The article bravely casts a critical light on one of the most important rites-of passage in a Muslim's life. The Hajj pilgrimmage does seem to this ignorant outside observer to be rather devoid of any real meaning in modern times. In the age of cheap international travel it is no great test to get to the holy lands from anywhere in the world. Relatively wealthy Muslims can do the Hajj and tell themselves and perhaps more importantly those they wish to impress that they are good Muslims.

Do the ceremonies at the Hajj really encourage soul searching, self examination, an attempt to identify areas of self improvement, a sense of awareness of the individual and his place in the world, and a sense of Islam and its place in the world? Do the leaders and adherants ever examine whether or not their religion is a force for good in the world, discounting as measures of such an outcome the propagation of Islam or the pusuit of Jihad?

Unless the Hajj is an occasion for genuine reflection along these lines, it seems a bit perfunctory and pointless.

Having said all that, this opinion site does have rather a fixation with Islam. Where are similar opinion pieces about the other great religions of the world? Perhaps the publication this article is a bit of playing to the anti-Islamists that seem to populate the forums on this site.

On a more general postmodernist note ... I wonder if ANY of the old traditions of "pilgrimage" are worth anything these days? Personally, I always think that the desire for pilgrimage is somehow "hard wired" into our systems (by an "Intelligent Designer"? :-)) to help us get to know other people who share this small planet with us.

In regards to Islam specifically, I note that fasting during the Lunar month of Ramadan is compulsory for all Muslims. This means no food, drink or sex from break-of-dawn (often quite some time before sunrise), through until sunset each day.

I have one big problem with this: if the Prophet Muhummad gave the "final message" to all humans, what are the people living in or near the Arctic Circle to do when Ramadan falls in their Summer months (and they effectively have NO darkness in their day)?

The best answer I could ever get from any Islamic scholar was that they should "take the times for fasting from the nearest Muslim country" ... which simply begs the question.

IF Islam is "the final message for ALL Mankind", why cannot Scandinavian countries EVER be "Muslim countries"?

You will note that the Islamic world is situated around the globe's equatorial regions, where daylight remains around 12 hours per day throughout the year!

Regards, David (in Perth, Western Australia)

Dave asks an interesting question.

What about this one. Given that Muslims when they pray, must face Mecca, given the spherical nature of the planet, aren't adherents therefore effectively praying out into space?

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

Not another bloody "round earth" adherent - next you'll be saying the earth revolves around the sun!

Personally I have no grief with this prescription (of facing Mecca), especially given the opposite side of the globe is deep in the South Pacific (where VERY few people would have the dilemma of whether to face East or West for the shortest route to Mecca). Maybe a few along the Canadian/Alaskan border have that problem, but given my previous posting, I'm guessing there aren't many resident Muslims that far North of the Equator!

In peace, David

Dare I say - and yes I will probably get flack from the petals out there, but - Another nice pagan moslem story showing us unbelievers [see below] that moslems, in the main, are nice, peaceful people with a nice peaceful religion.
Funny he didn't mention the hate filled anti-Jewish and anti-western sermons that were and are delivered each time this pagan festival is held.

A leading imam- Hamid Ali - in the mosque where the July 7 bombers 'worshipped' has hailed their terrorist attack on London as a "GOOD" act,
Al-Faisal branded non-moslems as "cockroaches" ripe for extermination.
Fine, friendly, peaceful leaders eh? and they teach others and I bet they have also attended a haj. numbat

Good on you Numbat, you have risen to the bait like a true anti-Islamist. Of course, there is nothing positive to say about Islam, is there? Not that you would admit to, anyway. I'm neither a Muslim nor a 'petal'. I just can't see where Muslim-bashing gets us anywhere.

Some time ago ABC [who else?] had a programme on Compass all about the Hajj. I must say I was impressed with the enormous ,obvious devotion of the Muslims to their beliefs. it was almost palpable.
That such a huge body of people could live in a constricted area without irritation was amazing.
But such obsession with a religion ,though interesting, made me aware that this should be regional religion only. That it should be contained only in the areas where it thrived simply because to take it to countries where it was not followed would only lead to absolute resentment. This has happened and it has lead to unhappiness to the followers who cannot understand the resistance , it has lead to unhappiness of the other religions who do not want this obsessive,oppressive dogma any where near them.
Far better to keep it to its own place.

Ooooook... JOKEtime. In Asia there is a brand of monosodium glutenate which is called 'Ajinimoto'..

Q.What do you call a Muslim Haji, who has no motorcyle ?
A. Haji-no-moto :)

Alllright.. yes its an Asian contextual joke..but makes em roll around the floor there.

Now.. to more serious matters. The issue of the 'compulsory/obligatory' pillars of Islam are interesting.

1/ If you 'don't do them are u Muslim and therefore paradise bound ?
2/ If you DO do them but with resentment, are they any good ?
3/ What is the point in an Islamic state of 'enforcing' such 'obligatory' rituals if they arn't worth squat due to your heart condition ?

The simple answer is that what REALLY matters in Islam is power, the political power which can be exercised through such 'obligatory' rituals.

You can pray 5 or 5000times with a lustful heart.. -any good ?
You can pay the 'zakat' with grumbling and will that do you any good ?
You can confess mohamed as the messenger of Allah and that Allah is one, and in the next breath curse them.. will that help ?

The 'compulsory' or 'obligatory' nature of repetitious rituals in religion are to me, clear signs of the emptiness of such a faith.

Jesus said "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me"

If a wrong attitude is able to completely invalidate the eficacy of 'ritual' why make them 'compulsory'?..again we are back to power and politics, to shaping a community with an imprint of the leaders Jackboot ?

There is no such thing as a 'compulsory' ritual in Christ.

There is one experience which occurs ONCE (Baptism) and another which is freely celebrated as often as desired (Communion)

Baptism comes the closest to 'compulsory' but is far from it. No one who has not confessed with their lips and believed in their heart that Christ is Saviour and Lord would be expected to symbolize that new life with such a ceremony. Further, no one who knows Christ and his teaching would willfully hold back from it.

I wasn't going to bother with this article but for the benefit of those who still believe islam is an abrahamic monotheist religion, let me mention a few facts:

At first, Mohammad ordered his followers to face Jerusalem when they prayed, then when he was dismissed as a fraud by the Jews he changed the "kiblah" from Jerusalem to Maccah.

When muslims chant "allahu akbar" it does not mean ‘God is great’ but literally
"allah is greater" i.e. greater than any other diety (including Jehovah of the bilble).

Mohammad knew the great significance for Judeo-Christianity of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Because he had to prove that his god 'allah' was superior he arrogantly built a mosque called Al-Aqsa (meaning the ultimate or the furthest) right ON TOP of the Jewish temple therefore claiming a piece of the action in the real holy land AND his superiority and animosity to both Jews and Christians.

The Kaabah - that black square building that muslims circle at hajj - is nothing but a pagan temple that was once full of idols and gods (365 gods) that Mohammad and his tribe worshiped. As a matter of fact it still has a black stone in it that is worshipped part of the paganistic rituals of the Hajj affair.

After all the prayers, the alms to the poor, Ramadan fasting, Hajj, Jihad, etc, the muslim still does not have any assurance of being accepted by God (which they think is Allah).

Assurance of salvation is only found through accepting Jesus The Christ as our Lord and saviour.

There is no other way.

Jesus of the bible said: "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate (himself the shepherd), but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. (John 10:1)

I think if muslims wnat to walk round and round in cirles,that's their business.But to make it all worth while, what about trucking in a couple of hundred thousand tons of grapes.Or what about a game of musical chairs,with some western rock music.Rock around the clock comes to mind.
I bet the shoe shops around mecca must be killing a pig.

Bashir Goth,

Would not those 'tears shed every time the name of Prophet Mohammed was mentioned' be better used for the men, women and children he took captive, enslaved, executed and even raped? Yes, read your own hadiths! Why don't these events bother Muslims at all? It is not as if they are hidden. One can easily find them in the earliest accounts of the life of your dear prophet. Yes, but Muslims ignore them.

Excuse me, but I must have missed the "piety and virtuousness" that are the expected result of the hajj. Those that have done the 'sacred journy' are just as good at preaching hate and anger or yelling 'death to infidels' as the rest of Muslims. What hypocrisy!

As to "quality between human beings" I think you should consider the fact that wherever Islam dominates, non-Muslims suffer oppression, persecution and are treated as second class citizens - or worse!

Not to mention that the land of the hajj (Arabia) is itself noted for the mistreadment of non-Muslims, not to mention half of its own citizens. By going there and participating it the event, a Muslim implicidly consents to and supports the injustices and discrimination practiced in that land.

John kactuz

PS: I hate to bust your bubble about the 'equality' of Muslims at the hajj, but special arrangements and times are reserved for Arab as opposed to non-Arab Muslims, and Saudis are given even more preferences as compared to the great 'unwashed' masses. I don't know how many times I have heard this from Paki, Indian and other non-Arab Muslims

The best-selling author and Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq in the German left-wing magazine 'Der Spiegel'.

"Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Don't apologize. [...]

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologize. [...]

The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes. [...]

Freedom of expression is much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." The same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.

Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.

But upon reflection, perhaps we as a nation can for once sit back during the predominantly European contest of who are the courageous and who are the cowards. Because, as The Telegraph affirms, "for let us not delude ourselves: it is organized violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week"

Good artcile Bashir. I guess spirituality & intent could be lost.

Interesting mix of comments (including the Pinocchio team).

More about the Kaaba:

Muslims fantacise that Abraham was the first muslim - and he and Ishmael built the Kaaba as a memorial for where Allah asked Abraham to sacrifice his son (or according to islam the son asked his father to kill him?)

Here are the facts:

Abraham, was a Jew, and NOT an Arab.

In pre-Islamic Arabian genealogies, Ishmael is nowhere mentioned as the father of the Arabs.

According to Arab history, the Kaaba at Mecca was built by Kosia, the pagan great-grandfather of Muhammad.

Hagar, Abraham's servant, the mother of Ishmael, was an Egyptian and thus not an Arab.

Since his mother and his father were not Arabs, Ishmael was not an Arab.

Ishmael could not be the "Father" of the Arabs because they already existed before he was born

According to the historical and literary evidence, Abraham and Ishmael lived in Palestine.

They never lived or been to Mecca, never mind build the Kaaba.

So they never established the rituals connected with the Kaaba such as the pilgrimage.

All a hoax folks.

Hey, Coach, you old Devil Dodger you. You are so certain that Christianity is the one true way, aren't you. So are the Muslims, Jews Hindus etc similarly convinced of the correctness of their religions. Trouble is, they are all just a collection of ancient superstitions whose records have been corrupted over time to preserve the power of ecclesiasts. Don't try to throw up hair splitting interpretations about the Quoran, all other religions' holy books also have inconsistencies and passages that could best be described as 'a good idea at the time'. All religions have appropriated to some extent the customs and often buildings of religions that previously existed. None of the age old conflict between Christianity and Islam has ever done any good. It never will. No religions sufficiently serve the needs of the modern world, they instead tend to divide us and accentuate differences. Cast off age old superstition-based faith and adopt your own moral code aimed at living in peace, prosperity and care for your neighbours and the planet in this life, and let the next life, if any, take care of itself.

Hey PK you old truth dodging relativist you. If you think truth is relative to the individual, and everyone ought to believe this to be true. You have found one absolute truth. But hold on, a relativist doesn’t believe something can be true independent of a person’s wishes, desires and will.

Relativism contradicts itself.

Just as you believe EVERY individual constructs their own truth (which is an absolute statement about the facts of the universe) a Christian believes that God took up humanity into himself and lifted everyone up when he rose from the dead. Why? Reason proclaims its truth.

Without God you forget how dependent you are on the good conscience of those in charge. Am I to trust you who recognizes no authority but the one you yourself create?

“You must know that nothing is good or evil, but I am teaching you that some things are good and some are evil, in order to induce in you conditioned reflexes which are useful for the maintenance of solidarity in communal life which is neither good nor evil but must be seen as good” .

“The natural social self defense against education so conceived (that is an which employs authority while at the same time proclaiming its fictitiousness) is understandable. Since an effective inheritance of values is always the work of authority, and every act of emancipation from authority may arise only in the name of values absorbed thanks to authority, a scientistic upbringing is therefore an absurd utopia.”

What you would have us do is reject Christ, the religious tradition of our culture, the genius of our greatest philosophers and saints, and the collective wisdom of millions of holy men and women And put in its place a silly doctrine held by a small fraction of pseudo intellectuals from western countries where it has been fashionable in the last 30 years.

You’re on the cusp of some great liberation from an irreplaceable part of human culture? You’re on the cusp of the implosion of one of the silliest intellectual fads known to humanity.

Hey PK and Hey Coach :)

PK first.. can you tell me how this is designed to enhance ecclesiastical power ?

"If anyone would be first among you, he must become SERVANT of all"

Coach.. can you provide sources for your claim about Ishmael not being father of the Arabs ? Im pretty sure Genesis actually says something like he 'is'.

Hagar being Egyptian and Abraham not so much a 'Jew' at that time, but just one in a line descending from Shem. The idea of 'Jew' or Israelite arose after Jacob/(Israel)

Hagars ethnicity and Abrahams does not mean their offspring cannot be called 'Arab', which I presume is a name which arose as Ishmael grabbed as many females as he could and made his own tribe.
The existence of 'Arabs' pre Ishmael, may just mean 'people'..other sons of the sons of etc Noah who were populating the area ...

I met a Saudi guy in Kuala Lumpur who agreed his people were descended from Ishmael, though he pointed to a particular geographical area. (northern Arabia)

[Ishmael took an Egyptian wife (Genesis 21:21) and became the father of 12 tribes which are listed in Genesis 25:12-16. These tribes were to become the nucleus of the Arab peoples, a people with a mixture of Semitic and Egyptian blood.

Other Arab tribes trace their origin to the six sons of Abraham who were born to him by his second wife, Keturah. They are listed in Genesis 25:1-4. Finally, some Arab tribes were to emerge from the descendants of Esau, the twin brother of Jacob who sired the 12 tribes of Israel]

On your other points about the Kaaba etc.. no argument.

BD, thanks for coming in with some correction to coaches claims.

We might get further around here with more of that approach.

R0bert

Would you look at that I just mentioned the Pinocchio Mosque-teers and they all showed up.

Boaz,

True 'by the book' recital of Abraham family tree.
Thank you for 'coaching coach' :-)
Keturah was Abraham's third wife (after Sarrah and Hagar).

Coach,

Does it make sense to you Mr Intellect that Abraham never went back to visit his first born (even though Hagar and her son were blessed by angels, God will bless Ishmael and make him a great nation, etc, etc..). But then again its a good idea not to think.
If you check the "Abraham diary" you are quoting from you will notice he was born before the Torah. He couldn't be a jew.
Let me guess. You sound like an Arab Orthodox Christian.Are you? The one you quoted from the Van Dyek bible "Damoh aleina wee ala awladna" when Jews asked for the Crucifix can only be quoted by Orthodox.

Martin Ibn Something,

You never fail to impress me.
So now you think your faith is made by philosophers and holy men?
Now philosophers I understand. Can you explain how can a man become 'holy'?

Boaz, my point is that the teachings and documents of all religions have been deliberately corrupted over time to enhance or entrench the power of the clergy. Perhaps the most prominent example occured at the time of the Reformation when Luther and Calvin and their followers set up the Protestant faiths. Catholics fought back to assert the supremacy of Rome. One of their tactics was to insist that Catholic traditions and teachings, in combination with the Bible, and not the Bible alone,was the true basis of Christian faith. From an objective standpoint, that is a contentious claim aimed solely at shoring up the power of the Pope and Catholic clergy against the Protestant challenge. It would be possible to cite many more such examples across all religions.

Dear PK
now I can agree with you.. on one point at least.. re the Catholic approach to 'Authority' not being Sola Scriptura, but as you point out, it includes the traditions of the Church.

Another name for this is 'spiritual relativism' :) where if you have a 'bad Pope' you will get 'bad theology' and so on.

I maintain though, that the scriptures have not been altered to entrench power, there is a contentious verse in 1 John, in which the 'Trinity'seems to be presented, and I accept this might be a textual problem. No need to go into all the background to that. People can search.

The predominant tone of Scripture is God above all, not the Church in the sense of an 'authority structure'. We, the Church, the body of Christ, are called to be Salt and Light, but not a big stick wielded by a Lumberjack wearing hobnail boots :)

Catholicism places considerable emphasis on the words of Jesus to Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church" and regarding Peter as the 'first pope'. I have to reject this understanding on many grounds among which are of course principles of sound interpretation.

To the extent that our Catholic friends present the Christ of Scripture, I will rejoice and worship with them in heartfelt unity.
Where they depart from this, I will withdraw.
Blessings all

So the millions of men and women religious who have historically lived on starvation wages are all intellectual prostitutes preaching for pay.

This absurdity - the largest fraud every perpetrated on Western society demands an explanation. It invites more of an explanation than the existence of Christianity itself.

It is implausible in the extreme.

Why defame a whole class of great servents of our civilisation?

My suggestion is to read Catholic doctrine about the sacraments. Read about the deposit of faith passed on by the church. Find out how splintered protestant churches are without a central authority. Thank heavens the Church knew itself well enough to defend against revolutionary elements in the Reformation.

Anyway, these are 500 year old debates and all you have to offer is some ugly slander of the Catholic Church and its celibate priesthood. You try and give up a wife and family to serve people in God's name.

You see. Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting its been found hard and not tried. If everyone were genuine disciples of Christ we would be living in wonderful peaceful world.

Deliberate corruption of the Bible? In actual fact putting the oldest Bible next to all the transcriptions and translations we find amazing harmony. This is easy to do this comparison, because so many Bibles have been written.

PK you have written nonsense two times in a row. Pull your finger out.

BOAZ_David,

Thanks for your question: “Coach.. can you provide sources for your claim about Ishmael not being father of the Arabs ? Im pretty sure Genesis actually says something like he 'is'.”

Sorry Genesis never mentions this, but Arabs existed existed before, during, and after Abraham or Ishmael was born.

Arabia was already populated by the descendants of Cush and Shem.

When God disposed of Hagar, Ishmael started roaming the wilderness of North Arabia.

There is no historical or archaeological evidence that Ishmael ventured south to Mecca. (a thousand kilometer away)

He was not a pure Arab so how could he be the "Father” of the Arab race.

At best Ishmael and his descendents would have been 'Arabicised' by intermarriage with other Arabs. His first wife was Egyptian though.

If all the Arab people descended from Ishmael according to Mohammad:

What happened to all the original Arabs?

Who built Mecca - where Mohammad was born - if Arabia was unpopulated?

Qahtan is said to be the “Father” of the Arab people, not Ishmael.

Ishmael and ALL the other sons of Abraham were explicitly excluded by God from having any part of the covenant made with Abraham.

The Abrahamic Covenant was given only to Isaac and to his descendants (the Jews).

All other attempts by Mohammad in manipulating evidence to claim his Semitic and Prophetic ancestry could well have worked on some illiterate nomads then, but today “the game is over”

My, my my, what an interesting bunch of Christian "witnesses" we have here. G'day all. I'm a card-carrying Quaker myself, but don't hold that much truck with the bible, qu'ran, torah, etc. As George Fox put it: "You will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?"

I am a witness to God myself, although it is beyond me to say exactly what or who "God" is. All I "know" is that God exists.

As for "religion" - my true faith lies in democracy. Albeit a certain kind of democracy, viz:

i) Where the executive arises from within the legislature (as opposed to an American system of executive separate from the legislature).

ii) Where the judiciary is separate from the legislature (this is pretty standard the world over).

iii) Where members of the legislature are elected via preferential voting for single-member constituencies (as opposed to proportional representation - the worst-case in the world being Israel).

iv) Where (HERE'S THE BIG ONE FOLKS - NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS THIS ... YET) full general elections for all representatives are held on an annual basis.

That's right folks - annual general elections. It would make for better accountability, transparency, stability, long-term planning, consensus-building, and cost cutting. It would foster a better "culture" of democratic processes and ideals, and would give us all something to celebrate each & every year.

We have built a pretty good House of democracy in Australia. Alas, we have yet to learn how to maintain it well.

One thing ALL traditional “religions” have in common? Annual festivals that celebrate and inculcate their particular “world view”. You cannot have Easter (or Christmas), or Hajj, or Passover, or Buddha’s birthday, etc. etc. every second, third, fourth year! And the same goes for all secular “religions – ANZAC Day, Australia Day, 4th July, AFL grand final, etc.

Happy to discuss this further if anyone wishes.

In peace,
David (in Perth, Western Australia)

David (Perthwestern)

You have given me much food for thought. Rather than longer political terms, annual accountability...... As an employee I am (was) evaluated annually. There has to be a way to make pollies more responsible, however could annual elections mutate into year long campaigning? Rather than year long governing?

Agree with your points however. And thank you for lifting this thread from pointless theologising.

Marin Ibn Wariq urges me to pull my finger out. OK, here goes. Martin, you claim my posts are nonsense without attempting to refute them. I don't call your rant that preceded the criticism of me a response to my previous posts, it veered from the incomprehensible to the unreasonable and was not a reflection of what I had written. Martin, you come across as a foamin' at the mouth Christian fanatic. Who on this page questioned the value of the clergy to make you go over the top in this way? How can you call my mild statements an 'ugly slander'? Why would I want to give up my wife and family and take a vow of celibacy as you suggest just to preach some anachronistic superstition? If I want to do social work, I could do so without the religious baggage. I concede that the catholic clergy are nowadays under siege and are deserting in droves, but that is because the church has refused to heed the call to modernise. Who would want to become clergy in such a moribund faith? Get a grip, mate.

First post argued relativism was true. I refuted it, its internally contradictory, nonsense. Christian warriors defended Europe at Tours, Vienna, Lepanto. Did that conflict do any good? You wanted us to trust you and those in charge with a nice sweet personally created moral code – lol ah no thanks mate. I refuted it. Its nonsense.

Bible corrupted you said. I refuted it. Its nonsense. Documents? The Donation of Constantine yes but it was something highly likely to have been written by him so it was accepted. But you’d use that to smear the whole history of the Church.

“From an objective standpoint, that is a contentious claim aimed solely at shoring up the power of the Pope and Catholic clergy against the Protestant challenge.” I refuted this nonsense statement. The Church and its hierarchy solely operate on the level of worldly power? Why weren’t the Protestants doing the same thing? Where are your eyes? Is that all you see? Your sentence is just an excuse for thought.

Are Stephen Hawking’s arguments for atheism solely an attempt to sure up the power of atheistic science in the world? Have you read any of Reformation documents? You know the arguments? Have you bothered with the content of the dispute?

PK I didn’t pass up the pleasure to refute your arguments, have a read.

But my arguments? I’m a “foamin' at the mouth Christian fanatic”. No need to deign to reply to any arguments then. My refutations are a “rant “ nothing worth straining your brain over again. Christianity is an “anachronistic superstition” no need to think anymore there. Christian ministers just do “social work” no need to consider why men and women feel called.

"Modernise"? You mean like the Arians wanted? Like the Donatists? Cathars? Gnostics? Napolean? Julian? Epicureans? 19th century materialists? Bolsheviks? National Socialists? .What you would have the west and its church do is modernize itself back into the stone age.

“Who would want to become clergy in such a moribund faith”. Compared with PKism? I think we look pretty good.

Coach
this is quite anecdotal, again the Saudi guy I met at KL. He told me a similar story...that the people who claim ancestry to Ishmael are those in 'northern' Arabia. Others I've chatted to indicate similarly.

I'm not sure how strong a link I want to make with the 'Arabs' ethnically, because I don't think it matters that much. As you say the population was there from the other sons of Noah anyway.

As for the connection between Ishmael and the Abrhamic covenant.. agreed totally. Muslims and Mohammed being the chief offender in this, falsely claim it was to Ishmael that the covenant was directed given that he was the firstborn of Abraham, though clearly, God stated it was to be through Isaac, who was the son of promise, not Ishmael who was the son of 'impatience and lack of faith'.

PERTHWESTERN.. a Quacker hey.... I thought your mob were more evangelical and adhered to the Scriptures ? Your description sounds a bit iffy :) I urge you to delve into the Scriptures and immerse yourself in them and in the Lord Himself.

Anyway.. besides that.. welcome to the forum..I don't think you've been here long. Keep up the interesting posts.

Hello BOAZ_David, and thanks for the welcome. Although methinks thee & me may have to agree to differ on quite a few things.

Yes, I am a Quaker, and I guess they did start out as quite a radical evangelising Christian sect in Northern England back in the mid-to-late 17th century (during and after Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth). As founder George Fox stated, he had met many who professed their faith, but none who possessed their faith.

Quakers are indeed an interesting story of faith evolving over the centuries. Most Australian Quakers today would admit to George's radical Christian roots, but would ameliorate it with a comment like: "In 17th century Britain, what other religion could he possibly be?"

As far as I know, Quakers are the only church in the Council of Churches that has no creed (only testimonies TOWARDS Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community & Equality - or S.P.I.C.E.!)

And yes, I HAVE read (and discussed) the scriptures - a number of times. I have read the bible and qu'ran right through, including apocrypha and texts such as the gospel of St Thomas, hadiths, etc.

All fascinating works, and giving much insight into the human condition. Probably the God of the bible that I have the greatest feel or sympathy for is the God as described in Job - an absolutely sublime story!

However, I am assuming (after looking at some of your posts) that you are a fairly hard-line “literalist” when reading the bible. Would I be guessing right to say you do NOT believe in evolution, and that you DO believe in Noah’s ark, etc.?

Alas, these are areas where thee & me cannot reconcile.

However, in the end that does not bother me one iota. As a fully-blown “political animal”, I am more interested in what we (as a society) proscribe and what we prescribe. And importantly (because there are so many issues which have valid arguments on BOTH sides) … HOW is it we decide which is which?

Looking forward to some more to-and-fro.

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Martin, I stand by everything I said. The catholic church is an anachronistic faith hooked on symbolism, paraphenalia, colossal wealth, power & status for its hierarchy(although admittedly only the upper echelons get much of that nowadays). I carry no candle for protentantism or any other organised religion either. I respect that many draw comfort from their religion and that the churches do some good works. All in all though the history of religious conflict is a sorry one. You think the crusades did some good do you? I think most historians feel that after centuries of bloody conflict, there was a kind of truce with christianity and islam eyeing each other suspiciously from their strongholds. Then each one split into factions and demoninations and that led to more bloody fighting. It still goes on. Catholics like you still obviously can't accept protestantism or other religions and vice versa. Pathetic. And I meant that the catholic church could 'modernise' like many catholics want. You know exactly what I mean there. Personally I don't care if the catholic church refuses to modernise and continues to slide into oblivion. If I identify with anything I guess you would call it secular humanism though I am not fanatical about it like you seem to be about your faith. At least 30% of Australians identify with no religious faith. Most of the remainder identify with a faith, but not strongly. They hang on to the vestiges of a faith that has no real meaning for them. That is why I think your faith is an anachronism. If the the catholic clergy have a calling, then it is in far fewer numbers than ever, and the congregations are also at record lows. What does that say? I know a couple of former priests that now do social work outside the church, and, talking to them, it's easy to see why. Although your last post was more reasoned, the previous one was definitely a rant with only a tenuous connection to my post. I won't further respond to anything of yours, you are a bore, sir.

Martin, I rarely read your posts any longer, because they seem to be just a tiny bit repetitive, but this caught my eye..

>>First post argued relativism was true. I refuted it, its internally contradictory, nonsense.<<

Couldn't quite figure it, so I tracked back and found...

>>If you think truth is relative to the individual, and everyone ought to believe this to be true. You have found one absolute truth. But hold on, a relativist doesn’t believe something can be true independent of a person’s wishes, desires and will. [ergo] Relativism contradicts itself.<<

This is known in the trade as a dishonest enthymeme.

The thing about "relativists" (your shorthand for non-christians) is that they specifically do not believe they have discerned an "absolute truth".

That is in fact almost the entire difference between you, a dyed-in-the-wool godbotherer, and the rest of us.

What you are confused about, and attempt to make mileage from, is the articulation of non-belief as a belief in itself.

This is of course a contradiction in terms, but this does not stop you from pretending it is the credo of the relativist, and expressing delight when your conclusion doesn't hold water.

What a surprise. A false premise actually leading to a false conclusion, who'd a thunk it?

The opposite of someone who believes, Martin, is someone who does not.

In your argument, the opposite of someone who believes, is someone who believes [something else].

Am I making things a little clearer for you?

>>What you would have us do is reject Christ, the religious tradition of our culture ... and put in its place a silly doctrine held by a small fraction of pseudo intellectuals...<<

Has it not been made clear to you that we have absolutely no interest in your rejecting anything. Just stop pretending that a) you, and you alone have the right answer and b) anyone who doesn't share your beliefs can only be, at best, a "pseudo intellectual".

Pericles: Not sure where point of disagreement lies. I have argued that government policy CAN influence the housing market. Negative gearing and relatively low CGT are clearly policies that are keeping investors in the market and these policies are therefore policies that influence the property market and the price of residences, and, I would argue, in an important way. Other government policies increase the supply of affordable housing for lower income renters and this also has some effect on the real estate market and also tends to reduce homelessness. Can we call it quits now?

“Relativism is self-contradictory. Every human assertion is said to be time-bound and culture-bound, but the assertion that "all is relative" is taken to be universal and necessary. Total relativism absolutely denies any absolutes, and it absolutizes relativity.”

Pericles you realise that the real dishonest enthymeme occurs in the articulation of relativism. What genuinely is hidden is the logical conclusion of the doctrine. That is that relativism must apply to relativism itself. Relativism is sneaky in that it tries to relativise all beliefs except the doctrine of relativism itself.

Denying the existence of universal truth would mean you wouldn’t be able to criticise Christians who absolutised their relative interpretations of scripture.

Relativism is not my shorthand for non-christians, the doctrine inhibits criticism of any kind including where it is necessary against religious belief. And this is what disappoints me so much. It’s a heavy weight on our civilization and I sincerely hope it is lifted soon. We ought to be able to talk intelligently about religion for everyone’s sake, not trot out popular prejudices and pretend we advance debate.

The worst thing we can do is claim that it is every other claim except religious ones point to real things. The same rules can be applied to whatever kind of belief we choose and we get nowhere.

In Pope Benedict XVI’s first speech he said relativism is the biggest problem facing the world today.

“Its not prejudiced to think another person wrong. It is prejudiced to not see where they think they’re right”

Calling people god botherer, devil dodgers, painting the Church and history as black and white missing all nuance is what holds us all back.

If we can defeat relativism, if we can defeat popular prejudices we can argue and achieve something.

We must argue at the level of true or false not do what PK did and pretend all religious claims are invalidated because they all claim to be true. I’m sure PK thinks what he says is true but I don’t dismiss him as an ‘anti-god botherer’ just because people hold different kinds of a-theisms

Hi David (Perthwestern)
a goodly reply, and I must apologise for inadvertantly adding a scurilous 'c' to you tradition "Quacker" :) sorry about that.. let me prove I can type properly here "Quaker" ! got it..

Yes.. disagreement is part of life. I'm a literalist in the sense of where it is required by the context. I don't take literally some of the poetic aspects like God's "nostrils" or the 'Pillars' on which the earth is supposed to sit and so on.

I don't even take some of Jesus words "literally" such as "If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out" etc..

I believe strongly in sound principles of interpretation which we would apply to any document.

This morning I was at "Maroondah Festival 2006" a local event. Present was a stall from a local 'Reconciliation' group.
There was ONE Aboriginal bloke there, a Sth African lady, and an Anglican lady, plus others. The Aboriginal bloke spoke to me about 'culture, connection with the land' the whites spoke about 'funding, equality and healthcare' ... interesting eh :) Reconciliation is different things to different people.

So, Im quite with you on the political aspects. Justice should be our goal for all, and this is entirely Biblical.

Job ? yes.. probably one of the greatest pieces of literature of all time.

When Jesus drove out the merchants from the temple, there is a sober lesson in that for us. Let the church NEVER become polluted by the love of money.

and..at the same time, let it speak with a powerful prophetic voice, calling the nation and its leaders to account, calling them to righteousness, justice and the glorification of all that is good.

From me to you:

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Hello BOAZ_David,

Thanks for that little vignette of life at the 'reconciliation table'. Still a long journey there ahead of us all.

As for your comment "Justice should be our goal for all, and this is entirely Biblical" ... I would add that it is biblical BECAUSE it is universal.

One little saying that always challenges me on the subject of justice is:
"A God ALL merciful is a God unjust!"

I was also interested in your comment about " ... calling the nation and its leaders to account, calling them to righteousness, justice and the glorification of all that is good."

At our Quaker MFW (Meeting For Worship) yesterday, we were reminded of George Fox's words to:
"be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone".

I was moved to speak about how I could thank God that we did not live in a Theocracy where the community spirit (and in particular those in power) leant towards the idea that there could only be ONE "pattern" or "example" of how to live one's life!

Of course, exactly WHAT is "righteousness, justice and ... good" is also ETERNALLY up for discussion, debate and deliberation ... which is why 'democracy' remains my one true faith!

Now, if we could only bring in annual general elections so that we could more properly celebrate and inculcate the democratic principles and world-view with our fellow citizens and (in particular) our children!

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Martin, the chances of lifting what you describe as the "heavy weight on our civilization" that you perceive relativism to be are unfortunately very slim.

The problem that you face is that you are yourself a relativist in your thinking.

If we look more closely at your position, we find that you are obliged to work within a specific frame of reference - Christianity - which guides your thoughts, ideas and the logic you employ. Everything you present here is in relation to those beliefs.

And in a very real sense, this is inevitable. Even within your frame of reference, there remain a large number of unknowns. To paper over those, you have constructed a form of reality that relies upon adherence to a set of beliefs. Other religions have constructed their own realities to work with, and have their own means of addressing the embarrassment that they, too, cannot explain everything.

The key is that you - and they - "believe". Once you have cleared the hurdle of belief, absolutism beckons. All the inherent contradictions, anomalies and just plain gaps magically disappear.

But the truth remains, that you have constructed for yourself a reality in exactly the same way that I have. We both have relativistic positions, the only difference is that you have defined your relativism as absolute.

Which of course it is, but only relative to the framework you have adopted.

As for:

>>painting the Church and history as black and white missing all nuance is what holds us all back.<<

This is a strange assertion, given that it tends to be "the Church" that paints life as black and white... it is me who normally receives the accusation of living in a world full of shades of grey.

Nonsense. Pericles.

Fair dinkum.

Jesus was the Son of God, he rose from dead three days after being crucified. This is either true or false.

That is.

Absolutely true or absolutely false. You think the latter I think the former. So let us put forward our reasons and argue which is true.

This is the same position every person has been in for 5000 years. Why do you want to change the ordinary rules of language they have served us so well.

It seems there is some confusion. I'd insist it be worked out in case others contract this disease.

Not quite sure which bit you were taking aim at, Martin.

Having previously stated that "painting the Church and history as black and white missing all nuance is what holds us all back", you now assert that "Jesus was the Son of God, he rose from dead three days after being crucified. This is either true or false."

If that isn't a case of either black or white, I don't know what is.

So what else do you have to offer?

"You think the latter I think the former. So let us put forward our reasons and argue which is true."

So we are agreed at least that we cannot possibly share the same frame of reference, yes?

Regrettably, it is not possible to adduce concrete facts from the evidence, for or against i) the existence of a person called Jesus Christ, ii) whether or not he was the Son of God, iii) whether or not he was crucified and iv) whether or not he rose from the dead three days later. What are available are elements of historical record that strengthen or weaken one case or the other.

At some point, we have to insert an additional factor - faith, belief, wishful thinking or whatever - in order to come to a conclusion. You choose faith, and conclude for the positive, I see the lack of convincing evidence and elect to reserve my judgement.

But the key point is that if we start in different frameworks, you with your truths and me with my relativities, they can only be measured against each other in a relative way - the strengths and weakness of one set of conclusions against the strengths and weaknesses of the other.

An alarming conclusion, Martin, is that you are a relativist too.

What would the Pope say?

For cryin out loud - did Wellington defeat Napolean at Waterloo?

There is nothing relative about my frame of reference when I say Jesus rose from the dead, either this happened or it did not.

No nuance can be entertained here with these two historical truths.

The nuance comes in when ppl who post paint all of Church history over 20 centuries as all wonderful or all horrific.

Do you see the difference?

One is a statement about a particular the other about a universal historic phenomenon.

Don't share the same frame of reference? Pericles you're sounding like a post modernist feminist anti-hetero normative academic or something. hehe

Einstein confuses people. For example time is relative to a person's frame of reference but physical laws still apply absolutely in whatever frame of reference you're in.

Pericles we share the same language, inhabit the same world, the same universe, understand the same rules of grammar, no the objective world from the subjective (I hope) and we have the standard of reason. I think we can communicate. Stop reading whatever books put this kind of thing into your head.

As for weight of evidence - now we're getting somewhere. I think you're wrong. But I have posted about this earlier in the 'Aslan and Jesus' thread.

If you care http://www.tektonics.org/

The Pope would think he needs to pray more for you, given how often instead of standing for something people fall for anything.

For Pericles.

I must confess, I love your style. If you are not already a Journalist, you should consider it if your present occupation experiences demise !

Now.. to the point in question. Christ.

The documents which are our sources, the Gospels, and the tradition surrounding them and their inclusion in the canon and the rejection of other supposed gospels (Thomas, Barnabus) is quite solid I feel.
Ultimately, an evaluation at the personal level will be subjective rather than objective, due to the fact that 'the' Gospel presents life changing challenges on our lives of eternal dimensions.

It doesn't take a reader long to realize this, and this is when the 'bargaining' for the soul begins. The "If....then's" if you will.
The greater degree of conflict between 'now' and the "...then" the higher the probability that ones own 'subjective filtering' will influence our conclusions.

Mark 1:1 is instructive

"The 'beginning' of the 'euangelion'Gospel about Jesus Christ, Son of God."...... as it is found in Isaiah the prophet.

And so the gospel begins there, rooted in the old Testament.

The beginning.....
Euangelion........ An announcement of historic importance made by a crier on behalf of the Emperor.

about............. its subject matter.

Jesus............. the man, son of Mary, of the line of David

Christ............ Kristus-Hebrew meaning=Messiah "Annointed"

"Son of God"........ There is the first point where most people will encounter eternal reality.

John instructed his disciples to ask

"Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"

Jesus response:

"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[b] are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

A Question asked by Jesus:

"who do men say that I am" ?

The disciples gave different opinions: John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the Prophets....

Finally He asks "But who do you....say that I am" ?

Martin, an exceedingly good question, and an even better example of what we have been discussing.

>>For cryin out loud - did Wellington defeat Napolean at Waterloo?<<

Naturally, if you were to ask Wellington, in his frame of reference there was no shadow of doubt. At twenty past four, he told Lieutenant-Colonel Stanhope, "The battle is mine; and if the Prussians arrive soon, there will be an end of the war."

Napoleon's view was that "The Prussians under Bulow, came up at half past 4; but the issue remained doubtful until half past 7. A Prussian charge decided the business."

So was it Wellington, or Bulow? The answer is, “that depends upon your frame of reference.”

Was it important to Wellington to stamp his mark on the battle - which after all, assisted his subsequent political career substantially?

Or do we believe someone who had less reason to add to Wellington's glory, and more reason to attribute his defeat to overwhelming enemy numbers, the arrival of fresh troops against him etc. etc.

What you and I do, of course, is to add our own slant to the discussion. If I were Irish, and determined not to admit that any Englishmen in history is worth a pan of praties, I'd side with Napoleon. But I'm English by birth, so I tend to see Wellington's point.

The fact that for every ten Wellington boosters there is only one Boney fan is irrelevant. The truth is independent of any of them, but there isn't any way to gather sufficient evidence that will, ever, utterly destroy the other's argument.

Relatively speaking, that is.

Boaz, thanks for the kind words, I can see that we are in agreement over this.

“Ultimately, an evaluation at the personal level will be subjective rather than objective.”

Once it moves into the sphere of human thought, it is essential to take into account the context in which the Gospels were written, as well as our own frame of reference.

And when we do that, we are stuck with relativism.

The better put question wld've been did Napolean lose.

Of course history is not science, you can't fight the battle of Waterloo in lab and control all the variables. Events containing human beings have subjective components of course. Just because individuals dispute emphases or give different weight to different evidence

It does not follow that because history will never be as objective as science there are no facts of the matter.

It does not follow that because humans are subjects there are no objects.

There ARE facts of the matter, we work our whole lives to get as fuller picture as possible. (This is where other people come in, often who disagree)

Relativism urges us to ditch the questions entirely and go and build a tree house or plant some corn. Not that these things aren't good but its a lie to say life is better lived without asking ultimate questions. In fact its a trap, its a trick.

I say ditch eptistemological relativism, for realism. Otherwise I don't know what we can say to each other Pericles.

I couldn't have put it better myself, Martin.

>>Events containing human beings have subjective components of course. Just because individuals dispute emphases or give different weight to different evidence<<

Except, apparently, when it comes to deciding which parts of the bible are true?

And I cannot possibly agree with this:

>>Relativism urges us to ditch the questions entirely and go and build a tree house or plant some corn.<<

My version of relativism - my frame of reference, if you will - is to continue to look for, and ask, questions. Often, long after some others have been satisfied with their answers.

Which means that I can in all consistency agree with your statement that...

>>its a lie to say life is better lived without asking ultimate questions<<

To return to an earlier theme:

>>Denying the existence of universal truth would mean you wouldn’t be able to criticise Christians who absolutised their relative interpretations of scripture.<<

The problem with this assertion is not the proposition of a universal truth; there may well be, for all I know. The problem is that you claim to have access to it, when there is not even the remotest possibility that you do.

Somewhere along the line you have convinced yourself that there is nothing more to know. Sorry, but that simply isn't the case.

Pericles if you were a true agnostic you wouldn't be able to say "when there is not the remotest possibility that you do".

"Long after others have been satisfied with their answers". Doubt is the crucible from which belief springs but you seem to believe that the crucible is the end when its the means.

"convinced myself there is nothing more to know"! I was pretty clear about the dignity of those who disagree with us, how they're needed. If only as a tool.

Read Chesterton carefully a few times. 'The intellectual folly of agnosticism'

"A world in which men know [agnosticism] that most of what they know is probably untrue cannot be dignified with the name of a sceptical world; it is simply an impotent and abject world, not attacking anything, but accepting everything while trusting nothing; accepting even its own incapacity to attack; accepting its own lack of authority to accept; doubting its very right to doubt. We are grateful for this public experiment and demonstration; it has taught us much. We did not believe that rationalists were so utterly mad until they made it quite clear to us. We did not ourselves think that the mere denial of our dogmas could end in such dehumanised and demented anarchy. It might have taken the world a long time to understand that what it had been taught to dismiss as mediaeval theology was often mere common sense; although the very term common sense, or communis sententia, was a mediaeval conception. But it took the world very little time to understand that the talk on the other side was most uncommon nonsense. It was nonsense that could not be made the basis of any common system, such as has been founded upon common sense."

Don't see the point you are making here, Martin.

>>if you were a true agnostic you wouldn't be able to say "when there is not the remotest possibility that you do"<<

In the strictest possible sense, since an agnostic holds the view that there can be no proof that God exists or doesn't exist, I can safely say that there isn't the faintest chance that you hold the key to absolute truth in the matter. What alternative position do believe I should hold?

>>Doubt is the crucible from which belief springs<<

Yes, but what is it once it has sprung? If it is belief, as you suggest, what happens to doubt? Does doubt still exist? Or has it, as I suggest in your case it has, disappeared?

Which is why for me the crucible remains the more useful concept. I would hate to have your inability to doubt. I value very highly my freedom to continue to consider and ponder the real issues, not just the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

And for every Chesterton there is a Bertrand Russell. And of the two, Russell has by far the less aggressive posture, and conducts his ruminations with a great deal more dignity than GK's bluster...

"We did not believe that rationalists were so utterly mad until they made it quite clear to us. We did not ourselves think that the mere denial of our dogmas could end in such dehumanised and demented anarchy."

Hmmmm. Methinks he doth protest too much.