Thank you for your email -- please know that many of the responses I get are not as courteous or generous in their perspective! I am glad to know the column was helpful and honored that you plan to save it. (All my columns are archived at http://www.cres.org/star .)

Thanks very much for being a reader, and for taking the trouble to write!

Vern

I do not know if you believe that the Bible is Gods inerrent word or not, if so I cannot understand how you can say that these unbelievers can make a contribution to believers. The Bible says if they are not of us they speak as the world speaks not as we speak.  I believe that if we know such people we should pray for them and present Christ to them, and lay awake at night praying how we can bring them to Christ.   If this is not what you believe then I can understand why you are always willing to allow these people to continue in their pagan belifs

The only interfaith conference in the Bible was Elijah and the prophets of Baal and we know what happend there

Thank you
 

First, thank you for being one of my readers! I appreciate that. I'm sure you often find things that are not exactly the way you would put them, so I am grateful that you have taken a look at the column over the years.

A very partial response is this, inspired by the first Jewish sheriff of New York City, in the days when hanging was a frequent punishment. Citizens complained that Christians would be hanged by a Jew. He responded that it was a shame that Christians would commit crimes that required such punishment.

Martin Luther, in those days of Christian darkness over Europe, said he would rather have surgery from a Muslim butcher than a Christian doctor, so advanced was Islamic medicine.

Today, I would rather work together for a better world with people of any faith, Christian or not, than with the Christians who lie, steal, rape, enslave, and violate the very principles of the Christian faith. Jesus said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16.) I am less concerned with what is in people's heads than in what is in people's hearts, less concerned with the species of the tree than whether the fruit is healthful.

As for the story of Elijah being the only interfaith conference, I think you might not have recalled the Gospel stories of Samaritans. Jews of Jesus' time despised the Samaritans, apparently having some feeling of excluding them (John 4:9) as perhaps you may have of those of other faiths. (Jesus was accused of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed, and while he denies being demon-possessed, he does not say he is not a Samaritan, though he was not.)  Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30) to make precisely the point I am making. In addition, when Jesus healed ten lepers (Luke 17:11), the only one grateful enough to express thanks was the Samaritan. Finally, when Jesus visited the Samaritan woman at the well, he says that salvation is from Jews;  he does not mention Christians. But he does go on to say, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." (John 4:23).  I am interested in those whose faith is found in spirit and in truth more than I am interested in what denomination or religious label they use to identify themselves. Spirit and truth are much larger for me than mere creeds, as Jesus indicated in Matthew 25:31, where the righteous are identified not by creed but by their deeds:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth  his  sheep from the goats:  And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed  thee?  or thirsty, and gave  thee  drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took  thee  in? or naked, and clothed  thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done  it  unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done  it  unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:  I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did  it  not to one of the least of these, ye did  it  not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The Bible may not be as authoritative for me as for you, but I hope these themes will help explain my attitude.

As I say, this is a very partial response, but it is the best I can do at the moment, and I hope it will be of some partial help.

I do appreciate your writing.

Vern

But try talking to some of the atheist groups in Kansas City.  There is one guy named Iggy who puts up post after post on KC Freethought leveling ridicule, personal attacks, and general ad hominems against ALL religion. He also organzies their activities.

This is the forum for the Heartland Humanists and they encourage it.

Iggy tried to shut down the Bill Tammeus blog with vitriol, as you can see in his archived posts in Dec. Jan. and Feb.

Bill had to go to comment moderation, really setting back what was a great blog.

Someone recently tried to do the same thing to Adam Hamilton, and he has had to suspend comments at Seeing Grey.

In my experience, they don't want discussion, they want domination.  And, although they rely on faith, they will tell you not to classify them that way.

Include atheists?  Not around KC in my experience.  Of course, that is just what I have seen so far.  If you know of any with different attitudes...and I mean really, not for speeches...please let me know.

Sincerly, 

Still, none of them have made death threats to me, or bloodied my son's nose when I was unavailable, or cursed me, the way some Christians have.

I think we'll find nasty behavior amongst people of every belief or unbelief. On the whole, I have a number of wonderful, caring atheist friends, as I have a number of wonderful, caring Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish . . . . friends.

Thanks for giving me a chance to report my full experience.

And thanks for reading my column . . . and writing me!

Vern

But you may have missed what I was pointing out.  They are making threats.  One repeatdely says he will visti "The wrath of Hannibla lector" on Christians.  He said this a number of times on the Tammeus blog.

Bill, rightly, could not allow such threats to continue.  (WAs the person joking, in this day and age who knows.)  The same thing is still going on at KCFREEHTOUGHT, by a person who arranges atheist meet ups.

I have never been beaten up by an atheist, but my grandparents were.  And atheists have done me great harm at work.

I see no evidence of their superiority.  Of course, if a Christian acts that way, they are behaving inconistently with what Jesus said.  An atheist is not behaving inconsistenlty, since NO PERVERSION or atrocity is inconsistent with it.

Sincerly,

Vern

In my experience pagans do not usually call themselves atheists. In America, most pagans worship the "goddess" as a way of respecting the world of nature. Some like to worship both male and female energies in the universe. Some pagans may say that the gods or goddesses are simply personifications of, or metaphors for, natural forces.

The word "pagan" originally simply meant country-dweller, as heathen meant those who lived on the heath. Christianity was an urban phenomenon, and those who had not yet come into substantial contact with Christianity and worshipped the old folk ways in the rural areas were pagans.

Thanks for reading my column, and again, thanks for writing!
 

Usually I read your column and simply shake my head at the things that you allow to pass in the name of interfaith political correctness. Two weeks ago when you suggested that Atheists should be invited into the circle of religious conversation I was surprised to find myself agreeing with you. I, too, think that the position of the un-Godly holds value in the discussion of theology not only because it stirs minds by presenting a viewpoint that is radically outside the norm, but also because it provides the opportunity to share the truth of the Christian gospel and put forth the apologetic in order that some of the lost may be brought to the knowledge of the Word.

Last week you overstepped to the point that I felt compelled to write. Personally, I can not understand why God would allow Satan to misdirect so many through you, by allowing your, “There, there, lets all accept each other’s misinformed faiths in the name of peace on earth,” point of view to infect the masses, even though it is insignificant whether or not I understand the reasons for the things that God does. Do Not Misunderstand. I do not advocate the genocide of all alternate beliefs, but neither do I accept that we should embrace the tenets of various dogmas to have free reign to ride roughshod over the truth. I have discerned that you, sir, are no Christian or else you would not be able to say the things that you say, and promote the perspective of all other faiths as equally valid; They are not. It may be true that all roads lead to the top of the mountain but there is only one that leads above the mountaintop and reaches to the eternal heaven, that is faith in the Son of the living God, Jesus Christ!

“I am interested in those whose faith is found in spirit and truth more than I am interested in what denomination or religious label, if any, they choose to identify themselves.” Really? How many truths are there? Does not truth disqualify all else as false simply my the virtue of being true? Since Jesus said that the only way to the Father was by Him, and since the odds against Jesus actually being God incarnate are astronomical, and since it is impossible for God to lie; what other conclusion can be drawn except that Christ tells us that all other faiths are corruptions and lies. I do not claim a denomination or label except that of a fundamental Bible believing Christian. You usually push the point of relative truth to this level, but to go to the next step of implying that Jesus professes a faith based on good works is ludicrous to the point of sacrilege.

You pervert the gospel of Christ when you say, “…as Jesus indicated in Mark 25:31, where the righteous are described not by their beliefs but by feeding the hungry, giving drink to those who thirst, housing the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting those in prison.” WORKS - WORKS - WORKS - WORKS ---- There is no basis for a faith that supposes salvation by the works of man; “For by the works of man shall no flesh be justified.” Works ARE important, not as a base for one’s faith, but rather as an evidence of the grace received through faith. The faith of the true Christian is based on faith and on nothing but the faith of God’s saving grace through the person of Jesus Christ! If faith were, as you espouse, a matter of doing something, anything, why did we need Jesus in the first place? The Jews had the whole works thing sewed up pretty tight with all of the rituals required to fulfill the law, which by the way, brings death. It is faith through the spirit of the law that brings life everlasting, not by the attempt, and certain failure, to live a perfect life under the restrictions of the law.

It is wonderful to live in a world that is filled with, “good fruit,” and it should be the goal of every one of us to do good to one another. There are countless thousands who, I’m sure, do their utmost to injure no one, to do good to their neighbor and to live a peaceable life. This does not mean that the friendly Muslim up the block, the follower of Buddha who runs the corner store or the Wicca believing owner of the Palmistry studio, upstanding, taxpaying, contributing members of this earthly society though they may be, have any hope of attaining eternal life without faith in Christ Jesus. They do not.

Had you left off with your usual nice-ey, nice-ey - ooey - gooey, can’t we all get along foolishness; I would never have been moved to write. When you cross the line to suppose to teach blasphemy as if it were the truth of Christ, then you have gone too far. I worry that some may read the things that you say and actually believe them and as a result find themselves tripping down the , “…gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts…,” (C.S. Lewis), which is most assuredly the safest road to Hell. Were it a case where Islam had been misrepresented to the extent that you have prostituted the gospel of Christ; the nation of Islam would have been found in a state of outrage, the likes of which would have made the outcry against the Denmark cartoonist seem minor.

I pray that there are enough true Christian believers with the conviction to write that will flood your inbox with protest over what you have done. Rather than simply scold you for what I perceive as a gross misrepresentation of the Christian faith, and let it go at that, I am asking that you retract your statements and apologize to the world of Christendom for completely reversing the message of Christ. After this, I can only recommend that you confine yourself to doing the good works that you seem so fond of, but that you do them not before the public for all men to see. I will pray that God, through the Holy Spirit, will awaken you to the truth of His Word and someday bring you to the point of repentance, for the sake of the one who died for you, Christ Jesus.

In love, yet with respectful outrage,

These preliminary greetings are sincere.

The points you raise I can answer only briefly, and I do not expect you to agree. I answer them because you had the decency to write, and in a far more polite way than have some of my readers who claim to be Christians.

Because of newspaper space, one paragraph in my column was omitted. Here it is:

   Finally, when Jesus visited the Samaritan woman at the well, he said that salvation is from Jews; he did not predict that future salvation would come from the Christians. But he did go on to say, “Yet a time is coming and has now come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23)

This paragraph was intended to appear just before the paragraph you quote in beginning your own third paragraph.

A. I am sorry you feel that meeting with atheists is a time to witness to them rather than equally a time for learning from them. You'll remember what company has been included under that term -- early Christians, theologians like Paul Tillich, etc.

B. I'm glad you don't advocate genocide for all who disagree with you.
BB. As to whether I am a Christian, you surely know Christianity, as the world's largest faith, is comprised of folks of widely different views, and this has been true since the very First Century. Please consider whether it is truly meek and humble to presume to judge others by the label you yourself claim.
BBB. You imply that I think all beliefs are "equally valid." I most certainly do not. I would be grateful if you can point out anything I have written that could justify a leap to such a conclusion. I dissent from the view that all roads lead to the same place, and I have written extensively on learning to appreciate the DIVERSITY of faiths, some with strengths in one area, some with virtues in another. Why would you think a Buddhist, for example, would be interested in a Christian heaven with the perpetuation of selfhood when the direction of Buddhism is selflessness?

C. Your email address at TheFundamentalist suggests to me that you have a view about truth that I do not hold. I experience a Sacred Mystery which cannot be adequately captured in mere human language; no mouth is big enough to say it. And according to John, Jesus is the Truth.
CC. Which brings me to this point: There are many, many understandings of Jesus, and many ways of understanding how Jesus manifests himself. The scripture I pointed to in my column, where Jesus himself identifies himself with the poor, the naked, the imprisoned, is one way most certainly. I am sorry you do not appear to value that passage scripture.

D. As to whether salvation is through faith or works, I just recently lectured on the argument between Palagius and Augustine. I have taught church history. I know something of the importance of this topic in the Reformation. From my perspective and in my experience, people who do good works do have faith, faith that life is worth living, and Christians have faith that helping others is what God wants them to do. I just don't see the separation you seem to want to make between faith and works in order to attack me. I would differ from you, I think, in doubting that faith which is expressed in particular words or images or affiliations is necessary. Jesus did say, by their fruits ye shall know them. He did not say, by the church they belong to, or by the creed they mouth. And as for faith, let me commend to you the story of the healing of the centurian's servant; Jesus did not ask the Roman to convert -- his faith was already great.
DD. Of course we can never be perfect, though Jesus challenged us to be perfect. But just because I cannot do everything right does not mean I should not try to do something right. I am distressed when people get caught up in the abstract argument over faith and works and fail to see how they are inseparable. In this regard, I prefer the Hindu Bhagavad Gita which I think developed a much clearer way of dealing with this problem than the Christian theologians, tripped up initially by the craziness of the Greek language, and perpetuated into English.
DDD. Now having pastored several congregations, I do believe it is useful for people to struggle to articulate their faith if they can do it modesty, without pride, always remembering how slippery words can be, and how great the Mystery is to which our devotion is directed.
DDDD. Again, your recitation of Buddhists, Wiccans, and Muslims suggests to me that you may  require additional information to comprehend their perspective.

E. You suggest  I am blasphemous. Yet what I have said is not at all exceptional throughout much of Christianity. I have many Christians, including many Christian pastors, who would find your charge of blasphemy against me quite remarkable.
EE. As for my gooey  Can't we  all get along foolishness, yes, I would like for us to get along. That's why I try to help people understand each other, not that we agree, but that we see we come from different backgrounds with different experiences to which we are tying to be faithful. By enlarging experiences, we may at least find some areas of mutual accommodation and even enjoyment.

F. As for my Inbox being flooded with protest, you are only the second one. All the others (mostly Christians) have thanked me, sometimes as length.

I must close, but not without first suggesting you consider writing an "As I See It" column or a Letter to the Editor. The public benefits from a variety of opinions being available, and even though Billy Graham appears most days in The Star, a pointed response to my column would certainly stimulate additional discussion.

With best wishes,
Vern

Thanks for reading my column and for taking the trouble to write me as you have.

Vern

I do look forward to reading your column each week.

I am grateful to have you as a reader. Thanks for taking the trouble to write with some background about yourself.

Vern

In my experience pagans do not usually call themselves atheists. In America, most pagans worship the "goddess" as a way of respecting the world of nature. Some like to worship both male and female energies in the universe. Some pagans may say that the gods or goddesses are simply personifications of, or metaphors for, natural forces.

The word "pagan" originally simply meant country-dweller, as heathen meant those who lived on the heath. Christianity was an urban phenomenon, and those who had not yet come into substantial contact with Christianity and worshipped the old folk ways in the rural areas were pagans.

Thanks for reading my column, and again, thanks for writing!

Vern

Dear Vern: I noticed that a local atheist group felt that they could not participate in your activities because they felt that atheism was not a faith; my response was that it takes tremendous, blind, unreasoning faith to believe that our present existence, reason, logic, science and ethics are the result of mindless forces. That riled them but they could not come up with an answer that did not regress to chance.  What do you think?  Jim

Dear Jim--
    How did you notice that a local atheist group felt that they could not participate in interfaith activities? What group was it? I would like the atheists to know

I deliberately have atheists on my Board of Directors along with strong leaders of other faiths

Freethinkers (including atheists) were participants and recognized as such at Kansas CIty's first interfaith conference last year

The Interfaith Council is interested in adding a seat for Freethinkers

The Council already represents one non-theistic faith, ie, Buddhism

I have promoted atheism as a respectable faith position in my Kansas CIty Star column

The descriptions of religion I consistently use never refer to "God"

My own personal creed does not refer to God: http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view

I have offered alternative interpretations of "God" -- God as an evolving process rather than a Supreme Being

I have often pointed out that no logical solution has ever been found to the problem of inconsistency in a belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God (as Supreme Being) and the actual facts of this world, where so much unjustifiable suffering exists -- and while faiths may have responses to this problem, they have no reasonable solution to it

As I often say, the primary question of faith is, "Is life worth living?" not "is there a God"? If a person asks questions about the meaning of life and how we can best relate to each other, that person is a person of faith. It is not necessary to have "answers" to be on the spiritual path.

I can understand why some would not agree with you, Jim, that "it takes tremendous, blind, unreasoning faith to believe that our present existence, reason, logic, science and ethics are the result of mindless forces."  When I stir salt into a  glass of water into which I suspend a string, salt crystals form on the string. Many people would explain this as a natural, not a mindful, process.
    We might use the awesome beauty of the Grand Canyon, the complexity of the human eye, the moral sense each person carries as strong arguments for a caring, mindful force behind the universe, But others might say they all have compelling natural explanations. The complexity of the DNA crystal is different in degree from the salt crystal, but ultimately just as explainable by natural causes.
    And the disasters of tornado and flood, the fragility of the skin and the spine, the pages of history filled with greed, oppression and war are arguments against a "truly caring, mindful force behind the universe."  Why would such a mindful force design a universe in such a way that many animals eat by eating others, sometimes ferociously, inflicting pain, tearing the body of the victim apart? The amount of suffering in the food chain is so staggering it is difficult to honor. Would it not have been more mindful to design a universe with life given necessary nutrients, say, from deposits in the soil, or dissolved in accessible pond water?
    Similar issues can be raised about a universe in which human beings -- like helpless children -- are rapped, tortured, faced with starvation. I revere the skeptics who are alert to the suffering in the world just as much as I revere those who have responses to it from the religions which teach belief in a God.

Jim, I would be very grateful if you would convey this information to them. Thank you!

Vern Barnet

  further your response that natural processes to not require mind as an explanation because they are natural in fact begs the question.
  As to your characterization of the problem of evil, that does not mean that a mind is not responsible for natural processes, it just means you do not like the minds methods. In fact, christians have an answer to the problem of evil, but you reject it; that is not a logical question  In fact, I would submit that the problem of evil is a logical problem for atheism because any moral system they propose must be subjective.  In other words, let us say they do not like something.

  so what?

  they do not have all knowing objective knowledge of any ultimate purpose of our present trials,  all they have to fall back on is force.

and they have done that abundantly; I recommend the Black Book of Communism published by Harvard University Press to catalog the death toll of the atheistic practices of dialectical  materialism which exceeds by ten times the death toll of so called religious wars. and I would hope that your response is not that those crimes are not the fault of  atheism but rather of Communism.  In  fact, one could be communist without being atheistic,  it is dialectical materialism that made the system so deadly. Materialism  meaning that all can be explained by matter in motion;,
which means without any reference to mind. If all is matter in motion. with molecules sometimes colliding, the molecules at whatever level of complexity have no need to ever say "excuse me"
The atheist must assume that such reasoning processes as we have are able to give us objective  knowledge. Yet Saint Darwin himself wrote that he sometimes wondered if we could really  trust the meanderings of a mind which evolved in the same manner as a  monkeys.  Therefore I must agree wit you; atheism has a place in what you call faith based activities.  However, I think you tend to alternate meanings of words to argue different  positions.  In any event, when I have expressed similar doubts at some local meetings, it was  made clear that  I was not welcome. I appreciate the time you give to your work and it is clear that  you arequite dedicated

  sincerely,
  Jim

Dear Jim,
    I have been called an atheist. So have Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and the great 20th Century Christian theologian Paul Tillich. Whether they and I qualify as atheists depends, as your recognize, on what one means by the term.
    I do not understand what you mean when you say: my "response that natural processes to not require mind as an explanation because they are natural in fact begs the question." My point is what some people consider evidence of divine activity can be considered by others as "natural," ie, without supernatural involvement.
     I respectfully disagree with you that "christians have an answer to the problem of evil." I think the conservative Nazarene theologian Al Truesdale pretty well sums it up in his book "If God Then Why?" when he examines all the arguments offered to explain how God can be both all powerful and all good and finds them failures. I would be interested if you have a new answer. His faith is grounded not in an answer to  the problem of evil, but rather in a response to the self-sacrificing love of  Christ as Savior. I believe his position has great integrity and is transparently honest, whether I agree with it or not. Please outline your "solution" to the problem of evil. I would be very interested in it.
    I also disagree with you that atheists have a problem in establishing a moral system. In fact, social studies have shown that in general atheists have better social values than church goers. The man who is probably most responsible for inciting the American Revolution, Tom Paine, wrote simply, "to do good is my religion." Religion, on the other hand, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever, is often used to justify the most horrible treatment of other human beings.
    I also question your characterization of dialectical materialism, at least as expressed in Marx.  "Materialism" does not mean "that all can be explained by matter in motion" as I understand Marx. Marx believed that the moving power in history (analogous to the role God has in the three religions I've named) is economic rather than spiritual. Unfortunately, American business and many politicians seem to have adopted this viewpoint. I respectfully suggest that your contrasting matter and mind is a category of thought that is more appropriate in other metaphysical systems. i personally am uncomfortable with either/or discussions. Objective/subjective is a distinction that bears little on my experience of reality, which is completely dependent on relationships. The idea that anything can be completely "objective" in a philosophical sense, or "subjective," is highly problematic in my view, because all things are interrelated. Even a "private thought" takes its form from external stimulation or recollection.
    I am sorry that you have found yourself in meetings where expressing your honest doubts has made  you unwelcome. Of course whether your comments should be welcome depends on the nature of the meeting. If the meeting is of, say, Roman Catholics to discuss the liturgy, expressing your doubts would probably be out of place. If you were at an interfaith meeting whose purpose is to develop appreciation for the various faiths of the members, such commentary from you might also be considered out of place. If you were at the Euphraxophy Center, or the Unitarian Church, where atheists are most certainly welcome, but the purpose of the meeting was financial planning for the next year, again, your comments might not be considered in order. If you were at a meeting discussing, say, the Urantia Book, the Course in Miracles, or a philosophy class on certain topics, your comments would seem to me to be very appropriate. There is, of course, a big
difference between what is worthy of discussion and what is appropriate for discussion in any particular situation. If you wish to be on my mailing list so you can find activities appropriate for your concerns, send me your mailing address.
    Thank you for writing. I hope I have been of some help.
Vern Barnet