God (Khoda)

[Rasputin]

حقشد ز غمت خانه سودا
حق

شد ز غمت خانه سودا دلم
در طلبت رفت به هرجا دلم
خاک رهش گشتم و آخر ز بخت
رفت براین گنبد مینا دلم
در طلب زهره رُخ ماهرو
مینگرد جانب بالا دلم
در طلب گوهر دریای عشق
موج زند موج چو دریا دلم
آه که امروز دلم را چه شد؟
دوش چه گفتست کسی با دلم؟
از دل من در دل تو نکته هاست
وه چه رهست از دل تو تا دلم

- مولانا

چند وقت پیش – شاید 6 ماه یا بیشتر – آنچه که در پایین آمده را نوشتم. الان به نظرم آمد با آنچیزی که دارم در موردش فکر میکنم، همخوانی دارد. پس مرورش کردم:

[]

نميدانم در كجا خوانده ام اما دوره هاي زندگي بشر را به سه بخش ، قسمت كرده اند : (1) دوران اسطوره (2) دوران فلسفه (3) دوران علم
باز هم نميدانم منظور آنچه پيش از اين خوانده ام همين است يا نه؟ اما به نظر من دوران اسطوره ، دوره پاكي است . از يكسو پاكي طبيعت كه از آلاينده ها پاك و مبرا بود و از سوي ديگر پاكي ذهن . در اين دوره انسان از خود نميپرسد "خدا كيست ؟ من كيستم ؟ جهان چيست ؟ براي چه آمده ام ؟ و ..." بقول سعدي:

دوست از من است به من نزديكتر
وين عجب بين كه من از وي دورم

گمان كنم در آن دوره خدا بين مردم رفت و آمد ميكرده و با انسانهاي اين دوره گپ و گفت خصوصي هم داشته ! يعني اينقدر به آنها نزديك بوده كه سوال هاي فلسفي اصلا" محلي نداشتند.
اما دوره فلسفي آغاز بدبختي انسان است ... سوالها پيش ميايد و ذهن انسان از سوالات فلسفي آكنده ميشود. اما طبيعت كماكان پاك است .
دوره علم ، اما دوره هلاك است . دوره ناپاكي طبيعت و ذهن - هر دو.

بگذريم از ذكر همه اينها هيچ هدفي نداشتم . اصلا" شايد خيلي هم اين حرفها را قبول نداشته باشم .فقط خواستم مقدمه اي باشد تا داستاني نقل كنم . ميگويند روزي مولانا به خدمتكارش ميگويد "فردا برو و نان بخر" خدمتكار در پاسخ ميگويد "ان شاءالله " مولانا ميگويد "فردا سر راه شير هم بخر" و مرد باز در جواب "ان شاءالله "ي ميگويد. مولانا فرمان ميدهد و مرد همان را تكرار ميكند. مولانا اگهان به ستوه ميآيد و ميگويد "اينقدر نگو اگر خدا بخواهد. نگاه كن ببين چه كسي با تو سخن ميگويد" (يعني خدا بر زبان من نشسته و دارد به تو فرمان ميدهد. پس اينقدر خواست خدا را بميان نياور!)
"وحدت وجود" مرتبه بالايي از عرفان و اشراق است . آنگاه كه ديگر غير از خدا هيچكس و هيچ چيز نيست (غير از خدا هيچكس نبود!) . آنگاه كه حلاج اناالحق ميگويد. آنگاه كه خدا از من "من تر"است !
گاهي فكر ميكنم كاش سعدي بجاي :

عاشقم بر همه عالم كه همه عالم از اوست

ميگفت :

عاشقم بر همه عالم كه همه عالم اوست

شايد سعدي اين را نگفت چون هنوز شعر نو ابداع نشده بود!
الان به نظرم مي رسد سعدي براي "عالم " همانند "خدا" وجود مستقل قائل است درحاليكه اگر شعر نويش را ميگفت ، عالم را خود خدا ميدانست و نه وجودي از لحاظ "موجوديت " همتراز "خدا".
خيلي جالب است اگر انسان هر جا را نگاه كند "خدا" ببيند. "خدا" را ببيند بدون اينكه با ذهني فلسفي بپرسد "آيا خدا هست يا نيست ؟"
واقعا" "كار ما نيست شناسايي راز گل سرخ " چرا بايد سوال كنيم ؟ فقط كافيست كه از اين گل سرخ لذت ببريم و در آن به قول سهراب شناور باشيم . آنوقت است كه :

به صحرا بنگرم صحرا ته وينم
به دريابنگرم دريا ته وينم

اما به نظر ميرسد سوال كردن و پاسخ يافتن آسانتر از رسيدن به اين نوع عرفان است

[jjbb]

Khodaya nejatam bedeh

داستان در مورد يک کوهنورد است که ميخواست از بلندترين کو ها بالا برود. او پس از سالها آماده سازی ، ماجراجوئی خود را آغاز کرد ولی از آن جا که افتخار کار را فقط برای خود ميخواست، تصميم گرفت تنها از کوه بالا برود .


شب بلنديهای کوه را تماماً در بر گرفت و مرد هيچ چيز را نمی ديد . همه چيز سياه بود اصلاً ديد نداشت و ابر روی ماه و ستاره ها را پوشانده بود . همانطور که از کوه بالا می رفت . چند قدم مانده به قله کوه ، پايش ليز خورد و در حاليکه به سرعت سقوط می کرد . از کوه پرت شد. در حال سقوط فقط لکه های سياه را در مقابل چشمانش می ديد . و احساس وحشتناک مکيده شدن به وسيله قوه ی جاذبه او را در خود می گرفت.


همچنان سقوط ميکرد و در آن لحظات ترس عظيم ، همه رويدادهای خوب و بد زندگی به يادش آمد. اکنون فکر ميکرد که مرگ چقدر به او نزديک است. ناگهان احساس کرد که طناب به دور کمرش محکم شد. بدنش ميان آسمان وزمين معلق بود و فقط طناب او را نگه داشته بود. و در اين لحظه سکون برايش چاره ای نماند جر آنکه فرياد بکشد ، ? خدايا کمکم کن ?


ناگهان صدای پر طنينی که از آسمان شنيده می شد جواب داد '''' ? از من چه می خواهی ؟ ?

- ای خدا نجاتم بده !

- واقعاً باور داری که من می توانم تو را نجات بدهم ؟

- البته که باور دارم .

- اگر باور داری طنابی را که بدور کمرت بسته است پاره کن .

يک لحظه سکوت

و مرد تصميم گرفت با تمام نيرو به طناب بچسبد.


گروه نجات ميگويند که روز بعد يک کوهنورد يخ زده را مرده پيدا کردند . بدنش از يک طناب آويزان بود و با دستهايش محکم طناب را گرفته بود .... و او فقط يک متر از زمين فاصله داشت.


و شما ؟ چقدر به طنابتان وابسته ايد ؟ آيا حاضريد آنرا رها کنيد ؟


در مورد خداوند هرگز يک چيز را فراموش نکنيد . هرگز نبايد بگوييد که او شما را فراموش کرده ، يا تنها گذاشته است. هرگز فکر نکنيد که او مراقب شما نيست، به ياد داشته باشيد که او همواره شما را با دست راست خود نگه داشته است .

[Rasputin]

religion and science

The relationship between religion and science takes many forms as the two fields are both extremely broad. They typically employ different methods and address different questions. The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are typically more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, through revelation, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, reason (but more in a philosophical than a scientific sense) observations about life or the universe or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value, morals and spirituality. However, some science also attempts to explain such "why" questions, and some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict.

Historically, science has had a complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have sometimes influenced scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had effects on religious beliefs. A common modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Another view known as the conflict thesis, which has fallen from favor amongst historians but retains popular appeal, holds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific explanations become more powerful and widespread. This view was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.

The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified by John Polkinghorne FRS as:

Conflict when either discipline threatens to take over the legitimate concerns of the other
Independence treating each as quite separate realms of enquiry.
Dialogue suggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap.
Integration aiming to unify both fields into a single discourse.
Polkinghorne further suggests that 3 and 4 can be classified in terms of:

a. Consonance The two fields retain due autonomies, but the statements they make must be capable of appropriate reconciliation with each other without strain

b. Assimilation An attempt at the maximum possible conceptual meeting. Neither is absorbed totally by the other, but they are brought closely together.

[Rasputin]

The attitudes of religion towards science

Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all developed many centuries prior to the modern era; their classical works show an appreciation of the natural world, but most of them express little or no interest in any systematic investigation of it for its own sake. However, Buddhism's investigation of Dharma precludes the use of numerous non-systematic methods and sources, including authority, common sense, opinions, tradition, and scripture. Some early historical scientific texts have been preserved by religious groups, notably Islam collected scientific texts originating in various countries and Christianity brought them to Europe during the renaissance.

Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view
In the Medieval era some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, undertook a project of synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, like the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to reinterpret religious texts to match the known facts. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible.

This approach has continued down to the present day; Henry Drummond, for example, was a 19th century Scot who wrote many articles, some of which drew on scientific knowledge to tease out and illustrate Christian ideas.

By the 1400s, however, scientific methods were being applied to domains such as planetary orbits, with results which threatened the church's sacred dogma and a literal reading of scripture. Christianity asserted religious certainty at the expense of scientific knowledge, by giving more explicit sanction to officially correct views of nature and scripture. Similar developments occurred in other religions. This approach, while it tended to temporarily stablize doctrine, was also inclined toward making philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as accepted philosophy became the religiously sanctioned science. Observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. Islam took an even harder line, canonizing Medieval science and effectively bringing an end to further scientific advance in the Muslim world. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing scepticism.

[Rasputin]

Religious fundamentalism and scientific enlightenment
The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, especially Protestant, Christian fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, has been characterized by some historians as originating in the reaction of the conservative Enlightenment against the liberal Enlightenment. In these terms, the scientific community is entirely committed to the skeptical Enlightenment, and has incorporated, into its understanding of the scientific method, an antipathy toward all interference of religion at any point of the scientific enterprise, and especially in the development of theory. While many popularizers of science rely heavily on religious allusions and metaphors in their books and articles, there is absolutely no orthodoxy in such matters, other than the literary value of eclecticism, and the dictates of the marketplace. Typically, fundamentalists are considerably less open to compromise and harmonization schemes than their forebears. They are far more inclined to make strict identification between religiously sanctioned science, and religious orthodoxy; and yet, they share with their early Enlightenment forebears the same optimism that religion is ultimately in harmony with "true" science. They typically favor a cautious empiricism over imaginative and probabilistic theories[citation needed]. This is reflected also in their historical-grammatical approach to scripture and tradition, which is increasingly viewed as a source of scientific, as well as religious, certainty. Most significantly, they are openly hostile to the scientific community as a whole, and to what they call "scientific materialism".

The fundamentalist approach to modernity has also been adopted by the Islamic movements among Sunni and Shi'a Muslims across the world, and by some Orthodox Jews. For example, an Enlightenment view of the cosmos is accepted as fact, and read back into ancient texts and traditions, as though they were originally intended to be read this way. Fundamentalists often make claims that issues of modern interest, such as psychology, nutrition, genetics, physics and space travel, are spoken to directly by their ancient traditions, "foretold", in a sense, by their religion's sacred texts. For example, some Jewish fundamentalists and Muslims claim that quantum mechanics and relativity were predicted in the Torah or Qur'an, respectively.

In response to the freethought encouraged by Enlightenment thinkers over the last two centuries, many people have left organized religion altogether[citation needed]. Many people became atheists and agnostics, with no formal affiliation with any religious organization. Many others joined Secular Humanism or the Society for Ethical Culture: non-religious organizations that have a social role similar to that which religion often plays; others joined non-creedal religious organizations, such as Unitarian Universalism. People in these groups no longer accept any religious doctrine or perspective which rests solely on dogmatic authority.

[Rasputin]

Depictions of God in popular culture

Monotheistic God as depicted in popular culture.

People who have portrayed God:

George Burns played God in Oh God! and its two sequels. He also played the devil. (1977)
Disc Jockey Alan Freeman portrayed God in two episodes of the 80's British sitcom, the Young Ones. (1983)
God was played by Alanis Morissette in Kevin Smith's Dogma (1999) and again in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001). Bud Cort portrayed God in human form in Dogma.
In It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie, the unnamed character played by Whoopi Goldberg was evidently meant to portray "God" (she apparently loves Spongebob). (2002)
Morgan Freeman played God in the Jim Carrey film Bruce Almighty. (2003)
In the movie Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger Part 4 God was portrayed by Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf
Ralph Richardson played the Supreme Being in the 1981 film Time Bandits.

Descriptions of God in song:

"God" was the title of a 1970 song by John Lennon, which defines God as "a concept by which we measure our pain."
"God" is also the title of a 1994 song by Tori Amos from the album Under The Pink. In the song she theorizes about what God would be like if a mortal.
"One of Us" is the title of a song by Joan Osborne in which she places God in the status of an everyman, asking questions such as, "What if God was one of us [...] tryin' to make his way home, nobody callin' on the phone?"

[Rasputin]

God and gender

This entry discusses how religions deal approach the issue of God's gender. It includes both traditional religious views, and modern views of these faiths, especially as to how modern feminism has influenced the theology of these religions.

Monotheists hold a belief in one God as a fundamental religious principle.

In Sikhism, Judaism and Islam, God is believed to be sexless (or gender neutral), but has been traditionally referred to using male grammatical gender.
In Christianity, God is generally believed to be a Trinity, consisting of three persons in one God. The three persons of the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father has traditionally been described with male imagery, and God the Son is believed to literally have become incarnate as a human male, with male sexual anatomy (some Christian teachings are derived from this point). God the Holy Spirit has been referred to using male, female or neutral grammatical gender depending on the language (the Hebrew word רוח ruaḥ is grammatically feminine, the Greek word πνευμα pneuma is grammatically neuter, and the Latin word spiritus is grammatically masculine).
Conversely, polytheistic and henotheistic religions such as pagan religions and various ethnic religions believe the spiritual world is encompassed by multiple gods, though they may be one spirit or be born from one parent god.

In Hinduism, the form of God is varied, but however, many who follow Advaita believe ultimately in an impersonal spirit, Brahman.
Modern feminism has influenced some self-identified adherents of monotheistic religions to use the feminine grammatical gender to refer to God, either in protest at the tradition of using the male grammatical gender to refer to a being which transcends sex, or to actually assert that God is female. Others may use alternating or ambiguous grammatical gender, either to avoid offending those of either the feminist or traditional points of view, or to indicate that they believe God transcends gender.

Atheists by definition believe that God does not exist, and so it is meaningless to talk about God's gender, except in the context of others' beliefs about a fictional being.
Sikhism, which was established during the period 1469 to 1708, God is referred to as a gender neutral entity and the original language of the Sikh Scriptures allows the possibility of referring to God in gender neutral form. However, when translating the original text into English and other languages, the reader should be aware that these languages may not allow the neutrality to filter through and in many cases, male gender status is used in default.

The SGGS refers to God as Mother and Father thus "You are my Father, and You are my Mother….You are my Protector everywhere; why should I feel any fear or anxiety? ||1||" Page 103 and again "You are our mother and father; we are Your children." Page 268.

In some place, God is referred to as only Mother thus: "O my wandering mind, you are like a camel - how will you meet the Lord, your Mother?" page 234; also as only Father thus: "O Father, I do not know - How can I know Your Way?" page 51 and finally as Husband thus: "You are the Husband Lord, and I am the soul-bride. ||3||" page 484.

[Rasputin]

God in the Hebrew Bible

In the first book of the Hebrew Bible, Genesis 1:26, God states "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Exactly what Genesis means by the word "image" is not clear, but there is an analogy being made between God and humans.

In some ways this passage is anthropomorphic; it is attributing human characteristics to God. However, less recognized is that the viewpoint of the Israelite biblical writers was theomorphic: humans are seen as having Godly characteristics.

The Hebrew Bible often refers to God as a father. In one case, God is compared to the bridegroom and his people to the bride.

For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. (Isaiah 62:5)
If the feminine is used in connection with the divine nurturing, it is usually ascribed to an intermediary entity personified as feminine – for example, the City of Jerusalem.

Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.
As one whom his mother comforts, so I (God) will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem. (Isaiah 66:10-13)
God promised to provide comfort as a mother, but indirectly through the blessings that would flow from Jerusalem. Zion is another example of a mother metaphor. (Isaiah 1:27)

The Biblical Hebrew word for spirit is ruah, meaning wind, breath, inspiration; the noun is grammatically feminine.

In regard to translating Hebrew names of God into English, most Orthodox Jews and many Conservative Jews hold that it is wrong to use English female pronouns for God; their reason is not because God is of the male gender, but because doing so among English speakers tends to draw attention to God as having gender. Another reason is that the Hebrew Bible usually uses names of God that are grammatically masculine.

Among many Reconstructionist Jews and Reform Jews there has been an increasing tendency to stress feminine characteristics of God. In these communities God is sometimes spoken of as a "She". Classical Hebrew names for God such as HaQadosh Baruch Hu ("The Holy One, praised be He") are sometimes being rewritten in both Hebrew and English as HaQ'dosha B'rucha He ("The Holy One, praised be She"). However, those in Reform Judaism who hold more closely to traditional Jewish belief (as well as Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jews) hold that this rewriting of Hebrew names for God is both a theological and linguistic error; it presupposes the belief that grammatical gender implies sexual gender, which it does not. As such, people who make these translations imply that other Jews worship a male God, which they do not.

Some Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis have experimented with incorporating explicit anthropomorphic characteristics into their prayers. Reform Rabbi Rebecca Alpert (Reform Judaism, Winter 1991) writes about a feminist siddur (Jewish prayerbook) she used:

The experience of praying with Siddur Nashim ... transformed my relationship with God. For the first time, I understood what it meant to be made in God's image. To think of God as a woman like myself, to see Her as both powerful and nurturing, to see Her imaged with a woman's body, with womb, with breasts-this was an experience of ultimate significance. Was this the relationship that men have had with God for all these millennia? How wonderful to gain access to those feelings and perceptions.
Most Jews reject this theology as unacceptable; a separate criticism is that it misrepresents what other Jews actually believe. Classical rabbinic Jews in the past, and Orthodox Jews today, would vehemently dispute the claim that they imagine that God has male sexual characteristics, and that they use these beliefs to create a close relationship to God. Many traditional rabbinic commentators, such as Maimonides, viewed any such beliefs as avodah zarah, "idolatry".

While primary male sexual characteristics are absent from Jewish descriptions of God, secondary male sexual characteristics occur in some piyuttim (religious poems.) Some of these poems incorporate allegorical male images of God, such as a description of the beard of God Shir Hakavod, "The Hymn of Glory", and similar poetic imagery in the midrash Song of the Seas Rabbah. Traditional meforshim (rabbinic commentators) hold that this is valid imagery, but purely metaphorical, and warn readers not to imagine that this describes God as being male.

Some traditional Jewish prayers refer to God as Avinu Malkeinu, "Our Father, Our King". Feminine forms of this phrase "Our Mother, Our Queen" have traditionally never been used in Jewish prayers. Some hold that there is no a priori reason why such terminology is not used, but nonetheless most Jews today do not use this terminology, as they see these terms as being associated with polytheism.

[Rasputin]

Christian views of God and gender

In Christianity, one Person of the Trinity, the Son, is believed to have become incarnate as a human male. Most Christians believe that the other Two Persons in the Trinity, the Father and the Holy Spirit, have never been incarnated.

Female terms for the Holy Spirit were used in some early Christian communities, specifically within the hymn book, entitled "Odes of Solomon". The Biblical Hebrew word for spirit is ruaḥ, meaning wind, breath, inspiration; the noun is grammatically feminine. In the "Odes of Solomon"; the oldest surviving Christian hymnal, the word for "Holy Spirit" is grammatically female. The Greek word for spirit, "pneuma", has neutral grammatical gender. The Holy Spirit is translated in masculine terms only in languages such as Latin and English.

God the Father is often pictured as a male in traditional Christian artwork. In Western Christianity, the Holy Spirit has been referred to using male pronouns and, in languages with grammatical noun gender, the masculine grammatical gender.

If God is male, then the male is God. The divine patriarch castrates women as long as he is allowed to live on the popular imagination.
—Mary Daly
Chapter 1, Beyond God the Father (1973)

Some Christians today, especially those inspired by feminism, do not consider this tradition to be binding. These Christians claim that the first century church worshipped the Holy Spirit as a female deity. Passages in the Nag Hammadi library scrolls from second-century Gnosticism refer to the Holy Spirit as female. The grammatical gender of "Spirit" in Hebrew is feminine (ruaḥ) and in Greek is neuter (pneuma); debate rages about what significance this holds for the person of the Holy Spirit in Christianity.

The Greek pronoun (αὐτός) translated "Him" in John 14, speaking of the Holy Spirit, refers to self in all persons: him, her, it. Otherwise the New Testament refers to the Spirit (πνεῦμα) with grammatical neuter. "Him" in John 14 is a pronoun without gender.

Some modern Christians feel that it is important to speak of the Holy Spirit, especially in the role of Comforter and Reconciler, with a feminine pronoun. One argument used is that the functions of the Holy Spirit as characterized in Biblical texts are often those which have been associated with women: consolation, inspiration, emotional warmth, and birth of the spirit. Others dispute this. Some claim that assigning the Holy Spirit gender in accord with His role is a subconscious endorsement of stereotypical gender roles. Others argue that since Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, this makes the Holy Spirit analogous to a male; otherwise, we have a rather obvious biblical lesbianism. Modernists somestimes claim that this argument misses the fact that it is God the Father, and never the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus calls "Father," but it is important to note that God the Father is as such to Christ as He had eternally begotten Him, but God the Holy Ghost is the One responsible for the Virgin Birth.

Several passages in the Jewish scriptures used by Christians refer to the divine Wisdom as if she were a person (e.g., Proverbs 8-9, Sirach 24, Wisdom 6:22-11:1, Baruch 3:9-4:4), and this Wisdom is given female gender. The most common opinion among the Church Fathers was that this Wisdom was the Second Person of the Trinity before His Incarnation. Others held that it refers to the Holy Spirit, or that it refers to created wisdom rather than to God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that God is not male, but that his role in our world makes the term "Father" more appropriate than "Mother", although both terms remain informative:

In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15, 66:13; Psalm 131:2-3) and those of a father (Job 31:18; Jer 3:4-20) and husband (Jer 3:6-19)."
By calling God "Father," the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that He is at the same time goodness and loving care for all His children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood (Isaiah 66:13; Psalm 131:2), which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents.... (CCC 239)
Many liberal and feminist-orientated Christians will sometimes refer to God as "Mother" and use feminime pronouns such as "Her" and "She" to refer to God, although they usually do not think of God as a female, but rather as having both masculine and feminine aspects and can be referred to as either.

[Rasputin]

. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

برهان غايت شناختي، يكي از براهين در مورد وجود خدا كه بر اساس نظم خارق العاده حاكم بر كائنات و اهداف و غايات متصور بر امور، وجوب خدايي هوشمند را اثبات مي كند.

2. THEISM

خدا گرايي، اعتقاد به وجود خدا

3. THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISM

تكامل گرايي خداباورانه، ديدگاهي كه سعي مي كند نظريه تكامل را در چارچوب روايت كتاب مقدس در مورد آفرينش جهان از سوي خدا قرار دهد و معتقد است فرايند تكامل موجودات زنده با نقشه و ترتيب الهي و تحت كنترل خدا انجام شده است.

4. THEOCENTRICITY

خدامحوري، خدا را در رأس امور و علايق و مهمترين اولويت فكري قرار دادن. بنا بر اين خدا محور بودن به معني آن است كه همه چيز را منجمله اخلاقيات را بر اساس ديدگاه تعهد به خدا در نظر بگيريم.

5. THEODICY

اعتقاد به عدالت خدا، تلاش براي توضيح و تشريح عدالت خدا و دفاع از آن در جهاني كه رنج و گناه و بي عدالتي در آن وجود دارد.

6. THEOLOGIA CRUCIS

الهيات صليب، الهيات جلال، لوتر در الهيات خودش جايگاه صحيح خود انكشافي خدا را در تواضع، ضعف و محبت محنت بار خدا مي دانست كه خدا آنرا بر روي صليب عيسي مسيح به انسانها نشان داد.

7. THEOLOGY

الهيات

8. THEOPNEUSTOS

الهام خدا، كلمه اي يوناني به معني الهام خدا يا دميده شده توسط خدا. اين كلمه معمولاً براي بيان جنبه الهي كتاب مقدس به عنوان كتابي كه از سوي خدا الهام شده (دوم تيموتائوس 16:3) و يا محصول نويسندگاني كه ملهم از روح خدا بودند (دوم پطرس 21:1) به كار مي رود.

9. THOMISM

توميسم، نظام الهياتي و فلسفي اي كه بر اساس آثار توماس آكويناس متأله كاتوليك قرون وسطي شكل گرفت و به نگرشي غالب در كليساي كاتوليك تبديل گشت.

10. TRADITION, TRADITIONALISM

سنت، سنت گرايي، در ميان پدران اوليه مسيحي، سنت به معني مكاشفه خدا بود كه از طريق انبياء و رسولان براي مردم آشكار شده بود. سر انجام اين واژه به معني كتاب مقدس، فرامين و مجموعه توضيحات الهياتي در مورد ايمان مسيحي در نظر گرفته شد.

11. TRANSCEDENCE

فرا بودگي، تعالي، جدا بودن و استقلال وجودي خدا از جهان آفريده خود (مقايسه شود با درون بودگي).

12. TRANSUBSTANTIATION

تبدل جوهر، واژه اي در الهيات كاتوليك رومي به معني اعتقاد به تبديل نان و شراب در مراسم عشاي رباني به جسم و خون حقيقي عيسي مسيح هر چند كه به ظاهر خصوصيات مادي آن حفظ مي شود.

13. TRIBULATION

مصيبت، عذاب، مطابق تعليم عهد جديد پيروان عيسي مسيح بايد منتظر تحمل درد و رنجهاي گوناگوني باشند. �محنت عظيم� يا مصيبت عظيم اشاره به نشانه يا به عبارت بهتر وضعيت جهان پيش از ظهور مسيح دارد (متي 21:24).

14. TRICHOTOMISM

سه بن باوري، دركي از طبيعت انسان كه وجود انسان را مشتمل بر سه بخش مي داند كه عبارتند از: بدن، جان و روح (اول تسالونيكيان 23:5 و عبرانيان 12:4). در اين ديدگاه روح به عنوان بخشي از وجود انسان كه قابليت شناخت خدا را دارد، از جان كه سازنده نفس انساني است و شخصيت انسان را به وجود مي آورد؛ كاملاً متمايز است. (مقايسه شود با دو بن باوري).

15. TRINITY

تثليث، تثليث اقدس، ادراك ايمان مسيحي از خدا به عنوان يك حقيقت سه گانه. تثليث به معناي آن است كه يك وجود يا ذات الهي وجود دارد كه در سه شخصيت متمايز: پدر، پسر و روح القدس منكشف شده است.

16. TRITHEISM

سه خدا باوري، ديدگاهي بدعت آميز در مورد خدا كه قائل به وجود سه خداي پدر، پسر و روح القدس است. در واقع اين نگرش تحريفي از آموزه تثليث است كه قائل به وجود يك خداي واحد است كه در سه شخصيت خود را مكشوف كرده است.

17. TYPOLOGY

نمونه شناسي، نمونه شناسي كتاب مقدسي به توازي هاي واقعي و تاريخ نمونه هاي ذكر شده در عهد عتيق و يا رويدادهاي مربوط به تاريخ نجات و تحقق آن با آمدن مسيح، زندگي، مرگ و عروج او مي پردازد. در اين شيوه مطالعاتي الهيات، رويدادهاي موجود در عهد جديد با مقايسه با نمونه هايي نظير آنها در عهد عتيق مورد مطالعه قرار مي گيرد.

[Khorsheed]

Deceiving God or Oneself?

God has made the pilgrimage a duty owed to Him by all mankind. He says: “Pilgrimage to this House is a duty owed to God by all people who are able to undertake it. As for those who disbelieve, God does not stand in need of anything in all the worlds.” (3: 97) Therefore, when you decide to perform the pilgrimage, you should know that you are making a deal with God, and such a deal must be started and carried out with the knowledge that it is dedicated to God. Hence, scholars have always pointed out the need to select one’s best-earned money to pay for one’s trip and expenses. You cannot declare to God that you are undertaking the pilgrimage for His sake and then pay for it with unlawful earnings. This is totally unacceptable.

Yet some people try to do just that. They know that the reward God gives for a pilgrimage dedicated to Him is complete forgiveness of all past sins. They are also aware that they had done much for which God may hold them to account and they would dearly love to ensure that they are forgiven. They are eager to do the pilgrimage but they know that their money comes from very doubtful sources. Therefore, they come up with the idea of purifying, or laundering their money. They do this in one of two ways: The first is to borrow an amount of money sufficient to cover their pilgrimage expenses, making use of the cash they have borrowed to pay for their pilgrimage. They repay this loan on their return, using their normal earnings which they know to be questionable. Alternatively, a man in this situation pays to his wife the dowry still owed to her. Then the wife gives him this money back as a gift, and he uses it to pay for his pilgrimage. The question here is whether such money is now pure, and the pilgrimage paid for it with such money valid and acceptable?

The basic point is that a Muslim undertakes the difficult journey of pilgrimage hoping to wipe his slate clean and to shed the burden of sins and misdeeds he had accumulated in his life. Hence, the pilgrimage comes as a result of a process which includes taking stock of what one might have done in the past, concluding that one needs to get rid of the burden of sin and to make a fresh start. For a Muslim the best and surest way of doing this is through pilgrimage. Therefore, a person who intends to go on pilgrimage should declare his repentance for what errors and slips he might have done, and to resolve not to repeat these in future. When such repentance is coupled with undertaking the journey of pilgrimage, it ensures God’s acceptance and forgiveness.

When we speak of repentance and forgiveness, we must remember that God forgives any violation of the limits He has imposed on us, as long as it represents an offense against Him. He does not forgive an offense which we may commit against other people unless the aggrieved party forgoes his rights first. When God wants someone to be forgiven even that latter type of sin, He takes it upon Himself to satisfy the aggrieved party either by giving him much more than he would have taken from the offender or by increasing his reward. A person who earns his money in an illegitimate way must have earned it through wronging other people. If it is the case, then he cannot hope to be forgiven such an offense by using such illegitimately-earned money to cover the expenses of his pilgrimage. If one person takes another’s money in an illegitimate way and then prays for forgiveness while using such money for his own benefit, he puts himself in a very farcical situation, playing games with Islamic principles. There is one genuine way for him to be forgiven that offense. This involves repenting his offense, returning the money, which he had taken unlawfully, to its rightful owner, and asking him to accept it and to pardon him. Then he should pray for forgiveness. If he does all that, his repentance is genuine and he makes amends for his misdeeds.

The situation we have mentioned, attempting to purify or launder money, is very similar to our farcical example. Imagine someone who has poured himself a glass of whisky. Holding his glass in his hand, he says: “My Lord forgive me,” then he drinks that whisky. To us, such a situation is ludicrous and we may tend to say that God will never forgive such a person, because he knows what he is doing, insists on doing it and he may be making fun of Islamic teachings and the principle of divine forgiveness. Yet, God may in His mercy forgive such a person much sooner than the one who undertakes the pilgrimage with money laundered in the ways described above.

What such people actually do is to try to deal with God in the same way as they deal with their fellow human beings. A person may try to evade payment of income tax by a variety of tricks. He may get away with that because he knows that the tax inspector is a human being and he can only act on the basis of the information available to him. That information is never complete. If a person tries to deal with God in the same way, he runs the risk of incurring God’s displeasure. This is something none of us can afford.

Let us examine the two ways employed as a “purifying” process. The first is a straightforward loan. It is true that money one borrows from another is lawful. When such money is used to cover the pilgrimage expenses, this is fine. Yet, when it comes to settling the loan, the money earned illegitimately will be used. It needs neither a mathematician nor a philosopher to say that the pilgrimage expenses were paid with illegitimate money. Illegitimacy is not a stain placed on coins and banknotes. It is something attached to the entire transaction resulting in taking money unlawfully. The process of borrowing and settling a loan is superfluous. It does not change the facts. It does not make lawful what is clearly unlawful.

The same applies to the other method. By paying one’s wife her dowry and getting it back as a gift by an explicit or implicit understanding, one does not change the position in any way. Why has he chosen this time in particular to make these arrangements? It is only an exercise in self-deception, convincing his own soul that he is going on pilgrimage using legitimate funds. He only deceives himself by doing so. He cannot deceive God.

Two Hadiths are particularly relevant to this whole affair. The first says: “God does not look at your shapes and forms, but He looks at your deeds.” This means that a genuinely good deed is rewarded, while a bad one is punishable. Either method of “purification” or laundering of earnings has no motive other than giving a false disguise. God knows that and knows the reality of the intention behind every action. He evaluates such actions on the basis of the intentions behind them. This is what is meant by the Prophet’s Hadith: “Actions are only by intention. Every human being shall have only what he has intended.” So, a person who seeks to play a trick on God will get only what such an action merits. He simply deceives himself and he spends his money to no avail. We must remember what the Prophet says: “God is good and He accepts only what is good.” Playing tricks is certainly not good.

In the case of a pilgrimage paid for by money earned unlawfully, we have to remember the Hadith which states: “When a man sets on his pilgrimage, having good money earned legitimately, and declares his intention saying: ‘Labbayk Allahumma labbayk’, (which means: I respond to Your call, my Lord), the angels will answer him: ‘Your response is welcome. So be happy. You eat food paid for by good money and your expenses are paid by legitimately-earned money, and your pilgrimage is accepted.’ On the other hand, when a man sets out on pilgrimage with money unlawfully earned, then as he makes his declaration that he is responding to God’s call, the angels will say to him: ‘No response is accepted from you and no happiness is given to you. Your food is unlawfully earned, your expenses are paid with illegitimately-earned money and your pilgrimage is unacceptable.’”

This Hadith shows how Islam lays strong emphasis on the need to ensure that lawfully earned money is used pay for the great act of worship of pilgrimage, which earns complete forgiveness of past sins. We cannot hope for such forgiveness if we intend to go on with our erring ways. Those people who resort to such tricks are simply demonstrating their unwillingness to repent what they have done in violation of Islamic teachings. How can they hope for God’s forgiveness and reward?

[Rasputin]

همه ما از چگونگی داستان خلقت آدم و حوا اطلاع داریم . اینکه حوا در بهشت از میوه ممنوعه می خورد از دیدگاه دین مسیحیت گناهی بزرگ محسوب شده است. که به واسطه آن انسان از بهشت رانده می شود. و به زمین می آید.و مسیح که همان خدا تجسم یافته است برای اینکه کفاره گناه بشر را بدهد به شکل انسان بر روی زمین می آید.حال می پرسیم تصور ما از گناه چیست؟ آیا گناه چیزی به جز این است که عملی باعث رساندن آسیبی یا ضایع شدن حقی از خود و یا دیگران بشود؟ اینکه حوا سیبی می خورد به چه کسی آسیب می رسد؟ چه آسیب های جسمی یا روانی به خود یا دیگران به واسطه خوردن این سیب زد؟ اگر میوه ممنوعه چیزی بدی بود چرا یاد آوری خاطره رانده شدن از بهشت باعث نشد که آدم و حوا سراغ این میوه ممنوعه در روی زمین نروند.چقدر نافرمانی از خدا به دل آدم و حوا چسبیده بود که در زمین نیز به آن نافرمانی ادامه دادند.

خوب که برسی کنیم ثمره این نافرمانی به کسی آسیب نرساند به جز خود خدا.خدا در این داستان خلقت تنها به این دلیل که شیطان از او برده است اختیار از کف می دهد و حکم بر اخراج آدم و حوا از بهشت می دهد. چون خدا علی رغم خدائیش ، نتوانست آنقدر قدرت نفوذ کلام داشته باشد که آدم و حوا به حرف او بیشتر از حرف شیطان اهیت بدهند. قدرت شیطان از قدرت خدا بیشتر بود و این به خدائی خدا لطمه میزد.چون یکبار که آدم و حوا به حرف شیطان گوش فرا دادند بعید نبود که شیطان جای خدا را بگیرد و از آن پس به جای حرف خدا به حرف شیطان گوش بدهند و عملا شیطان جایگاه خدا را تسخیر کند.اما خدا مثل کسانی که موقع عصبانیت نمی توانند درست فکر کنند و تصمیماتی که می گیرند به ضرر خودشان تمام می شود، با راندن انسان از بهشت و آزاد گذاشتن شیطان در فریب انسان در عمل شیطان را در دست یافتن به آرزوی خود یاری رساند.

شیطان می خواست به جای خدا فرمان بدهد و موفق هم شد. در حقیقت خوردن سیب نیود که باعث حبوط آدم شد. بلکه حسادت خدا نسبت به شیطان بود که انسان را از بهشت راند.

مسیح به خاطر اینکه کفاره گناه انسان را بدهد ( همان گناه اولیه یعنی خوردن سیب است) به زمین می آید . آیا خوردن سیب اینقدر فاجعه بزرگی است که به واسطه آن خدا باید به زمین بیاید تا با مصلوب شدن خود گناه بشر را بشوید؟ مگر نمی شد در بهشت از این خطا در گذشت؟ در بهشت خدا فقط لازم بود از گناه دو انسان درگذرد. اما در زمین باید بار گناهان هزاران هزار انسان را به دوش بکشد .

این خدا که در قالب انسان به زمین آمده مغزش به اندازه یک انسان عادی هم کار نمی کند.چون وقتی به درخت انجیر که میوه نداشت بر می خورد به درخت نفرین می کند که خشک شود. خدایی که در برابر یک درخت بی میوه عصبانی می شود چقدر برای نظارت بر دنیا صلاحیت دارد؟

اگر بخواهیم داستان آدم و حوا را واقعی فرض کنیم چگونه می توانیم زمانی که عجز و ناله آدم و حوا برای بخشوده شدن در دل سنگ خدا تاثیر نمی گذارد، به پذیرفتن توبه امیدوار باشیم.خدایی که اینقدر در پیش شیطان احساس حقارت می کرد که این عقده را تنها با اخراج آدم فرو نشاند چگونه گناهان بزرگتر را که اثرات آن گاهی اجتماعی را آلوده می سازد ، خواهد بخشید.

خدا از اینکه حوا سیبی خورد عصبانی شد. یا دش رفت که جلوی فرشته ها کلی پز داده که من از خلقت انسان چیزی میدانم که شما نمی دانید. آدم اسما را می داند اما شما نمی دانید. حد اقل آبروی خودش را جلوی فرشته ها حفظ نکرد.من مطمئنم که پس از اخراج آدم و حوا از بهشت ، فرشته ها کلی خدا را سرزنش کردند. بله، این همان تبارک الله احسن الخالقین است که پزش را به ما می دادی گناه خوردن سیب به بزرگی گناه خلق دنیای وارونه و سپردن زمام امور دنیا به دست بیماران شیزوفرنی که دچار تخیلات و اوهام هستند و فکر می کنند جن و پری با آنها گفتگو می کنند نیست.

گناه سیب خوردن به بزرگی خلق دنیای معیوب که در آن دنیا انسانهایی با ناتوانی جسمی بدون میل و ارداده خویش پا در آن می گذارند و همه طول عمر خود را ار لذت زندگی کردن محروم هستند، نیست. سیب خوردن گناه بزرگی است یا تفاوت بین انسانها قائل شدن ؟ یکی را هدایت کردن و یکی را وا نهادن. یکی را زشت خلق کردن و یکی را زیبا آفریدن . یکی را روزی رساندن و دیگری را بی بهره کردن.

ما به خاطر خوردن یک سیب از بهشت رانده شدیم . اما ما انسانها، خدا را به خاطر گناهان بیشمارش از زندگی خود بیرون نمی رانیم.

[Rasputin]

The issue of God's gender affects many religions worldwide, and is a part of some fem

Monotheists hold a belief in one God as a fundamental religious principle.

In Sikhism, Judaism and Islam, God is believed to be sexless (or gender neutral), but has been traditionally referred to using male grammatical gender pronouns.
In Christianity, God is generally believed to be a Trinity, consisting of three persons in one God. The three persons of the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father has traditionally been described with male imagery, and God the Son is believed literally to have become incarnate as a human male. God the Holy Spirit has been referred to using male, female or neutral grammatical gender depending on the language (the Hebrew word רוח ruaḥ is grammatically feminine, the Greek word πνευμα pneuma is grammatically neuter, and the Latin word spiritus is grammatically masculine). But Christianity does not regard the omnipotent God as being male, God the Father is genderless, and is only given the name, "Father" because Jesus wanted to emphasis the special relationship that his followers share with God through him. In reality only one out of the holy trinity is masculine, Jesus Christ who was born male, although his actual incarnation was to stress his "humanity" and not that he was male.
In Hinduism, the form of God is varied, and can take a wide range of gender roles. Many who follow Advaita believe ultimately in an impersonal spirit, Brahman.

Polytheistic and henotheistic religions, including pagan religions and various ethnic religions, believe the spiritual world is encompassed by multiple gods, though they may be one spirit or be born from one parent god.
Modern feminism has influenced some adherents of monotheistic religions to use the feminine grammatical gender to refer to God, either in protest at the tradition of using the male grammatical gender to refer to a being which transcends sex, or to assert that God is female. Others may use alternating or ambiguous grammatical gender, either to avoid causing offence, or to indicate that they believe God transcends gender.

[Rasputin]

Atheists challenge the religious right

For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back.
Only a small percentage of Americans admit to being nontheists (between 2 and 9 percent, depending on the poll), but that equates to many millions. And religionists' role in debates over stem-cell research and evolution vs. intelligent design - as well as radical religion in world conflicts - have galvanized some atheists to mount a counteroffensive.

In bestselling books, on websites, and with a national lobbying effort, atheists and other nontheists are challenging the growing religious influence in government and public life. Some are attacking the foundations of religion itself.

Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, antireligion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith.

"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."

These offerings are so intolerant of religion of any kind - liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist - that some scientists and secularists have critiqued their peers for oversimplification and for a secular fundamentalism.

"They undermine their own case by writing in a language that suffers from many things they say are true of believers - intolerance, disrespect, extremism," says Alan Wolfe, a professor of religion at Boston College, who is a secularist and author of several books on American religious perspectives.

Yet the authors are anything but modest about their efforts to supplant faith with pure scientific rationality. While critics point out that religion is a genuine reflection of people's experience and will always exist, Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror. He sees it as responsible for many of life's tragedies.

Harris first hit the bestseller bull's-eye in 2004 with "The End of Faith," and he says the responses to that book, particularly those from Christians, spurred his latest epistle.

A mere 96 pages, "Letter" may be dismissed by many for its condescending tone or overheated rhetoric. Yet its bold arguments offer a useful window into nontheist perspectives and could also startle some complacent religionists into a rethinking and refining of perceptions.

Many nontheists don't share this militant perspective, but have decided that keeping silent in religious America no longer makes sense. They are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office. And they contend that in recent years, Congress has passed bills and the president has issued executive orders that have privileged religion in inappropriate and unconstitutional ways.

As a result, seven organizations of nontheists - including atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and agnostics - began the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), a lobby seeking to increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States.

"In some parts of the country, children are ostracized if someone finds out their families are atheists," says Lori Lipman Brown, SCA director. "We need to educate the public that people who don't have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and ethical people."

They also intend to stand up vigorously for their rights. "Some people want to go back to a time when religion was imposed, such as official prayer in public schools," she adds. "For someone to say they can't practice their religion appropriately if all schoolchildren are not required to recite a public prayer is very disturbing."

The SCA intends to lobby the new Congress to override a presidential veto on stem-cell research and to repeal land-use legislation and other laws seen as "privileging one religion over other religions or over those who don't follow religion."

Still, the group makes clear on its website that while it promotes reason and science as the bases for policymaking, it also supports religious tolerance.

"I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing differently than I believe, as long as they don't impose their religion on me or my government," says Ms. Brown, a former Nevada state senator.

To spotlight the prejudice against atheists holding public office - and to encourage atheists to "come out of the closet," SCA is sponsoring a contest to identify the highest US official who acknowledges being a nonbeliever. They expect to announce contest results in February.

Internet-based groups are also seeking to spread the atheist message, particularly among young adults. The Rational Response Squad (RRS) has chosen a provocative mode using the popular website YouTube. Their "blasphemy challenge" calls on young nonbelievers to create videos in which they renounce belief in the "sky God of Christianity" and upload it on the site; in return they'll receive a free documentary DVD, "The God Who Wasn't There," which includes interviews with Dawkins, Harris, and others. RRS is publicizing its campaign on 25 popular teen websites.

"We wanted to strike up more of a conversation about religion, and this was a way for people to show their nonbelief and encourage others to come out," says Brian Sapient, RRS cofounder.

Mr. Sapient says he was raised Catholic and then a born-again Christian, but later learned that many things he was taught were fictional. RRS now has some 20,000 people on message boards, with about 5,000 actively engaged in debunking religious claims, passing out fliers, and placing DVDs in churches.

As for the blasphemy challenge, "there's about 490 response videos so far, and 85,000 views on our trailer video," he says. Sapient acknowledges this approach may not persuade religious youths. "There are people with a more palatable approach to talking about religion," he says, "but I wonder if those people would be as effective if it weren't for us or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins shaking up the group a bit."

He also insists that you don't really respect people unless you speak up when you think their beliefs are wrong. It's OK with him, he adds, if religious people try to convince him they are right.

Harris and Dawkins make it clear that they think faith has gotten off too easy for too long. Their books have spurred widespread commentary, much of it a strong critique of their arguments and lack of religious knowledge. But in a culture immersed in combativeness in politics and the media, the intemperate books are selling well.

Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."

[Rasputin]

Where is God in the Midst of Tragedy?

Prior to September 11, 2001, we were a nation who felt protected, confident that terrorist attacks only happen "somewhere else." We thought our intelligence, defense technology and security information guarded us. To our dismay, we were wrong. Now we know that even Americans are not immune to the assaults of hatred from other countries.

Hours after the start of this disconcerting violence against us, President Bush faced the nation and encouraged all of us to seek comfort from "a power greater than any of us." He described his confidence in God, quoting from Psalm 23 in the Bible, "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me."

To what degree can we rely on God to be with us? Is He really someone we can turn to at all...in times of crisis as well as times of calm?


God Who is There

God is the Creator of the universe who yearns for us to know Him. That is why we are all here. It is His desire that we rely on and experience His strength, love, justice, holiness and compassion. So He says to all who are willing, "Come to Me."
Unlike us, God knows what will happen tomorrow, next week, next year, the next decade. He says, "I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning." He knows what will happen in the world. More importantly, He knows what will occur in your life and can be there for you, if you've chosen to include Him in your life. He tells us that He can be "our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in times of trouble." But we must make a sincere effort to seek Him. He says, "you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."

That doesn't mean that those who know God will escape difficult times. They won't. When a terrorist attack causes suffering and death, those who know God will be involved in that suffering also. But there is a peace and a strength that God's presence gives. One follower of Jesus Christ put it this way: "We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed." Reality tells us that we will experience problems in life. However, if we go through them while knowing God, we can react to them with a different perspective and with a strength that is not our own. No problem has the capacity to be insurmountable to God. He is bigger than all the problems that can hit us, and we are not left alone to deal with them.

God's Word tells us, "The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him. And, "The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them."
Jesus Christ told His followers these comforting words: "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows." If you truly turn to God, He will care for you as no one else does, and in a way that no one else can.

But What About Evil and Suffering?
God has created humanity with the ability to choose. This means that we are not forced into a relationship with Him. He allows us to reject Him and to commit other evil acts as well. He could force us to be loving. He could force us to be good. But then what kind of relationship would we have with Him? It would not be a relationship at all, but a forced, absolutely controlled obedience. Instead He gave us the human dignity of free will.
Naturally, we cry from the depths of our souls..."But God, how could You let something of this magnitude happen?"

How would we want God to act? Do we want Him to control the actions of people? In the case of dealing with a terrorist attack, what could possibly be an acceptable number of deaths for God to allow?! Would we feel better if God allowed only the murder of hundreds? Would we rather God allowed only the death of one person? Yet if God would prevent the murder of even one person, there is no longer freedom to choose. People choose to ignore God, to defy God, to go their own way and commit horrible acts against others.

The World We Live In

This planet is not a safe place. Someone might shoot us. Or we might be hit by a car. Or we might have to jump from a building attacked by terrorists. Or any number of things that might happen to us in this harsh environment called Earth, the place where God's will is not always followed.
Yet, God is not at the mercy of people, but the other way around. We are at His mercy, fortunately. This is God who created the universe with its uncountable stars, simply by speaking the words, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky." This is God who says He "reigns over the nations."[He is unlimited in power and wisdom. Though problems seem insurmountable to us, we have an incredibly capable God who reminds us, "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for Me?" Somehow He is able to maintain the freedom of sinful humans, yet still bring about His will. God clearly says, "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose." And we can draw comfort from that if our lives are submitted to Him. "For God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."