julie kink

She was a shy little girl. I think maybe she was the most shy little girl I had ever met. I don’t remember what her voice was like, but she had long straight brown hair and short bangs. I think sometimes she wore braids. I always imagined she would have such a pretty smile—if she ever smiled. I don’t remember ever seeing her smile. But it was a long time ago. Her name was Julie Kink, and it was 1969 and I was about to turn nine years old. It was getting to be winter in Wisconsin. We were in third grade. I can remember third grade pretty well. We all went to an elementary school together and we were growing up together. I don’t remember ever seeing Julie Kink smile, and I don’t remember her voice. That was 32 years ago.

Our librarian was Mrs. Smith. She lived a few blocks from where we did, and I used to walk by Mrs. Smith’s house on the way to school. It was across from a baseball diamond where the path to school left the road and headed across a meadow and into a valley, across a footbridge that spanned a creek that was never rushing nor dry, and into the woods next to the school. I always liked library time when I was in third grade. It was before the internet, when kids knew the Dewey decimal system and books had colored tape stripes on their spines so you could find the subject you wanted. We had to speak quietly in the school library. We never got homework from the librarian. It was a friendly place. I don’t remember exactly what we did there during library time each week.

It was starting to be winter that year. 1969. I don’t remember what parts of third grade occupied my mind back then. There is one day I had forgotten about for a long time. For about 32 years. It came back to me today.

I remembered Julie Kink.

Julie Kink wasn’t in library class that day. No big deal, we kids often were gone from school for a day or two in those almost-winter weeks when it got dark early. Seems like we always had strep throat. Seems like we were always getting penicillin shots, and we’d be cured of strep throat for about another week. Julie was not in library that day. Mrs. Smith was teaching us something about library. I think maybe she was reading us a book. We were all scattered around the room on the floor. She was sitting in a chair. She was reading and showing us pictures. I bet it was a book about winter or birds migrating or Indians at harvest time or something like that.
Julie wasn’t there. Mrs. Smith closed the book and then folded her hands and looked out across the room and a peculiar distance came into her eyes. I don’t think she was a very old lady, but she looked old just then. I’m not sure why the responsibility to tell us fell to her that day. It always seemed strange to me afterwards that Mrs. Smith was the one who told us. We never wondered about it then, but I wonder about it now. Why the librarian? Mrs. Smith sighed and quietly said that she needed us to listen to her now, and listen in a special way. It was usually quiet in the library. It was very quiet just then.

Mrs. Smith told us that Julie Kink would be gone for awhile. Julie needed to be away because a bad thing had happened in her family. I had never thought about whether Julie Kink had a family. I just wondered what she might look like if she smiled.

Mrs. Smith said Julie Kink had a brother who was on the crew of a helicopter. It took me a few moments to understand the pause that followed. Mrs. Smith looked off in that distant way again, and there was silence.

If you flew on a helicopter in 1969, it meant that you were a soldier in Vietnam. There was a war going on in 1969. I knew it because I saw pictures on the news every night. Walter Cronkite would report how many Americans had died that day. I was always amazed because he would report how many Americans our government said had died, and he would say how many Americans the enemy said had died, and the numbers were never the same.

Julie Kink wasn’t going to be at school for awhile because her brother had been killed in the war. Mrs. Smith said he was in a helicopter that had been in combat. She told us that there was a thing called an ammunition dump. She said his helicopter had gone over the ammunition dump when it exploded. I can still remember Mrs. Smith sitting there, her book closed on her lap, raising both arms slowly in the air as she described how the exploding ammunition had destroyed the helicopter with Julie Kink’s brother in it. They had crashed after they flew over the explosion. We sat silently. Looking back on it, I still think it was a remarkable moment—the school librarian in a little elementary school in Wisconsin telling us third graders about the idea of an ammunition dump, and why Julie Kink wasn’t going to be at school for awhile.

It was getting to be winter. 1969.

That was 32 years ago. I don’t exactly remember what happened to Julie Kink. I don’t recall if I ever saw her smile. She was really shy.

I thought of Julie Kink again today. I never expected to, but I did. I’m a grown-up now. I have a beautiful wife and two beautiful daughters. None of them are shy. One of my daughters is in third grade and it’s getting to be winter. I was thinking of them today because I miss them. I’m a grown-up and I get to travel sometimes and today I’m in Washington D.C., far from my home in Minnesota. I don’t come here to Washington very often. I think just three times in my life. I thought about Julie Kink today.

After all my grown-up meetings something told me to take a long walk and breathe the beautiful fall air in Washington D.C. I did. Something told me to walk the few miles from my hotel to see the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. I had been there once before, long ago, when the memorial was new and everyone was arguing about it. When I got there again today, it seemed smaller than I remembered. The trees were all grown. I passed through the monument path once, remembering the feelings I had felt the first time I visited. As I turned at the far end of the path beside the black, shiny marble wall, I saw the thick paper book listing all the names of the dead soldiers that were etched on the wall.

I thought of Julie Kink just then. I hadn’t thought of her for a long time. I began to wonder about her. Did she know her older brother very well when he went off to Vietnam? How much did he love his little sister?

Was he thinking about her and about our little town in those moments when an inferno was spreading out below him in the jungle in 1969?

It only took me a moment to find his name in the book. David Kink. Middleton, Wisconsin. Panel 20W, line 92. He had died in the Fall of 1969. There it was, right in the book. I thought about Julie Kink, and I thought about being in third grade and I headed back to the wall. I passed my fingers across the name on the wall. David Kink. I wondered if Julie Kink had ever stood there, now a grown-up, and touched those letters. I found myself praying. Our God lives outside of time. I prayed for David Kink, that he had trusted in Jesus Christ before the day he died. I prayed for Julie Kink and for her mom and dad. I prayed that their lives had been blessed and that they had been comforted and come to know Christ. Somehow.

I hadn’t thought of Julie Kink for a long time. She was really shy. I think maybe she was the most shy little girl I had ever met.


10.19.01

For a reading of this story in Washington D.C. by its main character, please look here.

9/11, two scientists, Islam and Christianity

-->

Introduction

The year was 2001, and it was mid-September.  The research laboratories of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota are busy.  Researchers and students sit in front of computers and at laboratory benches.  Assistants carry cultures, files, and flasks from room to room.  Small groups huddle over darkened machinery, observing glowing DNA samples.  Latex gloves and lab coats are everywhere.  Professors, hands on keyboards, struggle to share ideas with distant colleagues on the internet and via word processing software. 

It's like almost any other week in an American research laboratory.  Except for one thing.  It has been just 12 days since terrorists destroyed New York's World Trade Center Towers with two hijacked passenger jets, and crashed others into Washington, D.C. and rural Pennsylvania.  Even scientific hallway conversations are changed.

Ahmed Chadli, Ph.D., a Muslim postdoctoral fellow from Morocco strolls between offices, sharing a printed page of comments from an Islamic teacher, condemning the September 11 violence, and assuring non-Muslims of the pacifist core of Islam. 

The printed sheet starts a conversation between Chadli, (35), and Jim Maher, Ph.D., (41) a professor and leader of the next lab down the hall.  Maher, a Christian, is interested to read the page supplied by Chadli, and promises to give it some thought.

Over the next few months, this interaction creates the opportunity for these two scientists to respectfully share their views of Christianity and Islam.  Though they work in neighboring labs, they use e-mail to record their thoughts and questions.  Elements of their correspondence are recorded below.

September 11, 2001 was in almost every way a tragic day.  There is one exception.  The day motivated dialogs that likely never would otherwise have taken place.  The conversation recorded below is but one example.  The subject of this conversation is perhaps the most important subject that can ever be discussed–the issues of eternal destiny and what we can know about a relationship with the creator of the universe.  We share this conversation to honor the tiny glimmer of good that was born in the darkness of September 11.  We share this correspondence in the hope that it will illuminate the contrasts between Islam and Christianity, as practiced and believed by two scientists in mid-America at the dawn of the 21^st century.  We share it, praying that the one true God will reveal himself to those who, reading the following discussion with open minds, decide to seek him afresh.

9/24/01 From Jim:

Ahmed-

Thanks for your discussion this past week. 

First a general comment on Islam and Christianity.  Although it is tempting to seek the similarities between Christianity and Islam at times like this, there are crucial differences. 

The lyrics to the song "The Path" I wrote for our recent compact disc [an original gospel music charity benefit project in which Maher was involved] were to respond to a friend who saw all world religions as different paths to the single true God.  In her view, since all the paths lead to the same place, it doesn't matter on which path one chooses to walk, as long as one makes progress.

Jesus himself taught that this isn't true, and that many paths are false.  He taught that only one path is true–but which one?

John Steer's comments about terrorism in perspective [a transcript of a recent lecture on Islam presented by Maher's pastor in Rochester, Minnesota had been shared by Maher with Chadli] refer to the core message of Christianity and perhaps contrast it with other religions.   Unlike Islam, which spells out a code of conduct that will identify Muslims and please God, Christianity teaches that there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor or please him–we are all too imperfect and wicked due to our own selfish choices.  Christians have no hope of ever doing anything to build a relationship to God.

Instead, we believe that our only hope is that God sacrificed himself for us–the one perfect person, God having taken on human flesh as Jesus, innocently and deliberately dying in the place of all the people who have ever lived, including you and I.  In Christianity, Jesus is not seen as a prophet but as God himself committing suicide to pay an eternal debt that we could not pay.

We believe the only path that rebuilds the lost relationship between humans and God is the path that crosses the one bridge that God built for us that day–the sacrifice of himself for us in Christ. 

When I face God someday in heaven, and I am to give account of why I believe I should share a relationship with him forever, I will not say it is because I followed rules, or tried to live a good life, or did my best to adhere to the 10 commandments.  That is hopeless because I've failed in all of them.  Everyone has.

My response will be–"I accepted the forgiveness you offered me when you died for me long ago in Palestine–I chose to accept your perfect death in my place, and my only right to live with you is that you have forgiven me through what Jesus did".

I made that choice for my life in 1978, and believe that is when my life changed forever.  Not because of something I did, or could ever do, but because of my acceptance of something He had long ago done for me through Jesus...

 Jim

10/10/01 From Ahmed:

Jim:

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with me and I apologize for this late message.

You wrote:

 "Although it is tempting to seek the similarities between Christianity and Islam at times like this, there are crucial differences."

Although I agree with you that there differences between Islam and Christianity , I do not think that they are more crucial than those between Christianity and Judaism. I am truly convinced that our ignorance of our profound similarities makes us give more importance to differences rather than to focus on our common beliefs.  The Qur’an teaches us that between Christianity, Judaism and Islam there is a common word:

"Say; O people of the scripture! Come to an agreement (common word) between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God" 3.64.

Our God is one and our father (Adam) is one.  Muslims should stress our common points. In the Muslim tradition, Christians hold a special place.  The Qur’an teaches us that Christians are the most close to Muslims, and the prophet Mohammed used to reserve special treatment for them. His tradition is full of examples for this purpose.

"And the most affectionate among people toward Muslims are those who say: they are Christians. That is because among these are people devoted to learning and who have renounced the world and they are not arrogant" 5.82

I believe, at least from the Muslim side, that there are strong basic elements to build a solid bridge between Christians and Muslims.  Indeed, Muslims believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) and all the other prophets of the Bible and we do not make a distinction between any of them.

We do believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) as a great and very special prophet. He holds an exalted place in Islam. Here are some of the titles mentioned in the Qur’an for Jesus: Spirit of God, word of God, the righteous, Messiah, prophet, Messenger of God, Jesus, son of Mary):

"When the angels said, 'Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this word and the next near stationed to God".

The Qur’an confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus through the Virgin Mary (peace be upon him).  Interestingly the Qur’an speaks about Jesus' birth, along with Adam's birth, as an example of God's power and as signs for all human kind.

"Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God's Sight, is as Adam's likeness." 3.52.

If Allah could create Adam without both parents, it is easy for him to create Jesus with one parent.  Moreover, the Qur’an acknowledges most of the miracles performed by Jesus. Those are only some example of a common ground between Muslims and Christians.  I am truly convinced that we have a lot more in common than we were told we have.

You wrote:

 "The lyrics to the song 'The Path' …on our CD…I wrote to respond to a friend who saw all world religions as different paths to the single true God.  In her view, since all the paths lead to the same place, it doesn't matter on which path one chooses to walk, as long as one makes progress.  Jesus himself taught that this isn't true, and that many paths are false.  He taught that only one path is true– but which one?"

I am actually tempted to agree, at least partially, with your friend. My reason for this is the statement in the Qur’an saying: 

"Those who believe (in the Qur’an) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians any who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward" 2.62

The bottom line is to believe in one God and do good deeds.  After that Allah is the only judge of people because he is the one knowing what they hide in their hearts.

The Qur’an tells us that all prophets (peace be upon them all) from Adam to Mohamed came with the same message, which is Islam.  Therefore Muslims believe that Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohamed (peace be upon them all) were Muslims and were sent to teach people how to worship one God and to work among each other to establish the meanings of mercy, justice, to forbid acts of injustice and transgression, and to seek idealism among mankind.  These are basically the purposes of anyone of a monotheistic religion.  Therefore, Islam did not come with Mohamed.   Rather, Mohamed was the sealing prophet to complete the message of God.  In conclusion, from an Islamic perspective, the path shown by Allah through Mohamed for true worship and success in this life and the hereafter is the same one that Jesus taught to his followers.

Nevertheless, if people did not got a chance, for whatever reason, to know the message, Allah is just.  He will reward them for their deeds and their efforts to find the way of worshipping him.  It is clearly stated in the Qur’an that Allah will never punish people without sending them a messenger.

You wrote: 

"John Steer's comments about terrorism in perspective refer to the Core message of Christianity and perhaps contrast it with other religions.   Unlike Islam, which spells out a code of conduct that will identify Muslims and please God, Christianity teaches that there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor or please him–we are all too imperfect and wicked due to our own selfish choices.  Christians have no hope of ever doing anything to build a relationship to God."

In Islam, a human being can have a relationship with God if he keeps trying to follow God's guidance and if he keeps repenting whenever he fails.  By choosing to follow the will of God, a human being can accomplish the highest level of righteousness and can be even better than the angels who do not have the responsibility of choosing, but only obey God. From an Islamic view, humans can please God by worshipping him and spreading the word of God, his guidance, peace, and mercy to the universe.  Although good deeds are crucial to enter to paradise, they are not sufficient. Because humans can make mistakes, only the forgiveness of Allah after judgment will help to enter paradise.

You wrote:

"Instead, we believe that our only hope is that God sacrificed himself for us–the one perfect person, God having taken on human flesh as Jesus, innocently and deliberately dying in the place of all the people who have ever lived, including you and I.  In Christianity,  Jesus is not seen as a prophet but as God himself committing suicide to pay an eternal debt that we could not pay."

For Muslims, every human is responsible of his or her own actions. The Qur’an emphasizes the worship of God with knowledge and reason.  God gives us intelligence and all tools needed to be able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.  Therefore, no one will pay for the sins of anyone else.  We all, in this life, are responsible to be good and to teach people a good way of life, helping them to be on the right path. Those actions are also considered good deeds for ourselves.  One of the strong beliefs of Muslims is that God is JUST.  This gives meaning to the existence of a day of judgment, paradise and hell.  This means that Allah will consider people on the basis of their actions in this life, and will judge them.  The balance of their good and bad deeds will determine their future life, with the mercy of God.  But it is also true, as the teachings of the Prophet clearly state, “No one will enter heaven exclusively because of their deeds.” God’s mercy is ultimately needed for anyone to enter heaven.

Please forgive my poor English and let's continue this exchange in other messages.

Take care

Ahmed

10/16/01 From Jim:

Ahmed-

I am honored by the time you have taken to give thoughtful replies and comments.  I will offer just a few additional remarks.  I am off to Washington for a scientific meeting.

I have extracted these specific comments and responses from your prior message.  You wrote: 

"The bottom line is to believe in one God and do good deeds.  After that Allah is the only judge of people because he is the one knowing what they hide in their hearts…In Islam, a human being can be a perfect creation if he fellows the guidance of God.  By choosing to follow the will of God, a human being can accomplish the highest level of righteousness and can be even better than the angels who do not have the responsibility of choosing, but only obey God. From an Islamic view, humans can please God by worshipping him and spreading the word of God, his guidance, peace, and mercy to the universe.  Although good deeds are crucial to enter to paradise, they are not sufficient. Because humans can make mistakes, only the forgiveness of Allah after judgment will help to enter paradise.... For Muslims, every human is responsible of his or her own actions. The Qur’an emphasizes the worship of God with knowledge and reason.  God gives us intelligence and all tools needed to be able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.  Therefore, no one will pay for the sins of anyone else.  We all, in this life, are responsible to be good and to teach people a good way of life, helping them to be on the right path. Those actions are also considered good deeds for ourselves.  One of the strong beliefs of Muslims is that God is JUST.  This gives meaning to the existence of a day of judgment, paradise and hell.  This means that Allah will consider people on the basis of their actions in this life, and will judge them.  The balance of their good and bad deeds will determine their future life, with the mercy of God."

Your thoughtful explanations are very helpful.  In my humble opinion, they place a sharp focus on the central difference between the Christian theology and that of Islam.

I think we both believe in a God who is utterly just.  Divine justice is an attribute we both feel strongly characterizes our God.  Your description above suggests that God asks men and women to do their best to follow him, obey his laws, seek his guidance, and do good works.  They then are to look to his forgiveness, in the end, to hope for paradise.

Where is justice in this model?  On what basis can an eternally just God accept less than perfection from us?  Do not all of us deserve condemnation in the sense that none of us can claim to be righteous for an hour let alone a lifetime?  Jesus himself taught that even evil or selfish or immoral THOUGHTS are equivalent to evil or selfish or immoral actions, so all of us are condemned.  It is as if Allah is promising to "forget" or "overlook" such imperfections if we earn his favor.  How much righteousness is enough to earn this?  How many sins is Allah willing to forgive?

I actually grew up with exactly this view of God– believing that if, on balance, I was good more often than I was bad, God would look at my life on a scale and see that I was more good than bad and accept me in heaven.  He would just forgive the bad parts.

On exploring biblical Christianity more deeply I was shocked to see that this commonly-held belief (which seems also to lie at the center of Islam) is absolutely not Christian theology.

Christians believe that God's just character is so fundamental that he cannot and will not simply forgive imperfection ad hoc.  Justice must be done.  Imperfection deserves retribution and punishment.  Sin must have a penalty.  Any sin must have a penalty.  The penalty doesn't come only when sin is greater than righteousness.  The penalty is deserved for any sin at all. 

To the Christian, our just God cannot forgive us unless there is a way to preserve justice.  Justice can be preserved only if SOMEBODY is willing to pay the debt, take the punishment, bear the penalty. 

If a person breaks a law in America, a fine may be imposed by the legal system.  Justice is not served by the judge simply waiving the fine and telling the guilty party to ignore it.  SOMEBODY must pay the fine. 

In Christian theology, the only person capable of taking on the eternal penalty that has been earned by all human error and imperfection from time past through time future is one whose life is perfectly clean, and can be offered in the place of the lives of all of us who deserve death. 

The irony of Christian theology is that God satisfies the need for eternal justice by placing punishment and death upon himself as a voluntary act of love, undeserved by us, but necessary to preserve justice.  It was God's self-sacrifice on the cross as he himself died as a human, that offers eternal hope to the Christian.  It is what Jesus did, not what I do, that satisfies justice.  In Christian theology, you and I deserve eternal separation from God, no matter how much we try to be good.  In Christian theology, God cannot forgive us and preserve justice, unless SOMEBODY ELSE pays the penalty.

What I chose to do in the Spring of 1978 was to believe, for the first time, that my hope of relating to God personally came only in accepting that he had provided a gift to me once and for all when Christ died on the cross.  The gift was a perfect life given in exchange for my imperfect one.  Justice demands that somebody pay the price for my sins, no matter how large or small.  God volunteered to pay the price for me in Christ.  My choice was simply to believe in this gift, and to, by my will, accept it.

Thus (forgive the length) I would conclude that the Islamic theology you helpfully present resembles exactly what I believed before I was exposed to biblical Christianity.  It is what is believed by many who call themselves Christians.  It is similar to Judaism as well.  It suffers from the problem that was made so clear in the animal sacrifices demanded in the Old Testament:  something or someone has to pay the price for our sin.  To the Christian, the millions of dead animals of the Old Testament are an unmistakable foreshadowing of the single sacrifice that would one day end sacrifices forever.

When I meet my God some day, I will place no hope in my righteous deeds, and I will place no hope in his forgiveness.  I will place my hope only in the sacrifice of one perfect life, made on my behalf one Friday afternoon outside of Jerusalem.

Respectfully-

Jim

11/7/01 From Ahmed:

Jim-

Thank you very much for the time you reserve to this dialogue. It's a pleasure to discuss these matters with you, although my responses are always late!  Thanks again for your patience.

You wrote:

"Where is justice in this model?  On what basis can an eternally just God accept less than perfection from us?  Do not all of us deserve condemnation in the sense that none of us can claim to be righteous for an hour let alone a lifetime?  Jesus himself taught that even evil or selfish or immoral THOUGHTS are equivalent to evil or selfish or immoral actions, so all of us are condemned.  It is as if Allah is promising to "forget" or "overlook" such imperfections if we earn his favor.  How much righteousness is enough to earn this?  How many sins is Allah willing to forgive?"

As you know, Muslims approach or understand God by his 99 attributes or names.  Three of those attributes are: most just, most merciful and most forgiving.  Muslims believe that God did not send Adam and Eve to this earth as punishment.  There is no original sin.  We believe that human beings are trustees of God on earth and that this life is only a test for our behavior. God wants all human beings to enter paradise if they work hard for it. Therefore, on the day of judgement, the principle of personal accountability for what we have done in this life is central in Islam.  Each human being has two angels accompanying him all his lifetime: one records the good deeds and the other one records bad deeds.  On the day of judgment, each individual will be resurrected and his folder will be presented to him.  God will be the judge between people on the basis of these records.

Let me give one view of how Muslims understand the mercy and justice of God.  Let's say, to be simple, that good deeds in this life are rewarded by positive points and bad deeds are given negative point in one's account on the day of judgment.  Because God is merciful and knows that human beings will commit sins anyway, he decides that:

–if a person does one good deed in this life, he will be rewarded 10, 700 or even more positive points, depending on the act.

–if he had the intention of doing a good deed and he didn't do it, he will get one positive point.

–if he did one bad deed, he will get only one negative point (except major sins).

–if he had the intention of doing a bad deed and he didn't do it, he will get one positive point.

God tells us that he can forgive any sin between him and his slave as long as the person did not worship something besides God.  In Islam there are basically two kinds of situations that God will consider in one's personal record on the day of judgment:

1.  Sins or affairs between the slave and God (for example, a person failing to do his or her prayers, failing to fast during Ramadan, etc.)  These are personal acts or omissions that do not involves anybody else, and are therefore "secrets" between the slave and his lord.

2.  Actions involving other human beings, animals or nature (for example, lying, wrongdoing, injustice on earth, corruption, dishonesty, etc.)   In these cases, Muslims believe that divine justice will be done first.

God's justice is easily seen if you consider a scenario where God is judging two people.  In Islamic theology, during the day of judgement, the two people will both face God.  The folder for each person will be presented in front of Allah.  The wrongdoer will then pay the other person.  No mercy or divine forgiveness will apply in this case.  It is simple justice first.  How will the payment will be made?  There is no money.  All that we will have will be our good and bad deeds: positive and negative points.  But remember that God makes it easy to accumulate positive points.  The wrongdoer will therefore pay his adversary by giving him the value of the wrongdoer's negative acts from his positive points until the wrongdoer pays him off.  Now if the wrongdoer does not have enough good deeds to make full payment, God will take the equivalent negative points from the victim's account and put them on the balance of the wrongdoer. 

The scenario will continue for every human being with whom each person has had dealings in this life. If the person in question has enough positive points to pay everybody, and still has some remaining positive points, we can assume that the person was generally good in this life.  He can hope for the forgiveness of God regarding the deeds between him and his lord, and he can hope to go to paradise.  If, on the other hand, he does not have enough good deeds to pay off the people he has offended, God gives them justice by transferring their negative points to the wrongdoer's balance.  The offender will obviously accumulate a lot of negative points, and we can logically assume that that person was generally bad in this life.  His destiny will be the hell fire. 

Once justice is done between people, if for any reason God decides to forgive somebody the negative points, that's a matter between God and him.   God is just, wise and forgiving.  For example, the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) said that a man once entered paradise because he gave water to a dog dying of thirst.  Thus, the life not only of a human, but also of an animal, is sacred in Islam.  Further, saving a life is like saving all of humanity, and taking a life is like killing all of humanity. 

It is therefore seen as categorically impossible to pay off the debt of murder on the day of judgment.   On the other hand, one is rewarded many positive points for saving a life. Such a reward will make a huge difference in one's balance on the day of judgment.

The Qur’an also tells us that in affairs between God and his servant, God can forgive almost every sin but one.  This unforgivable sin is to have worshipped someone or something other than God.  Basically, if one worships only the one true God, creator of the universe, one can hope for forgiveness when "internal affairs" (between the person and God) are settled on the judgement day after justice for other human beings and all God's creation has been settled.

You wrote: 

"The irony of Christian theology is that God satisfies the need for eternal justice by placing punishment and death upon himself as a voluntary act of love, undeserved by us, but necessary to preserve justice.  It was God's self-sacrifice on the cross as he himself died as a human, that offers eternal hope to the Christian.  It is what Jesus did, not what I do, that satisfies justice.  In Christian theology, you and I deserve eternal separation from God, no matter how much we try to be good.  In Christian theology, God cannot forgive us and preserve justice, unless SOMEBODY ELSE pays the penalty."

It is honestly quite difficult to talk about justice when a person, as an actor, doesn't have to pay himself!  We are talking about the hereafter!  On the day of judgment, if we want to talk about absolute justice, there should be no one who can help.  This creates a profound sense of responsibility.  The consequence of the "savior" concept is that one can do whatever he or she wants because he or she knows that somebody could pay for their mistakes and save them from the hell fire!  There is no sense of absolute justice and personal accountability in this view.  If God knows that he will save people by scarifying himself, then it's senseless to create heaven and hell.  We need only heaven.  And what will happen to people who never get the message of Jesus, peace be upon him?

On the other hand, God gave us intellect and reason to use for our well being in this life in all matters including religion.  What will happen to people who, on the basis of this reason, cannot accept and believe in the doctrine of the trinity? For Muslims, believing in the one God must be based on reason and rigor.  The Qur’an stresses reasoning hundreds of times, as well as thinking and knowledgeable belief in God.  Religion is not a matter of faith based on acceptance, at least from Qur’anic point of view.  God will judge us with absolute reason and proof.  He requires that we do the same with respect to religion.  Without this, nothing will make sense or be worthy.

Please share with me your understanding of how the concept of original sin and its consequences could be understood in the context of absolute divine justice.

Muslims believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, never taught people that he was a son of God, nor did he teach the doctrine of the trinity.  Could you clarify to me the concept of the trinity  (i.e. its meaning and its HISTORY)?  Why do you consider Jesus (peace be upon him) as son of God?  Why does God need to have a son?

 Please forgive me if in any way I hurt your feeling or offend you with these questions. It's certainly not my intention and it's not obeying the teaching of the Qur’an in a matter of dialogue with the people of the book.  It's my personal weaknesses and mistake!  My English does not help! But I try!

Respectfully.

Ahmed

11/26/01 From Jim:

Hi Ahmed-

Happy Ramadan :)

I have been at a scientific conference and now am on vacation with my family in Florida, so I have had lots of relaxation and a nice change of pace.  I've been thinking about your recent note and wanted to provide some additional ideas about Christianity.

Although it has been suggested to me that a verbal discussion with you might be more polite (and I am happy to do that any time) I also find the chance to write out my ideas to be helpful.  For your sake, I am sorry that you must write in English !

Before I respond to some of your comments and questions, let me say that I write to you because of my beliefs as an "evangelical" Christian.  Being an evangelical means that I believe that I have been given good news to share with others who have not yet heard it.  Even though there are religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and many others that are based on the ideas of teachers who have come since the time of Jesus Christ, evangelical Christians believe that Christianity remains the truth, and that it alone explains and completes the story of God's relationship with humans, as set forth in the Old Testament (writings that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all share).  Other religions may share "echoes" of the one truth, but only one can be true. 

At the core of this discussion is Jesus' claim to be the unique and exclusive path to God.  I may not be able to convince you that faith in Jesus Christ as God's perfect sacrifice to pay for your sins is the only way for you to be accepted by God, but I will keep trying, and will keep praying that despite your background and sincere acceptance of Islam, that you will consider that there might be an entirely different path to God.  This is, of course, my prayer for all Muslims, and I look forward to a day when Christianity can be openly and freely explained to curious Muslims in all the countries of the world.

In any case, whether or not you come to accept that Christianity is the only true path to God, this is what Jesus himself taught in sayings such as "I am the way and the truth and the life–nobody comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).  It is clear from Jesus' teaching that he believed himself to be one with God (who he called his "Father"), and that those who had seen him (Jesus) had seen God.  He taught that he needed to be killed in order to fulfill God's plan, and he taught that he would be raised back to life three days later.  These supernatural claims set Jesus apart from the other prophets of the Old Testament and of Islam.  We then are left to decide whether Jesus was really God revealed as a human ("Emmanuel" means "God with us") or whether he was insane and an evil imposter.  The one thing we cannot do is to say that he was simply a great teacher or prophet, while ignoring what he said about himself.  I fear that Islam deals with Jesus this way–choosing to teach that Jesus was one of many prophets that pointed people to God, but then ignoring the fact that he claimed to be God himself, and claimed that his death was required for the salvation of the world.  Thus, a person can reject Christ's claims, or accept them, but cannot logically say Jesus was a great teacher or prophet while ignoring the content of his claims.

Now, I appreciate your comments and clarifications about your view of justice and forgiveness in Islam.  I pointed out that in Christian theology, sins (imperfections) cannot be forgiven without just payment from somebody, and I argued that only God's chosen, perfect sin-bearer (Jesus Christ) can pay for my sins.  Your response is interesting.  First, you note your belief that detailed records are kept of all our actions, whether good or bad.  Christians would agree with this, except to point out that thoughts, not just actions, are also recorded, along with good things left undone.  Second, you propose that God has a disproportionate grading system such that bad actions count less than good actions.  In this model, it becomes possible for a "generally good" person to come out ahead and have hope of acceptance by God.  Third, you propose the interesting idea that:

"…The folder for each person will be presented in front of Allah.  The wrongdoer will then pay the other person.  No mercy or divine forgiveness will apply in this case.  It is simple justice first.  How will the payment will be made?  There is no money.  All that we will have will be our good and bad deeds: positive and negative points.  But remember that God makes it easy to accumulate positive points.  The wrongdoer will therefore pay his adversary by giving him the value of the wrongdoer's negative acts from his positive points until the wrongdoer pays him off…"

This is an interesting idea.  It is very useful to contrast this view of divine justice with that presented in Christianity.  In your view, justice is first worked out between the records of people, with each person hoping that their positive scores will be enough to cover all the negative scores they have accumulated in interactions with others for their whole lives.  Even then, you point out that God might step in and save a person who has run out of positive points.

So, although this is an interesting model (and I used to believe pretty much exactly this model when I was younger) it is not consistent with the teachings of the Bible, and it requires some optimistic views of the "grading system" for which I suspect neither the Qur’an nor the Bible provides direct evidence or detail. 

For example, who says the scoring system will really make it easy to accumulate positive points relative to negative?  What if, in God's eyes, a negative action actually counts 1000x worse than a positive action?  What if positive and negative actions actually count exactly the same rather than positive counting more?  If any of these scenarios is true (and who knows?) then I have no hope of having enough points to pay off my debtors.  Why should God set up a system where it is easier to accumulate positive points?  That doesn't seem just.  The problem with any such system is that none of us ever have a clue how we are doing, and we must logically live in perpetual doubt about whether our scores are adding up. (Actually I would have absolutely no doubt that my evil scores are always way ahead, even with the favorably scoring system!)

Christianity looks at this same point scoring model and declares a much more pessimistic view.  According to Christianity, the only person who can claim a right to live with God in heaven is a person who has a perfect life (no negative points at all!).  In this view, one cannot simply use positive points to cancel negatives and see what is left, one must never get even a single negative point if they wish to claim the God-like perfection required for heaven.  Perfection is not being more clean than dirty, but rather, being perfectly clean with no dirt at all!  I think honest people realize that no matter what the scoring system, we all end up with some dirt.  The angel on my negative shoulder is always very busy counting, no matter how hard I try. 

The Bible teaches that "There is no one righteous, not even one"  (Romans 3:10) and "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).  Another verse along these lines says "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).  This view suggests a much more strict scoring standard than in Islam– we can't hope for acceptance based on a balance between good and bad, but only in the absolute absence of bad.  We can't hope for some optimistic scoring system, because all of us will have negative scores.

I could quote you various verses from Jesus' teaching and the writings of his friends to demonstrate this ancient principle.  However, it boils down to this:  What if this view is correct?  You and I are in terrible, eternal danger if we are counting on the power of our good acts and intentions.  What if it's true that God's standard is MUCH higher?  This is what Jesus implied when he reminded his friends that even thinking an unclean thought cost the same number of points as committing the unclean act. 

Here is a case in point:  You state that God will forgive almost all sins, but he will not forgive idolatry (the improper worship of someone or something other than God).  However, according to Jesus' standards, the problem is that any of us who have even imagined or entertained the notion of placing something above God in our lives (money, fame, publications, sex, academic promotion, etc.) has already committed idolatry, the unforgivable sin.  I've committed idolatry over and over, and I'm not proud of it.

BUT, I know that I have committed the unforgivable sin of idolatry many times, and I have thought about many terrible actions that (according to Jesus) count against me just as much as if I had actually done them.  I suspect that you have had exactly the same experience.  In fact, the more concerned about righteous behavior we become, the more aware we are that we are actually characterized by evil and selfishness rather than the goodness we claim.  By that standard, my life (and yours, I suspect) are hopelessly evil.

So, Christianity declares all people are justly condemned to hell by their imperfection.  You, me, everyone.

The good news is that in his wisdom, mercy, and justice, God has provided a just and fair alternative to this punishment that you and I deserve.  It is payment of my debt and your debt by Christ, as we have discussed before.  Receiving the gift requires a personal conscious choice to accept it (that choice is what is meant by becoming a Christian).  Knowing about Jesus is not enough.  Knowing him personally as savior is what is required. 

Before I conclude, let me make this personal, Ahmed.  There is a real possibility that God's scoring system is not what you describe, but more like what I describe (or even worse!).  There is a real chance that God demands a much higher standard than what you have been planning on. 

What if I am right and you someday face this righteous God who demands evidence that you are perfectly pure and clean, and deserve to share heaven with him?  What will you say?  Honesty demands that you and I admit that we aren't pure and clean, nor do we deserve heaven even if we somehow have more good points than bad (In my view, heaven is a sterile environment, and the question for us as we seek to enter isn't–are we "clean", but rather, are we absolutely sterile?).  It is there that you are left with no hope other than a vague desire that God forgive you and ignore the evil you have done in both actions and in your mind.  It is then that I will respond to God "I freely admit that I have tried to live a good life, but have fallen short and do not deserve heaven.  But I also accept the free gift of salvation from my sins made possible by what Jesus did for me".  Christianity means believing that Christ has paid for my sins with his death, and choosing to accept his death in my place. 

You were concerned (appropriately) that this total forgiveness means that Christians might give up trying to be good and revel in sinfulness.  Christianity would actually theoretically allow that.  In practice, people start out as sinners and they stay as sinners.  I may try more to please God out of gratitude for his forgiveness, and to imitate his character, but I know it is hopeless to try to earn his love this way.  I'll never deserve any of his forgiveness no matter how hard I try. As the Bible teaches "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:  while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).  We are told in the Bible that Christians will turn from deliberate and persistent sinful behavior if they have a personal relationship with their savior, Jesus, but we will never attain perfection.  As a Christian, I just realize more and more how imperfect I am, and how much I thank Jesus Christ for his gift to me!

Ahmed, I'd like you to consider the possibility that Islam offers you no solution for the problem of your personal imperfection.  I'd like you to consider admitting to God that your life falls far short of perfection, and that you need a savior and can't make it on your own.  You can come to God admitting your sin, and choosing to believe that Jesus Christ has paid for it in your place.  Asking Jesus to be your savior and believing by faith that he has saved you is the simple essence of Christianity.  It is truly that simple.  This is only a sincere prayer away, and I respectfully challenge you to consider making this choice in your heart. 

We are left with the issues of salvation for those who don't know of this offer of Jesus' sacrifice for us, and for those who find the trinity unacceptable.  You write:

"Please share with me your understanding of how the concept of original sin and its consequences could be understood in the context of absolute divine justice.  Muslims believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, never taught people that he was a son of God, nor did he teach the doctrine of the trinity.  Could you clarify to me the concept of the trinity  (i.e. its meaning and its HISTORY)?  Why do you consider Jesus (peace be upon him) as son of God?  Why does God need to have a son?"

Let me start by saying that anyone who claims to understand all or even most aspects of theology must be incorrect, so what I offer is a simplistic human understanding of the Old and New Testaments.

First off, the Old Testament of the Bible, which is shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, makes it very clear that God wished humanity to understand that somebody had to pay for sin (imperfection).  As I wrote previously, the entire basis for temple worship of God in the Old Testament was the understanding that God's people could never live up to the standard set in the ten commandments, so some payment was required each year to atone (pay) for their sins.  For many centuries that payment was animal sacrifice.  Christians see this as a picture of the final sacrifice that would eventually pay for all sin, once and for all.  The idea of a sacrifice to pay for sin lies at the very heart of Judaism and Christianity.  If this concept of sacrifice to pay for sin (imperfection) is missing from Islam, this is truly a huge difference that cannot be underestimated.  This concept of sacrifice explains why Jesus was called the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).  The idea of a father sacrificing his beloved son was also provided in advance as Abraham was willing to offer Isaac in obedience to God (Genesis 22).

The other thing that needs to be said is that Christianity is absolutely monotheistic, affirming that our Lord is one God, the creator of all things, and the energy, matter, and information in which all exists.  I certainly believe our God may have created more than one universe, and that there may be many created worlds in this universe with living things.  It is possible that some of these worlds have remained sinless, though I suspect many have chosen sin, as did humans, assuming they, like us, were given free will and have a tendency toward pride.  If so, I believe our God has reached out to all of these worlds in love with redemption plans based on grace (undeserved mercy) as he has done here on earth.

Although Christianity is monotheistic, Christians believe in a mystery that Jesus himself taught–namely that God reveals himself in different ways.  In physics we learn that matter and energy are different manifestations of the same concept, and matter is a kind of condensed energy with E=mc^2.  We also learn that a wave/particle duality applies to all matter and energy, such that the product of Planck's constant and frequency is also equal to mc^2.  Thus matter, energy, and wave character are all interconvertible aspects of matter/energy/waves in the universe.  As physicists, we understand this to be true, though we can't really express what is the ultimate information that takes on these forms.  It is one single kind of information, but it can be experienced in more than one way, and it is mysterious.

So, Christians encounter the one true God in various personal ways.  Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah (Savior) but also expressed that he was on his father's business.  That would still allow the idea that he was simply a prophet.  But Jesus did not claim to be a prophet (the authorities would not have minded that).  Rather, he claimed to be God with us, made man.  He claimed that he and the Father were one, and that those who had seen Jesus had seen the Father.  It is for this blasphemy that he was killed.  Christians do not understand how the single God of the universe shared humanity with us while remaining the single God of the universe.  Since we are locked in time and space, it is quite impossible for us to understand this aspect of God's character.

Jesus prayed to God, his father, and called out to God as he died on the cross.  How could God die on the cross and at the same time cry out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46).  I don't know.  Christian theology says that at the moment of his death, Jesus was left alone with the sins of mankind, and was separated from his Father.   I sometimes think that the idea of God becoming man was simply the best way God could show us the depth of his personal love for us–that he was willing to enter history and suffer a kind of suicide to serve us, rather than be served by us.  The love exemplified by this humility and condescension is beyond comprehension.

So our single God sacrificed himself for us.  Jesus also taught that after his physical life as a human was ended, he would remain tangibly with us in the future through the experience of his life in our lives.  This is the personal aspect of Christianity that makes it possible for me to say that I have a personal relationship with God.  The word Jesus used to describe his presence in our lives was "paraclete", or one who comes alongside us as a helper.  We call this aspect of God his spirit.  The trinity describes The creator-sustainer aspect of God, his human existence in this world as Christ, and his persistent existence in the lives of believers since his resurrection.  Christians see this as one God, though mysteriously.  Muslims may find this confusing.

A final point.  I believe that Christ's death has the potential to pay the price for all sins that have ever been committed, and that will ever be committed.  It is possible that God will somehow force all people to be forgiven.  I believe that God has granted us free will so that humans can choose whether to live for God or not, can choose whether to humble themselves and accept Christ or not.  Christians believe that God has asked us to share the task of communicating the gift of Christ with the world, so people can choose to accept or not.  God has not opted to make this irresistably obvious or to force the issue. 

What does God do about people who have not heard about his offer of forgiveness in Christ?  What about children or the mentally incompetent?  We really don't know, because the Bible doesn't explain.  However, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt that God will treat ignorance as grounds for forgiveness.  It would seem that each person must decide for himself or herself, and Christians are asked to share the message of hope for personal salvation, as I have humbly been attempting with you.

To close, Christianity offers a message of hope for personal salvation to those who recognize their need for it.  To folks who feel that their good lives put them on firm ground with God, Christianity has nothing to offer.  This message is for those who see their lives as falling hopelessly short of God, and who recognize their need for a savior, and believe God has provided such a savior.

In your thinking, I humbly will continue to pray that you begin to consider whether you, like me, need such a savior.

Respectfully,

Jim

6/20/02 From Ahmed:

Hi Jim.  I have reviewed our correspondence and have a few more comments.  You wrote:

Unlike Islam, which spells out a code of conduct that will identify Muslims and please God, Christianity teaches that there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor or please him–we are all too imperfect and wicked due to our own selfish choices.  Christians have no hope of ever doing anything to build a relationship to God.  Instead, we believe that our only hope is that God sacrificed himself for us–the one perfect person, God having taken on human flesh as Jesus, innocently and deliberately dying in the place of all the people who have ever lived, including you and I.  In Christianity, Jesus is not seen as a prophet but as God himself committing suicide to pay an eternal debt that we could not pay.

This is never taught by Jesus.  If you read the Bible, it’s specifically taught by Paul, not Jesus.  This sounds like a good story, if only it were true!  Paul never saw Jesus.  Jesus’ disciples all disagreed with Paul.

You also previously wrote:

To the Christian, our just God cannot forgive us unless there is a way to preserve justice.  Justice can be preserved only if SOMEBODY is willing to pay the debt, take the punishment, bear the penalty.

That type of justice is not even acceptable here in America. If you commit a crime, and your son offers to go to jail instead of you, would the judge accept that? Would a judge have agreed to let Timothy McVeigh’s mother take his place on the execution table? God would clearly not accept that either! Why would he accept to put an “innocent lamb” on the cross for everyone’s sins? This example does not work because we are talking about someone paying with their life! Furthermore, if the judge wanted, he could easily waive the fine. Judges often do that! If judges can do that, why wouldn’t God be able to do that?  Again, this is not the religion that Jesus brought.  It is the Christianity that Paul advocated and that Caesar selected at the conference of Nicea in 360 AD!  As a matter of fact, when you read the Bible telling the story of Jesus trying to escape the Roman soldiers, it gives a clear indication that Jesus was not pleased about the prospect of being killed by the Romans.  If Jesus' mission was clearly to be put to death and that was a part of his destiny, why would Jesus try to escape, hide, and avoid being caught?  Again, read the Bible!  If Jesus’ mission was really to die for us, wouldn’t he have at least said that sometime in his life? Wouldn’t he have taught this concept to his disciples?  His mother?  His brother James?  And yet, nowhere do the 4 gospels ever say that.  Actually, James disagreed plainly with Paul when Paul started teaching this type of theology, and Paul’s letter back to James (which is in the New Testament) clearly tries to defend Paul’s position against the Jerusalem disciples. Even Peter, who is considered to be the first pope, disagreed with Paul.  Please, READ the Bible!  Would you accept this logic when one of your children gets in trouble? Would you agree to give the punishment to another child?  This is the logic that Paul introduced in an attempt to reconcile the true teachings of Jesus with all the pagan worship and sacrifice rituals that were common at that time: Virgin sacrifice, drinking of blood, eating of flesh, etc… All these rituals were absorbed into Christianity by Paul and that’s exactly why the Jerusalem disciples disagreed with him. Paul’s answer was: What difference does it make as long as these pagans are entering Christianity?

Since my last e-mail, I have also read the sermon of the respected Pastor John Steer {a document Jim had earlier shared].  I did not comment on it last time because I thought it dealt with several issues that we were going to discuss anyway.  Although I appreciate his effort in the first part of the sermon presenting the Islamic practices, I was really disappointed by the last part where he addressed the differences between Islam and Christian doctrine.  I agree, that Muslims do not believe in Jesus as Son of God but it's not true to state: 

…Islam asserts that Jesus was merely one of God's many prophets …

In one of my e-mails I give a small picture of how Muslims venerate Jesus peace be upon him.  Please go to (http://islam.org/) and do your search in the Qur’an using the word Jesus and see.

Muslims do not make differences between prophets as the Qur’an clearly states (see my first e-mail) contrary to his following statement:

…Islam teaches that Muhammad was a superior prophet to Jesus because he brought God's final and best revelation to humanity…

The fact that Mohamed came with the last message is not because he is better than Jesus or another prophet. This is illogical conclusion.  The reason is the timing. Using this logic we can then say Jesus is superior to Moses and Moses is superior to his predecessors including Abraham!!  It does not make sense!  They all were sent at different times to teach the same truth (worshipping the one God)

I was also extremely shocked to the following statement:

…Also the God of Islam has a different character than the God of the Bible. Of the 99 beautiful names for Allah, which Muslims memorize and use for worship, not one of these names is "love."  A popular saying is that the 100th name of God has been revealed only to the camel, which accounts for his haughty bearing….According to Dr. John Elder,  "Muslims deny the possibility of atonement because of their belief that God does not love man and indeed is unaffected by man's action.  Any idea that God so loved the world that he gave his only son is completely foreign to the Muslim mind…"  …Muhammad was inspired by some supernatural source but it could not be the God of the Bible for Muhammad rejects God's revelation of scripture.

This is because of the ignorance of Arabic language. The Arabic word WADUD, one of the 99 names of Allah, means the lover without expecting a return.  He is the pure lover. Other attributes (names) all together give the most complete picture of God including that he is the source of love. The word love (hube) in Arabic is used most of the time to describe love between husband and wife.  By the way, in the Aramaic language and in the Greek language there are several words to talk about love.  One of my Christian friends tells me that the Greek Bible used at least three different synonymous of the word love. Unfortunately English has only one.

To conclude from this kind of misrepresentation that Allah is not the same Gad of the Bible is not correct.  Anyone who knows Arab Christians know that they use the same word, Allah, for God. The two religions are talking about the same God.  How they present it is different.   As a matter of fact the Jews, and some fraction of Christians, do not believe in the trinity too.  Are they talking about another God even if they use the same book?

This discussion stimulated my curiosity about the Bible and caused me to read more about the history of the Bible and Christian theology.  I also discussed these things with some friends.  I still did not get a full clear picture (if any) but I believe I grasp the essence.  What I conclude from all this is that we are discussing topics using our texts as reference to the absolute truth. I believe that the focal point that we absolutely need, as SCIENTISTS, is to focus on is the authenticity of the reference (the message). Several questions and observations come to mind:

The writings of Paul constitute around 2/3 of the New Testament. The remainder is 4 different versions of the gospels written at least 30-150 years after the death of Jesus (all of this is historically documented).

How do we know that Jesus really did or said what the Bible claims?  How much do we want to trust Paul?  How do Christian theologians verify the accuracy of what is written in the Bible?  Is the whole book considered the word of God?  Are there some passages that are not?  How much of it is really Jesus' teaching?  Aren't there a lot of concerns about authenticity, and historical problems with the message that even Christians themselves know about?  Why would Jesus bring a message against the Jews and the pagans, and then after his death give a message to Paul that would be exactly opposite to what he taught during his life?  I truly think that for scientists like us, to ignore all of this is extremely serious.  I am asking these difficult questions because we cannot have a legitimate theological discussion if the authenticity issue is not resolved.

The goal of my discussion with you was not to change your belief.  It's perfectly fine with me that you believe what you want.  I was just trying to tell you who I am with the goal of a better understanding of each other by knowing our common points and our differences.  Being different is part of what Muslims believe is a sign of God.  If He wanted,  he certainly could make all human being into one nation with one belief.  But God knows that diversity within the society is healthy.  Nevertheless, in our discussion and prayer our ultimate goal should be to seek the guidance of God and the true message of God.

I am not a Muslim  "evangelist"!  My aim is tell my close fellow Americans what is the true teaching of Islam and hopefully increase the comfort of life in this nation through better communication between all people. Obviously, for some reasons, Islam is particularly misrepresented and completely misunderstood in this society even if this is the country (and probably the only one in our time) where the core of the Qur’anic teaching of how to deal with human affairs (justice, democracy, freedom of religion, human dignity…) is clearly presented in the constitution and practiced.

Anyway, thank you for praying for me.  May the one God (the creator of the universe) guide us all to the right path of worshipping him alone.  May he forgive our sins and judge us with his mercy.

Ahmed.

6/22/02 From Jim:

Dear Ahmed-

Thank you again for your writing, clarifications, and thoughtful questions.   It is a pleasure to have this important discussion with you.  As you know, I had intended to compile the e-mails we have shared into a final collection that can be shared with others who might be interested in our discussion of the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam.  After carefully reading through your most recent comments and questions, I feel that it is important to respond to a few of your interesting points, so there is a better understanding.  Then I believe this set of correspondence will be ready to be shared.

First of all, I agree that a theological discussion must be based on trustworthy documentation.  Christians believe that God has communicated the essential message of his love through the pages we now have as the Old and New Testaments.  These are certainly very old documents, among the oldest written stories on earth.  As I have shared with you in the book Surprised by Faith, there is very good evidence for the reliability of the Bible as a historical document.  The author shows how our oldest biblical manuscripts are far closer to the original texts than for any other ancient documents, and that far more early manuscripts of the Bible exist than for any other ancient texts (even those secular texts that we study and treat as essentially unaltered originals).  Thus, for a critical scientist, it is not necessary to dismiss the biblical accounts as degraded or contaminated.  Where earlier biblical manuscripts have been discovered, they support the view that the documents have remained essentially intact.  When historical evidence has seemed at odds with biblical records, further archeology typically suggests the biblical account was correct.  Thus, I believe that a critical scientist can read the Bible and ask what it's teaching implies for life today without dismissing sections that are not immediately clear.

Your research has led you to question the balance of New Testament teaching attributed to Paul vs. Jesus.  These are insightful points, and worth discussing briefly.  I appreciate your urging that I turn to the Bible for clarification of these points.  I assure you, I have studied these issues to some extent, though I'm sure I have much to learn.  Several points should be discussed.  First, there is good evidence that the letters of Paul and other writers were actually composed before the gospel accounts were written.  Therefore, regardless how one might feel about the teachings of Jesus vs. Paul, it seems likely that Paul's letters were written, circulated, and collected before the gospel accounts were written (probably to provide documented records of Christ's life, for teaching purposes).  All of these documents were written after Jesus' death and resurrection, but probably while most of the eye-witnesses (friendly and otherwise!) were alive.  That is certainly true for Paul's letters.  This makes it difficult to imagine that fables and alterations could have been inserted unchallenged. 

I believe that the New Testament stands as a single document that God has assembled and preserved to communicate his love to us, and to explain how we can find a relationship with him.  I made an informed decision to come to this conclusion, though it cannot be proven.  It is clear that other contemporary religious documents existed, and that these have not been included in the Bible.  The version we have was assembled by groups of people.  I believe that God assisted them in selecting the essential elements.  I believe that what we have is accurate and sufficient for teaching us what God wants us to know about him.  This I cannot prove, but I chose to believe.  Again, where it can be tested objectively, the Bible is at least as trustworthy as other ancient documents–evidence suggests much more. 

I also believe that you are right to point out that Jesus and Paul emphasize different things in their recorded teaching about God.  I have always recognized this, and often wish that Jesus' teachings would have been more clear (!)  In fact, my grandmother couldn't stand Paul's teachings and attitudes, especially his comments about women, so she ignored a lot of what he said.  I don't think it is so simple.  To me and the Christians I know, the Bible is seen as an integrated document and we do not pick and choose which writers we like and do not like, or build a theology on what seems convenient, or even assume that the teachings of Jesus are more God's revelation than the teachings of Paul.  The entire protestant reformation was based on the view that an analysis of the Bible, comparing all the texts in light of each other, would bring us the best understanding of God's message to us.

I believe that Paul's story of his encounter with God (Acts 9) describes a genuine, life-changing exposure to the one true God, and that Paul's subsequent life of teaching that God's love extends beyond the Jews was God's message, not Paul's.  Therefore, I believe that the theology clarified by Paul is precisely as important as the sayings attributed to Jesus.  To me, there is no reason to value one above the other, as the same God inspired them both.  Since God cannot contradict himself, any apparent contradictions between Jesus and Paul (and you perhaps see more than I do) must be misunderstandings on our part.

I think it is extremely important to clarify to you why I believe that Jesus came to earth not so much to be a teacher or prophet, but to accomplish a mission of sacrifice for us.  We have discussed this theme often in these e-mails.  In your last e-mail, you again raise concern that the concept of Christ as sacrifice for the sins of humanity was Paul's idea, not Jesus'.  I think many people have the concern you shared.  In my studies, I have come to a different conclusion that I would like to outline below.

Did Jesus understand that his primary mission on earth was to die as a sacrifice for us?  Although you mention that you feel this is not supported in the gospels, this is incorrect.  We find good evidence that Jesus fully understood and embraced this terrible mission.  Here are just three examples (there are many more).  In John 3:14, Jesus says:

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert (a reference to Numbers 21), so the Son of Man (Jesus) must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

One of several more clear examples of Jesus teaching in advance about his death and resurrection comes in Matthew 8:

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus asked: "But what about you?  Who do you say I am?  Peter answered, "you are the Christ"...Jesus then began to teach them that the Son of Man (Jesus) must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.  He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.  But when Peter turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter…

In Luke 22, Jesus eats a last supper with his disciples, the night before his death.  As he held up the bread and wine, he said:

"This is my body given for you…this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

Also, contrary to your comments that Jesus tried to escape his fate of death on the cross, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus fled from the crowd who came to arrest him before his torture and death (there were probably no Roman soldiers involved until the early hours of the next day, and he didn't try to flee from them either).  He willingly allowed his arrest (this is why I call it a kind of suicide).  Thus, it is not true that Jesus sought in any way to avoid his capture.  Importantly, we do learn that Jesus struggled inwardly with his role as sacrifice.  I interpret this struggle as evidence that Jesus perfectly shared humanity and divinity, and that his sacrifice would involve both pain, and a formal (if brief) separation from one-ness with God.   Prior to the confrontation, Jesus, aware of his impending torture and death, confronted his human frailty, showing us that he was both God and man.  His prayer was recorded in Luke 22:42:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

As the few examples above show, Jesus knew that it was his primary mission to die for us, to create a "new covenant".  In fact, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection "on the third day" nine times in the gospels (Matthew 16:21. 17:23. 20:19, 27:64, Luke 9:22, 13:32. 18:33. 24:7, 24:46).

Actually, I think the most important linkage between Jesus and sacrifice comes very early in his public life, when Jesus comes to his cousin, John the Baptist, to be baptized in the Jordan River.  When he approaches, John the Baptist makes the following remarkable declaration in Jesus' presence (John 1:29):

"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! "

What did John mean by this very interesting statement?  The answer is extremely important and deals directly with another of your stated concerns–namely that the concept of Christ as sacrifice for the world was introduced by Paul, not by Jesus.  Even if it were true that Paul first presents this concept (which is not true, as we saw above, and will see below),  I do not treat the revelation of God to Paul of less merit than that of Jesus to his disciples.  This is also a discussion of critical importance to your concerns that the sacrifice of one person can be a legitimate payment for the debts of another.  You wrote regarding the concept of transfer of punishment from the guilty to an innocent:

That type of justice is not even acceptable here in America. If you commit a crime, and your son offers to go to jail instead of you, would the judge accept that? Would a judge have agreed to let Timothy McVeigh’s mother take his place on the execution table? God would clearly not accept that either! Why would he accept to put an “innocent lamb” on the cross for everyone’s sins?

You further suggest that the notion of sacrifice was a construct of Paul to accommodate pagan worship where even human sacrifice played a part.  You wrote:

This is the logic that Paul introduced in an attempt to reconcile the true teachings of Jesus with all the pagan worship and sacrifice rituals that were common at that time: Virgin sacrifice, drinking of blood, eating of flesh, etc…

I am afraid that I must point out a very important and different origin of the concept of the sacrifice of an innocent on behalf of the guilty.  It has nothing to do with pagan rituals of Roman times.  It has nothing to do with Paul's creative imagination.  The origin of sacrifice for sin was God's own invention, and forms a core basis for the relationship between the Jews and God in the First Covenant that God gave to Moses in the Old Testament.  For some reason, God made it abundantly clear that he demanded the sacrifice of innocent animals (by the thousands each year), as symbolic payment for the sins of the Jews.  From Genesis 22 (where God tests Abraham by his willingness to sacrifice his own innocent son ), to the story of the Passover (where God commands the blood of innocent lambs be applied to the door posts of the Jews to redeem their firstborn children as God destroys those of the Egyptians) there is an introduction of this idea.  It is the concept of the protecting sacrificed Passover lamb that John the Baptist is echoing when he calls Jesus the "Lamb of God", i.e. the sacrifice God will make for us.

But these are not the only examples.  The Old Covenant with the Jews is based on the idea that the people will never be able to live up to God's commandments, and will always face the same sin problem that we face today.  Even when they were told to offer full recompense (justice) to those offended by their sin, God still demanded that the blood of an animal be offered as payment (atonement) for the imperfection of the Jews.  There are many examples.  Perhaps the best are laid out in Leviticus chapters 4-7 (please take a look).  Another powerful example is the concept of the innocent "scapegoat", sent out to die in the desert bearing the sins of the people: an innocent paying with his life for the sins of the guilty.

Thus, perhaps the example of the American justice system is not a perfect model for the concept that ultimate justice requires payment, not arbitrary forgiveness.  This real model comes from God himself, in the Old Testament.  The concept of substitution of innocent blood to pay for the sin of a guilty person is thus not my idea (or Paul's)–it is God's idea.  I admit that it is a strange idea, but God clearly instructed the Jews that this was the crucial basis for their continued relationship with him.  This bizarre requirement to kill animals so that their innocent blood might be received by God as atonement was given for a reason.  Why would this principle be so fundamental to God?  The Christian sees all of the animal sacrifice demanded by God in the Old Testament as a picture to the Jews of their fundamental problem (and yours and mine too).  We don't measure up, and even if we try to pay back our debts to our fellow man, our sin makes us impure in God's eyes.  God demanded regular animal sacrifice to show that payment for sin was an ongoing and permanent problem– a constant need for cleansing of people who were constantly sinning. 

To the Christian, this same God provided this picture to the Jews to foreshadow the permanent solution he would eventually offer– a perfect sacrifice that would pay, once for all time, the debt of sin.  Without such a new covenant and perfect sacrifice, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament would remain a requirement of relationship to God (for that matter, it's not clear to me why the demand for such sacrifices is now ignored by the Jews, and other "people of the Book").

The concept that the blood of an innocent is seen by God as just payment for the sins of the guilty is therefore his own idea, plainly taught to the Jews throughout the first books of the Old Testament.  It is God's idea, not Paul's.  It is all the more remarkable that Jesus gave his life during the Jewish Passover feast, the time of remembering how the blood of innocent lambs saved the people from God's anger. 

One other thing.  You expressed your concern that the concept of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of the world was offensive to Peter and others among the original disciples.  You wrote:

If Jesus’ mission was really to die for us, wouldn’t he have at least said that sometime in his life?…Even Peter, who is considered to be the first pope, disagreed with Paul. 

This is a mistaken view.  The book of Galations tells us that the original disciples (including James and Peter) proposed that the many new non-Jewish converts to Christianity first take on a Jewish lifestyle, and Paul successfully argued against this practice.  In fact, Peter himself (one of the original disciples who knew Jesus best) makes some of the most eloquent references to Jesus as God's innocent sacrifice for the sins of humanity.  Some examples come from Peter's first letter, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 2:24-25, 3.18, which I quote here:

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect…He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed…For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

Likewise, the John the disciple writes in 1John 2:2, speaking of Jesus:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

and later in 1John 4:10, John writes:

This is love:  not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

To summarize, I have tried to clarify that 1) I believe God is equally revealed through the teachings of Jesus and Paul (and the other contributors to the Bible), 2) that Jesus fully taught to his disciples his mission to die as a sacrifice, 3) that Jesus never tried to avoid his arrest or death, but peacefully allowed these to proceed, consistent with his primary mission, 4)  that Jesus claimed to be God on earth and predicted his death and resurrection, and 5) that Jesus as perfect sacrifice for human sin fulfills the picture of innocent blood paying for the sins of the guilty–a concept of atonement central to all of the Old Testament, where it was made clear that humans can never face God counting on their own merit.  Besides Christ's own words, this view was presented in the writings of Jesus' closest friends, Peter and John, and by Paul.

As we conclude this correspondence, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these most interesting and important subjects.  I agree with you that, as scientists, the basis for theological discussion must rely objectively on the documents we believe to convey revealed truth.  It would seem to me that questions for our own future personal study must include the issues of 1) the historical integrity of the Bible and Qur’an, and 2) the significance of the animal sacrifice demanded by God as atonement for sin in his relationship with his people, the Jews.

Respectfully, as always

Jim