BOAZ_David, I'm not overly concerned with those who push against the boundaries set by secular civil law. I'm most concerned in identifying those who will set aside the principles of a liberal democracy and secular civil laws rather than stand up for what is right and just. I personally think Muslims should have their Sharia law, as the Jews have their Rabbinical laws, and Christians their rules and Commandments. I believe this is just and fair treatment for all religions on the understanding that the State and National laws take precedence over any religious court and that no person is withheld from seeking legal redress from the civil courts if they so choose. This is the example set by Ontario, Canada, and it put to rest the violent threatening language by the extremist. Also religious coercion has been made illegal and any threats of that nature are seen to by the civil courts. My friends in Ontario tell me that the public pools have hours of operation that are specific for women, times for the men and times for mixed society. Otherwise life has gone on uninterrupted. Which is no different from when I was growing up swimming at the YMCA, when the boys didn't wear swim trunks. It was starkers and damn cold water. I don't remember anyone complaining, although I do remember on occasion embarrassing myself by walking into the wrong pool area at the wrong time. There may have been some girlish shrieking but, it was I who left with the red face.

George, What magnificent posts you’re putting up.

Pericles,

A while back, I asked you what you believe. Your answer:

“I believe strongly that there are substantially more questions than answers, and that anyone who believes they have the one right answer is, by definition, wrong. I believe that man created gods, and not vice versa. That man created gods in his own image, or imagination. I believe that to propose that there is a single unifying force in the cosmos that is in any way, shape or form akin to our own shape or form, is a particularly human conceit. We have enough difficulty dealing with the ever-unfolding knowledge of the universe to even pretend that we can comprehend the forces that created it. I believe that there is a place for religion in people's lives, but only until we learn to do without its emotional crutch.”

I was disappointed. I asked what you believe, not what you don’t believe. If you can only describe your own position by energetic and contemptuous reference to its opposite that seems to me unfortunate.

I still think it would be easier to communicate with you if you were to state what you believe.

If I decided to invent a God as, say, an emotional crutch, I would not invent a God who has so many rules and who is so fretful and insistent about obedience, or who threatens me with Hell if I don’t obey. If I were a Government wanting to keep the population in line, that kind of God would be useful. However, I would not introduce the Jesus business into the program: Jesus gives people a way out, and therefore reduces my control over them. Certainly, Christianity has been used to oppress, but that just means oppressors will use anything that is to hand: the New Testament itself doesn’t readily lend itself to that use, and would not be invented with that purpose in mind. It doesn’t mean that God therefore exists as described, but it means your notion of God being invented is a little too easily stated.

Pax,

Sam said,
thank you, I think I can see your point. The alternatives as I presented them make sense only in the traditional Christian context: you either believe in a God who created the world or you do not, tertium non datur (I think the same for a Muslim). The reason was, of course, that Pericles argued from a “Western” position: atheism or empiricism is after all an “illegitimate child” of Christianity. The other reason was that I felt more secure in the western context, although my original alternatives, that Pericles wanted me to further explain, referred not to God but to “Something” (spiritual world), in order not to leave out the Oriental religions like in Hans Küng’s definition: “By religion I mean the overcoming of self-centredness, in both individuals and communities, by getting into communion with the spiritual presence behind the universe, and by bringing our wills into harmony with it.” (On Being a Christian, Collins 1977)

If I understood you properly, you want me to consider a fully Imminent (rather than Transcendent) God (we are the self-aware cells in the body of God?) hinting at pantheism. I do not know how acceptable are the western concepts Transcendent-Imminent to an Oriental mind, underlying e.g. Buddhism. God in Abrahamic traditions is Transcendent (dwells outside the material world) with an Imminent “projection” (Grace, answering prayers). In Hinduism the Brahman-Atman polarity apparently could stand for Transcendent-Imminent, but I am not sure about the Transcendent or Imminent nature of the “world of spirits” in Buddhism.

Trascendent or Imminent, both refer to worlds or states that by definition cannot be reached through scientific research as we know it, if we ignore “esoteric” pseudo-science. Is this acceptable to Buddhists? (ctd)

(ctd) One of the books I am reading is Dalai Lama’s “The Universe in a Single Atom: the Convergence of Science and Spirituality” (Morgan Road, 2005) where already the title suggests that his views on this relation are similar to those of Fritjof Capra (Tao of Physics). I think most Christian thinkers would have used the term “dialogue” rather than “convergence”, keeping the two realms at least formally apart; so would I.

So perhaps Dalai Lama does think scientific research could reach up to the spiritual realm. However, one might want to remind him, that modern science is also a “child” of Christianity, this time a “legitimate” one, as painful as the “birth” – occurring before any contact with Buddhism - was for the Mother. Arguably, we should have a better insight into what science can and can not. Nevertheless, I am sure the West, especially Christianity of the future, has still a lot to learn from Buddhism, though I am not sure if this contribution could have any effect upon science (with the possible exception of psychology).

One example of this conttribution, or rather inspiration, that I found helpful:

“Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers.” (a Zen saying).

This I translate as:

“Before you study philosophy/theology, the concepts and propositions of your Christian (or Muslim?) creed have absolute validity; while you are studying philosophy/theology, they seem to be loosing their validity; but once you have had enlightenment, they once again acquire absolute validity as symbols of your faith.”

On the other hand the contribution from Islam – which we should never fail to acknowledge - seems to be restricted to the past.

Sam, I am sorry if I elaborated too much trying to understand what you meant.

george...I was trying to bring the matter to a simple perspective and focus to it and see if the single cell can work out what the whole is...a bit of mind exercise...

Here a hypothetical single self-aware cell, which is only aware of whats immediately around it and what its 'senses' can detect...and using 'rational logical intelligence' can it work out that its actually a part of what makes you, and forms part of your function...that was the fundamental question...

eg from fact there is fluid flow around it that brings oxygen and food...it can deduce a circulatory system and gas-exchange system(respiratory) and digestive system...probably needs faith that a form in your shape exists as the variable here are a lot eg all species of life on earth has above said circulatory/digestive/respiratoty...etc....

I thought it may help sort out and organize into different importance all those endless questions that seem to arise and needs answers when one walks up path of spiritual awareness...

Sam

I've been following this thread with lots of interest and keeping quiet for a change.

It is interesting how some from a Christian viewpoint can give articulate and thought provoking comments (not only, but especially Aqvarivs and George) yet others come across as dogmatic and hysterical (Boaz_David).

On the other hand Pericles always has great come-backs with great points.

Lately there have been a number of atheist books written. Some of these have authors who sound as hysterical as Boaz. There's nothing as tiresome as a dogmatic person with a narrow tunnel vision of the world. Some atheists can sound as irrational as some believers in a higher power.

Is it possible for a religious nation to be democratic? The answer must be yes. Israel is one, the USA another, no atheist will ever be president. Essentially any monarchy is a nation with an underpinning religious notion.

Is it possible for an Islamic nation to be democratic? Indonesia is secular and democratic. Turkey is secular and democratic. In Iraq there are valiant attempts to make this happen.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to suggest that secularism has always been a hallmark of Christian nations? Secularism only became a reality after the age of Enlightenment.

Democracy, after Greece, only started to have a look-in some 1200+ years after the birth of Christ with the Magna Carta and participation by all citizens is not even 100 years old in Western democratic nations.

I've read enough articles, books and opinions from Muslims, both Scholars of their faith and general academics who are of the opinion that their faith can work in a 'modern' context of democracy and even secularism.

As with Christianity, Islam has many beautiful uplifting aspects to inspire people to treat one another and the world they live in with respect and compassion.