News-Record.com

• We may call Him by different names, but we are all praying to the same Almighty.

how is this possible ? if i were to pray to vishnu, i would not be praying to the same God called Jehovah. Jehovah claims to have a son named Jesus Christ who is the only savior of mankind. vishnu does not make this claim - how are we to believe they are the same God ?

Nice letter, Max.

Why would someone believe that God changes to fit each person's belief about Him rather than each person seeking to find out who God really is and changing his or her belief about God?

If I believed that Max Roseman was a 4' 9" Chinese woman and another person believed Max was a 6' 9" African American man, would Max be able to conform to both beliefs?

Buz and ECUMAN,

You speak my mind.

"We are all Americans who love our country"

You think Mohammed Atta felt like that? He wasn't technically an American but neither are many of the people in our country.

This letter makes some good points but please don't try to blend religions and Gods like they are all the same. They're not.

but some of us don't pray to anyone. Some of us have come to the conclusion that praying really doesn't matter because we cannot change gods will through prayer. What's going to happen is going to happen no matter how much one prays.

But I guess prayer does help some people to believe in the unbelievable.

Jesus is like the Easter Bunny for adults. Sure it's hard to believe, but if you do, you get more candy.

Prayer doesn't have to be about changing God's will. Most prayer should be of thankfulness.

"Jesus is just like the Easter Bunny for adults"

Must be more to it than that. Folks don't get all riled up and mad when you say the Easter Bunny's name.

"Believe in the unbelievable"

Everyone's free to their own belief but when I look around me or just watch the Nature channel for a while, I find it much more unbelievable that there isn't someone responsible for creation.

Brian:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Can you explain the origin of the universe?

Our Father (which or who) art in heaven
Howard (be or is) thy name.

A good letter with a contextually accurate perspective ripped to pieces because honoring the belief system of another would be "wrong."

I may not like or agree with another's belief system/structure, yet, I will strive to respect that person. I have yet to find all of the answers to life's questions. Until that time I must seek to honor what I believe to be "that of God" in each person.

Shalom

Darryl:

Please help me. I'm a little confused about what your position is.

Are you saying that all religions are equally true and valid?

Is it wrong to criticize another person's letter?

Is it wrong to criticize another person's religious point of view?

I'll answer adjacent to Darryl:

Are you saying that all religions are equally true and valid?

Yes. consider this: If you were born in Italy, you'd most likely be Catholic. If you were born in England, you'd most likely be Prodestent. If you were born in Ireland, it probably depends on how the wealth of your daddy. If you were born in Israel, you'd most likely be Jewish.

Is it wrong to criticize another person's letter?

Of course not - tear it to shreads - but thoughtful candor is more useful, and God demands it.

Is it wrong to criticize another person's religious point of view?

Of course not - but thoughtful candor is more useful, and God demands it.

May God forgive my spelling and cut-&-paste grammer.

James:

Thanks for the reply. I'm not being nasty with anyone. I merely trying to point out faulty thinking.

When someone tells me or another person that it is wrong to judge or criticize another person, they are judging or criticizing me. The argument is self-refuting. If you believe it is wrong, don't do it on this blog!

Also, if you think every religion is true and valid, Christianity must be true and valid also since it is a religion. However, Christianity teaches that other religions are NOT true and valid. So, the view that all religions are true and valid is self-refuting. It cannot possibly be true!

I'm just trying to get people to think rather than give empty slogans or emote.

Darryl,

I agree with what you're saying but I just don't think it applies to the responders on this letter with the exception of the comment comparing Jesus Christ to the Easter Bunny.

Furthermore, I do not believe the original letter is honoring my belief system by saying that my God (and savior) is the same that is worshipped by Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, etc. That literally runs smack into the commandment that states to 'have no other God's before me'.

I think the word you are looking for is 'tolerate'. I can tolerate what Max Roseman believes and can 'respect' his right to believe it. However, I don't know that I respect him cause I know absolutely nothing about him.

I read his letter again and honestly got less out of it than the first time I read it. The only thing I really take from it is he is saying:

1. All religions worship the same God.

2. Think what you like, but don't talk about it or let anybody else know what you're thinking.

3. Don't affilliate yourself with any belief cause we could all get along if we didn't let anyone know what we believe or something like that.

4. Labels suck. (That point I agree with and would have cheered the letter had it been those 2 words alone)

Sorry, I just can't see what purpose the rest of this letter serves.

"Christianity teaches that other religions are NOT true and valid."

... yea, and that's my biggest rub with Christianity. I know there are "rationalizations" that explain the question of "what about the folks in the jungle that never met a missionary .. do they go to Heaven?" .. but I've never really understood the reasoning.

Can I explain the origins of the Universe? No .. one of the great unknowables which gives ample creedence to God .. but how one can dispute evolution - especially by arguing life-forms are "too complicated" - well sorry, only a cow could maintain that position. You wanna talk about "trying to get people to think rather than give empty slogans or emote." ?!?! jeeze louise.

As for Christianity .. inspite of the above, I consider myself a Christian, mostly 'cause I was raised that way, and although I have also studied some "alternatives" .. the teaching Jesus left for us to follow on earth are pretty durn good, and if I can fractionally live up to His ideals, then I'm doing purdy durn good.

As for God - way too big for me to dwell on .. but He must have a sense of humor or I'd been struck by lightning many times over ... He simply has no reason to worry much about us - I often say Man is a Fungus in the Cosmic Scheme.

Come'on, he's got the whole universe to look after, and for all we know, he's busy making another one somewhere else.

JDR,

"Our Father (which or who) art in heaven
Howard (be or is) thy name."

Actually it's Andy.

"Andy walks with me
Andy talks with me
Andy tells me I am his own......"

Personally, I don't have a problem with this letter. I tend to agree with Mr. Roseman. I don't believe that any religion has a monopoly on truth or that any religion hasn't been changed by the people who believe it. Everyone has a different perspective. I like the analogy of the blind men and the elephant.

Beadbaby:

I'm familar with the elephant analogy.

If you were in the story would you be one of the blind men or the Raja who knows it's an elephant?

It would appear that others have spoken and I concur.

Shalom

JDR:

If cows are so simple, could you or someone else make one without the benefit of other cows or the DNA from cows? Can someone make a cow from scratch? Just curious.

Can someone make a cow from scratch? actually .. yes ... and I do not meant cloning.

Here's how (with only four caveats):

Take a giant ball of hydrogen - I mean REALLY BIG. Give it a few billion years and the molecules begin to merge .. the more they merge, the more they merge (a variety of well defined forces cause this to happen).

Eventually they merge to the point that that heat up to the point they bang into each other and about 1 out of ever gazillion collisions causes two to truly merge and .. whalla .. that's caused fusion and it release a whole bunch of energy - about as much as the "weight" (actually mass) of the atoms times 186,000 x 186,000 (dimensions omitted for simplicity) - that's a really big number.

Now all this energy is more heat that causes even more H atoms to collide making more He making even more heat ... and eventually you have the Sun - or any one of a gazillion stars in any one of a gazillion galaxies.

Let this concoction cook for a few billion years until all the H is used up. Then the star collapse and the fun really begins, because this incredibly huge ball crashed onto itself and makes an incredibly small ball and the collision / fusion thing happens again and all the natural elements are created effectively instantaniously just as the whole thing blows apart spreading all these elements through the known and unknown universe.

This process happened a lot - in fact is still happening - and all these splayed particles do the gradual attraction thing and eventually become small balls - some get caught in the gravity of an adjacent star and go into an orbit.

Now there's not enough energy in these "higher molecules" to do the fusion thing, but there still a lot going on, with violent storms from the gaseous-types that generate lightning (beaucoup amounts of heat & electrical energies) plus tens-of-thousands of degrees causing the solids-types to start to melt and merge and make rocks and other more complex molecules - and with billions of combinations, some nucleic acids are made ... and eventually even DNA types are made.

Rock on for another billion years and you get sea water and eventually single cell organisms and eventually multi cell organisms and eventually cows.

==

Now the caveats:

1 - it's been years since I studied this stuff, and there are certainly some errors in my memory.

2 - one of the more recent findings is that before there were Hydrogen atoms there were strings .. but I know nothing about it.

3 - The original premise was "someone" .. so that someone will need to live perhaps 14 billion years without bread water or beer. That's a tall order.

4 - Before the strings - there must have been something. The only explanation I have is God.

With the exception of caveat #4 - the reast is reasonably well established though a variety of well defined forces causing all this to happen.

===

NOW -- you may not accept all this, but don't have a cow ... I'll bet you don't know how your computer works.

Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living for today. Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do: nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too. Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us and the world will live as one.

Some weird atheistic musician hippie wrote that a while back. I think he was a Marxist. Or, maybe a Lennon-ist.

JDR:

Good bedtime story. I wish I had read it last night before I went to bed.

It's the caveats that always make things so difficult!

ECU .. you asked how to make a cow - that's how it was done on this planet.

There's only one caveat that should be giving anyone trouble .. and that one has nothing to do with how to make a cow - only where the strings came from.

==

You are of course free to believe as you wish - God Bless America. I concede Caveat #4 has not and probably will never be "answered" ... but the point was: many that hold to the "Intelligent Design" - fairy tale is the right term for it - not only can't tell how a calculator works, they can not add two numbers without that calculator.

I further concede some real smart folks hold "Intelligent Design" as the only possible solution to the mysteries of the universe ... but that has nothing to do with how to make a cow.

Some real smart folks thought the earth was flat.

Some real smart folks thought one could not go faster than a mile a minute - later "proving" one could not go faster than sonic velocity.

Some real smart folks thought if man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with wings.

The list of silly things some real smart folks thought is Very Long.

Sorry .. God is out there, but so is evolution .. and it starts in the stars and goes through the earth's sea water ann cows and to the rising average height of man - then to places we can noy even imagine.

btw ... for almost 1800 years, the Pope was the smartest guy on the planet .. infallible.

the point of that statement is germane to the original LTE: science and religion can mix - but only if you keep the politics out.

Know why the priests spoke in Latin?

"[T]his wide eyed 10 year old boy watched in awe during the mass as the priest, dressed in remarkable garments, said his solemn prayers. These were all spoken in Latin of course and I had no idea at the time WHAT he was saying, just that he was talking to God. He could talk directly to God! And then, wonder of wonders, this priest, when he said the “magic words” would turn bread and wine in Jesus Christ’s body and blood! What special powers he held! This man was above all men! This was, in fact, not a man, but a “man of the cloth”, a “servant of God”."

JDR:

Your all over the place man! What does any of this have to do with the initial discussion of religious pluralism?

BTW, I don't have a problem of microevolution. It's the molecules-to-man macroevolution that I don't think has scientific evidence.

ECU:

You asked if someone could make a cow. If that "someone" must be a regular person, then the answer is no, at least not with today's technology.

I inferred - correctly - that you were saying it therefore must take the Hand of God to created cows.

I explain how with the exception of the "unexplained placement" of the strings some 14 billion years ago - the Hand of God is not needed.

Natural forces - currently understood fairly well - could and did create cows.

You said that is a "Fairy Tale".

I said your perception it is a "Fairy Tale" is either because 1 - (the generic) you is not educated in the sciences .. and/or .. 2 - bias imposed though religious upbringing.

I finally suggest we be very careful to see this bias. It is in every one upbringing - religious or otherwise - but religion is heavily influenced by the political hand of man - ditto one's level acceptance vs. rejection of religious plurality.

I used the Pope's alleged infallibility and the perception of a 10 year-old to demonstrate that point.

I really do not try to write cryptically - an concede I do pull ideas from unexpected places .. however I un-humbly suggest there usually is a method to the madness.

HOWEVER ..

If you look in your Cracker-Jack Box, you'll find the JDR Decoder Ring that Trish & Neo are always looking to find.

... at the risk of pissing them off .. Trish's reading comprehension skills need to be honed and Neo is so biased he can't see past his belt buckle.

JDR:

You made the claim that a cow and other living organisms are not "too complicated". I just asked for some evidence for that assertion. You just made more assertions about Darwinism. You haven't backed up anything you've said with evidence, merely assertions.

Fair enough. I usually get diss'd for providing "evidence".

This one is an unusual topic - because, as I tried to point out - I post 20 links supporting the natural forces that can generate life ... and you can post 20 countering links or simply state there is no real evidence.

In that regard, it's like climate change - ya fall in line with 90% of the people that study this stuff for a living or you say those folks are just milking the grant money as part of a great scheme.

I'll say this: the "march" towards the conclusions I have expressed in lay terms above started in earnest during the mid 60's and as far as I can tell the evidence has only accumulated ... except for those that decided for whatever reason that spontaneous generation REALLY does occur .. I'm sorry I mean "intelligent design".

Regardless - here's a primer
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

Here's a seminar if you're serious:
http://workshop.molecularevolution.org/

Harvard will give you a doctorate if you want
http://origins.harvard.edu/Overview.html

NASA's looking on to it
http://origins.stsci.edu/under/earth.shtml

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6963&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000053046&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1482684&md5=7c7aae0e8a81c7d36f7c3e3dce9118a4

...

but if you're really into spontaneous generation ... go for it.

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm

btw .. I made litte "assertions about Darwinism". If I read your post correct .. you granted Darwinism.

I'm talking about stuff that happened WAY before his studies .. because all he did was discuss natural selection, and he caught living hell for it all the way to the Scopes Trial and the father of my first girlfriend who told me in no uncertain terms that Evolution was BS because there was no way he was related to no monkey.

One more item:

In another recent thread I passed along some info about a lecture I'd once heard titlesd "Knowledge or Certainty?" The jist is one can gain Knowledge but almost never be absolutly Certain - in face the more certain you think you are the less likely you are to be correct - it's a Gaussian thing.

On this topic .. there is knowledge but limited certainty.

The Vatican City News
dateline: March 1st, 1680

The Pope stated today that the Copernican theories allegedly "proven" by Galileo were a big hoax. The Pope has graciously permitted Galileo to spend the rest of his natural life under house arrest as long as he stops trying to convince people that the earth circles the sun - which is not only against the teachings of the church and therefore God, but it also goes against common sense.

"As for Christianity .. inspite of the above, I consider myself a Christian, mostly 'cause I was raised that way,"

i know i'm gonna get hammered for this but here we go.
jdr it seems that you are calling yourself 'christian' by default, that is be"cause you were raised that way". basically it sounds as though you have 'labeled' yourself 'christian' when in fact calling oneself christian is no more valid than calling oneself a genius. being raised in a Christian environment no more makes you a Christian than it does the dog or cat that was raised in the same household. an understanding of Gods word and the confession that Jesus is Lord and Savior is the beginning of salvation (ie being Christian), but the key is that everything is predicated on Gods word. once we accept Christ as Savior, we begin a journey that requires us giving up ourselves and then allowing God to live thru us. i also was raised in a christian home but i personally did not become a Christian until i left home and became married. one problem i see today is that too many people 'label' themselves as 'christian' by simple rule of elimination, what i mean is that they know they are not buddhaist, or followers of vishnu or hindus nor sikhs etc, then by default they must be christian. Christianity is not a label but a life lived in submission to Gods will and should be obvious to others by the way you act and carry yourself and not so much by your admission of Christianity. this of course is my opinion.

No argument, Buz ...

The best I can do is follow Jesus' teachings - as I understand them - demonstrated in the way I act towards others.

I choose to not live in submission to God .. mostly because I have no idea what that means except to cower all the time - which makes no seen - or submit to the will of your local church .. which I also have a hard time doing 'cause as far as I can tell, the leaders are just people.

Certainly some are pretty Holy Folk out there .. I don't argue that point .. and I seek to learn from them more of Jesus' teachings.

Mostly I like the context from which things originated .. favorite stories being turn-the-other-cheek (so the other has to strike you with his dirty left hand .. which he would never do ... or back-hand you, which puts insult on the striker) ... and the concept of living water - as in potable so one can survive.

But I have a hard tome taking the Bible too literally - so maybe I'm a pagan ... which in it's original context simply meant "one that lives outside the walls of the city" .. not necessarily a bad thing.

PS .. I'm sure I'll regret confessing this, but I also do not believe in life after death .. which potentially puts me in Permanent Hell .. and arguably means I'll never be a true christian ... but at least I'm honest to God.

James D. Rockefeller, your religious views are close to mine. I like the messages of Jesus, but I can't swallow the exclusiveness of traditional Christianity and I can't say that I believe what I think is wrong.

Someone above asked the question "Do [I] think I'm the Raja that knows that it's an elephant?" No, I don't. I'm human, too, and that means that I am not omniscient. I see my part of the truth, but not all of the Truth.

Beadbaby:

If you are blind like "the rest of us" why should I take your view seriously?

jdr,
sounds to me that you are attempting to do what Jesus taught - i would call that doing Gods will. as for me i'm an all or nothing Christian - i either believe all of Gods word or none of it. i cannot in good conscience pick the parts i like and eliminate those parts which i don't like - this is not to say that i have attained Gods high calling for my life - just that i give it an honest try each day to do what God asks of His people. have a nice weekend ! :-)

The letter is charming but what about those of us who are secular humanists or atheists? What happens to our rights? The bottom line is simple...keep quiet and worship...or not...as you see fit. I can assure you that for all the screaming you religious folk do concerning your 'rights', there are a goodly number of us who are forced to spend currency emblazoned with a mantra that has nothing to do with these United States and is offensive to us. For those of you who disagree, how about we change the currency and our pledge to reflect 'Dog' instead of 'God'. See what I mean? Of course you don't...religion seems to bring with it some type of moral superiority and entitlement. We should all be privy to protection of and FROM religion. And no...I'm not going anywhere. How would you people feel if you were told to pack up your crosses and leave? I thought not.