoint was inspired by the discredited science contained in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Many sources (I could quote them if needed) confirm the early Marxist leadership and the National Socialist movement saw a way to apply the flawed science into ‘evolving' humanity.

In the case of the National Socialists, it was the apparatus of the state which hastened ‘natural selection.'

Every one of these systems fail on one basic level, enforcement of their theories.

In their attempts to control and perfect others (since they believe themselves to be in an already superior state), the all have their final solutions ... and that is to kill those who disagree with them.

Ignorance and feelings presented as legitimate facts never ceases to amaze me.

Dave,

Your POV is ignorant. You know zilch about what you present as fact. Your conclusion that the Christian God is nothing more or less than Greek gods attests to this.

Ok. You are an athiest. So? You've read Hitchens. So? If you are to participate in a debate you might want to gain some knowledge in order to present a rational, fact based argument. As well, gaining knowledge will at least make your arguments interesting, if not change your POV entirely.

BTW, did anybody attack your chosen faith in no God, prior to your diatribe?

Karl>

Ok I see your point more clearly now. I also agree that most published atheists do use religion as a scapegoat and vilify religion as evil itself. They then become in a way what they claim to protest a narrow minded religion of non religion.

In my experience the most vocal of any individual or group or are the one’s that don’t practice what they preach and tend to be the first to point fingers and blame others for things that have never touched their lives, accusations and false witness.

The overall point I had made was that dictatorships that commit atrocities and genocide could come from anywhere, regardless of the proclaimed faith or lack of it. As free western societies we need to guard against totalitarianism at all times and never be under an illusion that any one group holding absolute power can be trusted anytime.

Upon viewing the article about the Pope, and some of the comments here, I'm reminded of two people.

This first is the old Jewish guy who pulled down his pants and told the SS firing squad "Kiss my ASS!"

The second is the Italian guy who was the subject of an Islamist beheading video. "I'll show you how an Italian dies!!!"

The Pope just delivered the same message to Islam. Cleaned up, of course, but that was the biggest, baddest call-out since George Bush said BRING. IT. ON!

I'm no Catholic, but I've got to say F***kin' A on the Pope! Way to have the Balls of Steel baby, and I hope you issued live ammo to the Swiss Guard.

Mohammed certainly was not a Christian bishop, or anything we would recognize as a Christian. The Koran manifests no understanding or knowledge of what we today would consider basic Christian teaching, although it does have a great deal of lore that comes out of Christian heresies and post-Christian religions, notably Mandaeism or Persian Gnosticism.