Click here to view La Crosse Area Weather
Home > Faith > Story
 Advertisement 

SECTION SPONSORS

Published - Saturday, July 07, 2007

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (169 comment(s))

How do books inform your spiritual path?
By JOE ORSO | La Crosse Tribune

.
Religion happens everywhere.

It happens in churches, it happens on rivers, it happens in China, in Cameroon, in prayer, schools, music and prisons.
During the past week, I’ve chatted with folks around town about how books inform whatever spiritual paths they are on. Some of their answers are on this Faith page.

For me, spiritual books are always gifts. I can trace back most of the meaningful books on my shelves back to a person.

A monk gave me “The Way of a Pilgrim,” a classic of Russian Orthodox spirituality about a man learning the Jesus Prayer.

A mentor gave me “The Song of the Bird,” a collection of religious stories from around the world by the Rev. Anthony De Mello, a Jesuit priest.

A friend gave me “The Gift,” a book of translated poems by Hafiz, a Sufi mystic, with titles that include “Stop Calling Me a Pregnant Woman,” “Between Your Eye and This Page,” “I Vote for You for God” and “The Mule Got Drunk and Lost in Heaven.”

My father introduced me to my favorite spiritual author, Garret Keizer, an Episcopalian whose books “A Dresser of Sycamore Trees: The Finding of a Ministry” and “Help: The Original Human Dilemma” define for me just what a spiritual path is.

Such connections to people, as the Rev. Rob Devens talked about in his interview, are part of the value of books.

You can’t read alone. Books, like religion, form community, either between people who share books, between an author and a reader, or between two people reading the same book who will never meet, never know they’re reading the same book, but are nonetheless inspired through the same words.

For me, such community through reading starts where everything else started: at home, in childhood.

I remember lying in bed with my two older brothers while my dad read us “Black Elk Speaks.”

I wonder what I dreamed the nights he read us pages from that book about battles and visions and a heyoka ceremony, where the truth comes with two faces — one weeping, one laughing.

Like much of life, I had little say in the matter. I was being shaped by things beyond me — my dad and the words of a book.

Joe Orso can be reached at (608) 791-8429 or jorso@lacrossetribune.com.

Rev. Rob Devens, 55, associate pastor, First Evangelical Free Church, Onalaska, Wis.

The Rev. Rob Devens recommends Kathleen Norris’ “The Cloister Walk” to a lot of people.

He’s read several of Norris’ books, including “Amazing Grace,” and is currently reading her book, “Dakota: A Spiritual Geography.”

“Faith is also an intellectual activity so in reading we think and re-examine and it expands our ability to think about things,” Devens said. “It widens our world.”

Devens described “Dakota” as a series of stories about Norris’ return to the Dakotas and how she relates that to faith and her growing up.

In it, she writes about reading as a way of having community.

“Even though reading is solitary,” Devens said, “still, by reading different authors, it kind of provides you a sense of community with people you wouldn’t necessarily have a connection with.”

Rabbi Saul Prombaum, 52, Congregation Sons of Abraham

A book is spiritual if it changes your perception of the reality around you, says Rabbi Saul Prombaum.

“If you start with that question — that the world is worth

living in, it’s a good world, I’m here, what am I supposed to be doing? — you can practically open any book and if you open that book, secular or religious, you’ll be staring into a mirror held up to you that tells you something about you,” Prombaum said.

Prombaum is reading “Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present,” by Michael Oren and is proofreading a book about Jesus as a proto-rabbi as portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew, due for publication at the end of the summer.

Prombaum’s No. 1 book, he said, is always the Bible, and he quoted a Jewish teacher to describe what reading it is about: “When I pray I talk to God. When I study God talks to me.”

JoAnn Skinner, 28, student at Western Technical College

The first book JoAnn Skinner read about Islam was the “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam.”

Raised a Catholic, she converted to Islam four years ago and still goes back to the book.

But it was another book she gave to her mother: “Daughters of Another Path: Experiences of American Women Choosing Islam.”

The book, which tells how families have reacted to women converting, helped JoAnn’s mother, Paulette Skinner, understand the decision.

“I was really glad to get it because you don’t know where to find anything like that or how to find people that are in the same situation,” said Paulette, who is in a Catholic book-reading group.

“So when you have questions and you don’t know how to answer them, that book really helped me and I’m glad she sent it to me.”

The book helped JoAnn, too.

“You have to know about how people see you,” she said, “not just how you think you’re being seen.”

Blake Auler-Murphy, 23, Pearl Street Books

Blake Auler-Murphy grew up around books.

His dad has been in the book business most of Blake’s life, and has owned Pearl Street Books for seven years. Auler-Murphy, who has worked at the store for two years, goes to the transcendental writers for spirituality.

He continually returns to stories in Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden” and a collection of essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Such writing, he said, helps in “the quest to be oneself, not necessarily to find oneself or ultimately understand oneself but to continue being and persevere through some of the harder things in life.”

The Rev. Linda Grounds, pastor, United Methodist Churches of La Crescent and Dakota, Minn.

The Rev. Linda Grounds always has one book going for her spiritual life.

Currently, that book is “Intercessory Prayer” by Dutch Sheets, which she first read seven years ago.

She said it’s not only inspirational, but gives the Biblical

theology behind why people pray, why God wants people to pray and how praying releases God’s power.

“Reading gives you the opportunity to pause and think about what’s being said,” Grounds said, “whereas sometimes when you’re listening to a sermon, you catch little bits here and there, but unless you take notes and go back to it, you may not get to think about each point like you do in a book.”

TOP 6 LOCAL BOOKS

Of the top 50 religion and spirituality books sold over the past 13 weeks at the Barnes & Noble in La Crosse, 26 titles were classified as religious fiction, 10 as Christian living, and four as religious inspiration. Here are the top six:

  • “90 Minutes in Heaven” by Don Piper

  • “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI

  • “The Five Love Languages” by Gary Chapman

  • “Grace (Eventually)” by Anne Lamott

  • “Rediscovering God in America” by Newt Gingrich

  • “Redeeming Love” by Francine Rivers
    .



    		•
     Advertisement 
     Tell us what you think...

     Comments »

    To Bugs from R.D. part 3 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:05 PM:

    " I don't know if Bill Clinton or George Bush or anyone has accepted Jesus as his savior. Only God truely knows what is in a man's heart. God does say that when we accept Jesus as our savior we need to do Jesus's work on the earth to 'show' Jesus. If a person says "I'm a Christian" but does no works for Christ, it's a pretty good indication that no internal change has taken place. Does that mean that once a person accepts Jesus as their savior that they become perfect and do no wrong? Of course not. All in all, no one 'get's their ticket punched' by just saying "I'm saved." "

    to Bugs from R.D. part 2 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:58 PM:

    " I don't know that there is one particular age that God checks off for people to be able to understand what sin and salvation are. Take Down syndrome people, I personally don't think that most of them ever reach an age where they truely comprehend what sin and salvation are. I have met some pretty bright young kids (5-10) who seemed to have a good understanding. With my own children, I didn't see a real understanding until around 13 years of age. The thing is that I think that understanding isn't limited to a specific age. The other thing is that in your case, I'm sure that you understand that you are a sinner and that your sin will have to be paid for. You can not do enough 'good work' to pay for your sin debt. Only Jesus's work on the cross can do that. "

    To Bugs from R.D. wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

    " No, I'm not doubting God. Just because I don't understand all of His reasons for doing things, doesn't mean that I doubt that He is absolute and just. The fish in my fish tank don't understand everything that I do, but I do everything I can to provide for them. Now, I notice that you have categorized murder as a 'high' sin. The Bible doesn't categorize sins. ALL sins are punishable by death. Jesus said that someone who calls their brother a fool is guilty of murder. I'm pretty sure Mother Teressa never physically assinated anyone, but I'll bet she called people a fool in her heart. Even she would be guilty of murder. The point is not whether or not we have committed sins, it is whether or not we have accepted Jesus's sacrifice for the punishment of sins. "

    Michael Welch: The God Of Job "Reigns"... wrote on Jul 26, 2007 12:01 PM:

    " I realize I've been 'intervening' in an exchange between 'Bugs' and 'R. D.' but it's a public blog so I'll continue. I notice that the rationalization about 'horrible sins' has been modified to maybe the Israelites did some slaughtering on their own dime and anyway Yahweh's 'reasons' are indeed His own -- again this is the usual 'Job' explanation, that God is too big for you and while you can question Him, He doesn't have to answer! And yes as Bugs has reminded, God is now silent; He's said all He's going to say; He no longer chats with prophets or picnicks or walks the earth. Even the holocaust -- the destruction of the European Jews who'd remained so faithful for millennia -- didn't get Him out of retirement. One thing: He's a God to be wary of... "

    Bugs to RD-part 3 wrote on Jul 26, 2007 11:40 AM:

    " Ok, I guess, with your reasoning, it was all right to slaughter them in Old Testament days, but not after that. Bill Clinton is certainly going to hell, then, for slaughtering upwards of a half million Iraqi children through his sanctions program. Ooops, darn me, I forgot. Bill's a Christian who believes in Jesus. He's got his heavenly ticket punched, no matter what he did as president. "

    Bugs to RD-part two wrote on Jul 26, 2007 11:35 AM:

    " I see that you're beginning to have doubts about the god of the Old Testament. Good. But let me entertain your preposterous notion for a moment. Just what is the cut-off age for a child to go directly to heaven upon death. And, more importantly, what do you base that on? "

    Bugs to RD-part 1 wrote on Jul 26, 2007 11:30 AM:

    " I think it a fair assumption that there were a number of infants that were slaughtered as the result of god's orders to the Israelites. My moral reasoning tells me that any god who urges the slaughter of infants, little boys and girls and women is not worthy of worship. "

    To Bugs from R.D. part 3 wrote on Jul 26, 2007 9:51 AM:

    " As a side note, it is important to understand that many things that God told the Children of Israel in the O.T. were time specific for them specificly. There is NO carry-over, for example, where Christians today would be given an OK to specifically kill children. God does not give personal directives that violate the Word of God. "

    to Bugs from R.D part 2 wrote on Jul 26, 2007 9:43 AM:

    " One other thing to think about when talking about executing kids as per God's command. Have you ever seen kids messed up by abuse at an early age or heard people comment about kids that have been horribly abused at an early age? The common comment is along the lines of "The poor kid. He/she is going to need alot of help. Probably going to be an abuser themselves." Most Christians (I know this example excludes Catholics) believe a child has to reach an certain age before they will be held accountable for their actions. If a 3 year old child dies, they go directly to heaven because their mind is not mature enough to understand what sin is and what salvation is. Therefore, young children killed in under God's command were probably ushered right up to heaven. "

    To Bugs from R.D. wrote on Jul 26, 2007 9:33 AM:

    " Yes, I understand your stance against the death penalty, you want to protect the innocent. You are also right that mankind gets it wrong sometimes and punishes the innocent. God always gets it right though, and his command to kill all of the people just. Does that take a degree of faith? Absolutely. Did Israel always follow God's commands? Nope, they decided, like you, that God's command wasn't right for some reason. Like you though, I too have a hard time seeing children of a sinful people guilty, but I don't have the perspective of God. "

    Bugs to RD wrote on Jul 25, 2007 1:45 PM:

    " Just finished the second part of Hitchens v Wilson debate. Wilson states that Christianity provides a fixed standard, which atheism can't provide. Further, Christianity provides forgiveness of sins, which atheism can't provide. My response: A Muslim or a Jew can use the same claim of providing a fixed standard, so there's nothing unique about Christianity in that regard. Although not an atheist myself, I think atheists also have fixed standards--it's their consciences. As to "forgiveness", an atheist, when he or she has harmed someone, can just apologize to that person and ask their forgiveness. Not necessary for god to get involved. "

    Bugs to RD wrote on Jul 25, 2007 12:13 PM:

    " Oh, for cryin' out loud, RD, we're talking "children" here. Children. You know little boys and girls. And women, also. Certainly, in those days, women had no power, no impact on decision making yet god ordered them to be slaughtered as well. As to the death penalty, I'm against it. Lock em up for life and don't let em out. Better that approach than executing an innocent man, which has sometimes happened "

    Michael Welch: More "Godspell"... wrote on Jul 25, 2007 12:13 PM:

    " I don't believe the gospels were redacted or glossed in major ways by the 5th century church -- even Bugs admits there's no proof of it. Most scholars however think the gospels were NOT authored by Jesus' contemporaries but that the names given them follow the practice of assigning an 'authority' especially revered by the particular faith community. Obviously there would have been 'sources,' mainly from an oral tradition perhaps reflected in some of the gnostic accounts but refined into more sophisticated 'products' with reference to the theology of Paul and his followers. Paul as it seems had NO real knowledge of Jesus' life; he focused exclusively on his death and its meaning so Paul had no 'gospels' in the 30s, 40s to his own death circa 65 CE... "

    Michael Welch: Vengeance Is MINE Saith Your God!... wrote on Jul 25, 2007 12:01 PM:

    " Slaughtering one's enemies -- men, women, children, cattle, cats et. al. -- has always occurred throughout human history and the behavior crosses ALL religious lines; in that sense the biblical account of an ambitious tribal folk conquering 'the land of Canaan' by obliterating rivals is hardly startling, and naturally the god of those folks approves and sanctions. It has nothing to do with 'sin' -- the writer below has no idea if or what or how these 'sins' (greater than Hitler's? Stalin's?) happened; he just makes their supposed existence his rationale. NO religion has made an especially better world; two millennia of Christianity still resulted in the most violent century ever -- the blood-soaked 20th... "

    To Bugs from R.D. wrote on Jul 25, 2007 10:57 AM:

    " About God commanding Israel to kill all of the inhabitants, men, women, and children: Isn't it possible that all of the inhabitants could have been living in such a state of sin that they were physically contaminated? Say like AIDS or the Plague or something? Even if they weren't, the Bible (Old and New Testament) shows that the punishment for sin is death. Those inhabitants were willfully living in a horrible state of sin and God knew that the only just punishment for them was death. Now, maybe you don't believe in the death penalty, but even us humans execute the most vile offenders of the law as punishment and as an example to others. If it is logical to us, then why wouldn't it be logical for God? "

    Bugs to 9:35 am wrote on Jul 25, 2007 10:43 AM:

    " I believe the gospels were written by honest men, but then the Church stepped in and edited them in a fashion that empowered the Church..so they are not to be wholly trusted. For example, I think the Church, not Jesus, came up with the devil/hell threat to frighten people into believing in the Church. That's just speculation, of course, but I think it very plausible. "

    To:Michael Welch 1:42pm wrote on Jul 25, 2007 9:35 AM:

    " Sorry, I just don't buy that. The Gospel writers allege certain, actual events that took place in Jesus' life and by Jesus himself. "Less strict scholarship" and "attempting to make a spiritual point" simply would not excuse making outright false statements. One has to decide whether the writers are to be trusted and were being truthful, or whether they were untrustworthy and lying. "

    Bugs to RD wrote on Jul 25, 2007 9:04 AM:

    " I just read the first exchange between Hitchens and Wilson. It's fascinating stuff and I recommend it to all. In reading Wilson's first entry, I thought his claim that the gospel makes the world better through GOOD NEWS to unsupported and rather nonsensical. He further uses the term-"the effeminate judgments of history" Huh? I didn't know judgments of history were sexual in nature. But far more egregious is his use of the term "genocide happens" to respond to Hitchens' condemnation of the god of the Old Testament. Wilson completely ignores the slaughter of women and children (Destroy them utterly, god says)in his response to Hitchens. Now that's one hell of an omission. "

    Bugs to RD wrote on Jul 25, 2007 7:06 AM:

    " I'll take a gander at that debate when I get a little time; thanks. "

    Michael Welch: What I Mean... wrote on Jul 24, 2007 1:42 PM:

    " I'm NOT saying that the authors of the gospels are 'liars'; they are NOT 'lying' but presenting a Jesus within the context of a 'faith community' of the time. Biography and history in antiquity did NOT depend on the kind of strict scholarship we expect today but were to make a societal, moral and/or religious point. The EXACTNESS of the story was not important as long as it revealed the 'truth' about a character or people. I also don't mean that the gospels are DEVOID of biography but that yes it is speculative as to what is 'real' biography and what isn't. Of course the Jesus of Christian concept is 'there' in the gospels but the events related have religious purpose; they are not just a 'life account'... "

    To Bugs from R.D. wrote on Jul 24, 2007 1:33 PM:

    " I posted this on a different board but it relates directly to what you are alluding to...Is Christianity good for the World? There is a debate between Hitchens and Wilson on this site (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html) that answers many of the questions or problems you think Christianity has. The thing is yours and Michael's questions, and "contradictions", and errors have all been looked at and studied for years. There are reasonable answers to them. You seem to think that all Christians just blindly accept the Gospel without study, and that is wrong. "

    Michael Welch: What Is "Truth"? No: What Is The "Norm"?... wrote on Jul 24, 2007 1:22 PM:

    " Also 'philosophically' I don't know what the 'absolutes' would be; i. e. human behavior historically has always been a vast range and 'extremes' of self-sacrifice as well as horrific destruction, torture, slaughter etc. and have always occurred in history. The people of biblical Israel do not appear more 'moral' than others; their scriptures recount their terrible deeds as does the saga of Christianized Europe. In the same times there were those who called for mercy and understanding from both religious and humanitarian views. Most of our morals and mores are based upon the necessity for a stable, orderly society; they are really practical but human behavior has no 'norm' in and of itself; what is normal is determined by culture and society... "

    Bugs to Michael wrote on Jul 24, 2007 12:51 PM:

    " I couldn't disagree more. Although they're not biographies, the gospels do provide information on Jesus. As such, they are NOT works of faith. My problem has always been the obvious errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies containedin the Bible, which obliterates the notion of its divinity. As someone who reads a lot of history, the truth about events can be attained by sifting and winnowing where there is a lot evidence available. There's not much to go on with Jesus. But,I think, one can speculate on what we do have. Keeping in mind that's it just speculation. "

    To:Michael 11:25am wrote on Jul 24, 2007 12:48 PM:

    " I don't understand...what reasons do you allege that these authors had for lying about the biographical aspects of Jesus while trying to convey this spiritual truth? I am just curious, as I have seen no outside sources allege that these authors are untrustworthy.... "

    Bugs to RD wrote on Jul 24, 2007 12:41 PM:

    " Ok, you went to the dictionary. Good for you. But the definition is not really germane to the fact that the fundamental beliefs mentioned are sometimes in conflict with each other. Free will v determinism is probably the most striking example. As to all the good that came after the supposed resurrection, that's just nonsense. History just continued on as bloody as ever. The only difference is that much of the carnage was the direct result of Christians and Muslims acting on their faith. "

    Michael Welch: The Familiar Seems "Truthful"... wrote on Jul 24, 2007 11:25 AM:

    " The gospels are not biographies but works of faith constructed by various nascent Christian communities from about 70 CE to 100. The 'truth' they present is of a spiritual nature; the biographical aspects are not consistent however though the Jesus of the 'synoptics' (Mt, Mk, Luke) is more identifiable from gospel to gospel than is the Jesus in John. Belief in any religion is a matter of culture also; as the Jesus story is so familiar to those of a European background, that familiarity actually 'breeds' a presumption of acceptance. Other religious traditions outside the Euro-American are bound to appear odd and eccentric (not our 'norm') but that doesn't mean they are perceived so within their own cultural contexts... "

    to Bugs from R.D. wrote on Jul 24, 2007 10:45 AM:

    " Part of your last posting struck me as odd. You used the phrase "..it was impossible for adherents of either discipline to PROVE the other wrong." I look up philosophy in the dictionary in it has meanings like: a) a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means b) an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs c) a system of philosophical concepts, etc. In other words philosophy isn't about PROVING one concept over the other by about searching and speculating about concepts. Whatever your (or my) philosophy of life is, it isn't provable, but accepted by you through your speculations and reasonings. What is provable is Jesus existed and that immediately after His death a dramatic change for good began to grow from his place of execution. Jesus's life is something everyone should examine just for that reason. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 24, 2007 8:53 AM:

    " We don't have much data on Jesus outside of the Bible. I'm re-reading "The Passover Plot" and the author is positing that Jesus was deeply political in wanting to liberate Palestine from the Romans. The author points to the Lord's Prayer as evidence of this. He points to the words' thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on EARTH as it is in heaven." In other words, Jesus is saying that he is not just concerned with life after death, but also cared about the suffering of people in this life as the result of Roman oppression. Sounds reasonable to me. "

    Bugs to RD wrote on Jul 24, 2007 8:43 AM:

    " I think you misinterpreted my views on philosophy. I have nothing against courses in philosophy. In fact, the one I had was fairly interesting; the professor was quite charasmatic. He was also a chain-smoker who would light up during class. This was 1967. at any rate, I was introduced to the concepts of free will and determinism and that it was impossible for adherents of either discipline to prove the other wrong. "

    Bugs to 12:36 pm wrote on Jul 24, 2007 8:35 AM:

    " Well you're correct when you say that both can't be right, but they could both be wrong. That's what I believe anyway. "

    R.D. to Bugs wrote on Jul 23, 2007 1:26 PM:

    " You have hit on one thing, both Muslims and Christians can't both be right. There can only be one absolute truth. There can only be one correct way to heaven. Christians emphasize what Jesus said (I am the way, the truth and the life. John 14:6) and point out that Jesus claims to be the only way to heaven. Muslims, I believe, basically say that you can't know for sure unless you are a martyr for Allah. It's up to us to choose the correct way. If we say I choose neither, then that is just another way of saying that God's word (the Bible) is lieing. At least you, Bugs, recognize the ridiculousness of what is taught in most philosophy classes (i.e. there are no absolutes). "

    To:Bugs wrote on Jul 23, 2007 12:36 PM:

    " I don't follow the logic in your 11:55am post. It seems to you both are wrong....why? Because they each allege something different? All that tells me is that BOTH can't be right. "

    Michael Welch: Observation... wrote on Jul 23, 2007 12:06 PM:

    " Something I just posted to the 'world tour' board I think I ought to say here too; namely that the 'contest' between the believers and the skeptics seems to be one in which believers have that opportunity to display their faithfulness contra skeptics' intellectual 'persecution' of them and conversely skeptics can become irritated (at least I admit I do!) when over and over a discussion gets punctuated with these 'declarations of faith' and with their corollary that the skeptics are gonna eventually 'get theirs' for not 'believing.' It just seems egregious and condescending and it trivializes debate. But -- I do see that this indeed may be the only uh 'logical' end-point since obviously neither 'side' will 'convert' the other. (We'll just continue to irritate the hell outta each other I guess!...) "

    Bugs to R.D. wrote on Jul 23, 2007 12:02 PM:

    " Seems that the Christians posting here are pretty much united that hell is not just separation from god, but torment and agony and eternal suffering. So, whatever description one comes up with, those components would feature prominently...at least in their minds. It's the old "believe or else" theology, which Christianity shares with Islam. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 23, 2007 11:55 AM:

    " If the Muslims are right, then all Christians will end up in hell, no matter if they lead good lives or not. If the Christians are right, all Muslims will end up in hell no matter what kind of life they lead. Seems to me that they are both wrong. "

    Michael Welch: Okey Dokey!... wrote on Jul 23, 2007 11:32 AM:

    " The two biblical citations from Exodus and I Samuel are very vague and seem quite unrelated to Judges 11; in fact if you combine them (see especially I Sam 2:22) what is being talked about is 'sacred prostitution' which again reflects a Greek influence. I think what's actually in Judges IS an account of a physical sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter but since that doesn't disturb Mr Protestant at all or pique his curiosity -- aren't the culture and mind-set of the Bible VERY different from our present day perceptions? -- I understand it simply doesn't matter one way or the other to him and everything discussed here is his opportunity to repeatedly declare his faith. Fair enough and okey dokey I read ya! I'll leave it at that then; I don't see that any further discussion would be but more such repetition... "

    Maybe..... wrote on Jul 23, 2007 10:03 AM:

    " the Bible describes Hell in the same way that 3 blind men describe an elephant. If one is at the trunk, one at a leg, and one at the tail. I'm not a theologian, but maybe that's what's going on. Maybe none of the discriptions are the complete answer, but just part of the whole. -R.D. "

    To:Bugs 8:02 am wrote on Jul 23, 2007 9:33 AM:

    " I did not author either of the posts, but I don't see it that way. The poster is merely clarifying that eternal separation from God(absence of good) would BY DEFINITION include these things. Look at it this way-it would be "good" to not be in agony. Ergo,"complete absence of good=agony", etc. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 23, 2007 8:02 AM:

    " Well, the 11:45 am post says one thing and the 4:12 pm post elaborates on it. If these are authored by the same person, that person is adding quite a bit to his original statement regarding hell. "

    to michael from the protestant again wrote on Jul 21, 2007 5:23 PM:

    " to answer your other questions, yes i believe that the Bible is to be primarily understood as literal and not metaphoric. of course there are metaphors in the Bible but i'm talking about Adam and Eve, Jonah and the Whale, Job, etc. are true or actual stories. also, while you did not call me a nazi directly, you clearly insinuated that my action resembled those who just went along with the nazi line. but that's ok, i'm not bothered by that or if you mock me or laugh at me. your views have no impact on how God will judge me. if i stay true to His Word, i have no fears. if i try to follow your words, then i would have fears. "

    to michael from the protestant wrote on Jul 21, 2007 5:11 PM:

    " you can find the answers to your delemma in the post i gave you. here's an example: "Commentator Adam Clarke agreed that according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, the best translation is I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering. As he wrote, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." i offer up my works for God as a burnt offering, but that doesn't mean i actually burn anything. but i understand, you want to have something to lash your 'safety line' to, and that's it. to relenquish that would cause a domino effect that you don't want to face. ultimately God will judge your actions not me. "

    Michael Welch: Donald And Dante In Hell... wrote on Jul 21, 2007 12:05 PM:

    " It's in the gospels that hell takes the shape of 'Gehenna,' akin to that smoldering fiery Jerusalem garbage dump; also in the story of Lazarus the beggar (NOT the resuscitated Lazarus in John) a 'chasm' is said to exist between heaven ('the bosom of Abraham') and hell (where 'Donald Trump' the rich man can't find a drop a water to cool his tongue). This image may have its origins in the Babylonian exile and the influence of Zoroasterian dualism and also in its perception of 'fire from heaven.' But culturally our most vivid concept of hell was created by the medieval Italian writer Dante and we 'know' much more about it from his imagination than from the Bible... "

    Michael Welch: Parallels Of Greek And Jew... wrote on Jul 21, 2007 11:48 AM:

    " The argument over the literalness of biblical 'geography' and its reality or not -- heaven and hell -- is indeed an argument about the nebulous. In the Tanakh there is no 'hell' per se and the dead (see the episode re: the witch of Endor and 'raising' of ghosts) went to 'Shoal' which strongly resembled the underworld of the Greeks, Hades. Death in other words was descent into a shadowy diminished existence; its main 'torment' was eternal boredom. But this was the fate of ALL except a few chosen like Enoch and Elijah who interestingly did not really 'die' but were 'taken up' by God Himself. (You may know that at passover the tradition is for each family to set a place, a chair, for Elijah whose return would signify the immediate coming of the messiah...) "

    Michael Welch: Do You Read The Bible?... wrote on Jul 21, 2007 11:34 AM:

    " Read Judges 11: it's the story of Jephthah and in it he vows to offer up as 'A BURNT OFFERING' to God the first thing he sees coming out his door when he returns from successful battle, success being granted by that 'man of war,' Yahweh. It's his daughter that comes dancing out to greet him. In both the Jewish Tanakh AND the KJV the translation is 'BURNT OFFERING'; so tell me, what do those words mean? Do you believe in the Bible as a LITERAL account without error? Or do you think SOME stories are not actual 'history' (Noah and the ark say) but metaphoric? And YOU KNOW I DID NOT CALL YOU A 'NAZI' -- I only made a metaphoric analogy. It's true that I find your slipperiness frustrating yes and if you really want me to 'laugh' at you, you can just keep sliding away... "

    to michael from the protestant wrote on Jul 20, 2007 9:09 PM:

    " i knew you would reject this answer but it is the majority view. jephthah's daughter would have been a 'tabernacle' servant. here is one website that explains the situation. {http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/comm_read.pl?book=Jdg&chapter=11&verse=30&Comm=Comm%2Fdavid_guzik%2Fsg%2FJdg_11.html%230%26*David+Guzik%26&Select.x=20&Select.y=9} here is a quote from that site: "We know that there were women who were set apart for the tabernacle service; they were called the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting (Exodus 38:8; 1 Samuel 2:22)." on the topic of raising hitler or being a nazi, dave barry recognizes that it is a sign of a person who has no real argument, but only anger. "

    Michael Welch: Nope Nope: Doesn't Work... wrote on Jul 20, 2007 4:43 PM:

    " Oh no it's quite clear what the Jephthah story is all about; Chaim Potok, a Jewish novelist, historian and Talmudic scholar, writes specifically of the horror of the story in his history of the Jews, 'Wanderings.' And by the way in the time of Judges there was NO TEMPLE and therefore no uh 'vestal virgins' whatever. I thought you READ the Bible? The first temple's built by Solomon which is some time later, right? You'll need to conjure yet another rationalization. So what DID Dave Barry say? Hitler's too funny? And if I'd 'laughed' or 'mocked' you, wouldn't you respond in the same manner, but then charging me with 'whistling past the graveyard'? SHOULDN'T I take you seriously? Maybe I take you more seriously than you take yourself. The Bible's a hard book; and I take that seriously too... "

    To:1:37pm wrote on Jul 20, 2007 4:12 PM:

    " Except with no God(in essence the absence of Good), you simply don't have the luxury of saying "Well, I don't think the torture or gnashing of teeth appeals to me..." It just doesn't work that way. To put it in simple terms, God and Satan sort of "balance each other out" here on earth. Heaven is the absence of evil and Satan, and Hell is the absence of God and Good. So, God would have nothing to do with Hell and would not be there to intervene on your behalf. So, if you choose eternal separation from God as your eternal destination, you take all that goes with it. That is your choice to make-and you need to take ownership of that-not blame God or Jesus for your decisions. "

    Bugs to 11:45 am wrote on Jul 20, 2007 1:37 PM:

    " One more time. If hell is separation from the god of the Old Testament, and that's all there is to it (no torture, gnashing of teeth etc.), then I'd prefer it to any heavenly abode where the god of the Old Testament was in charge. Yeah, I don't want anything to do with that dude. In fact, the gnostic Christians consider the god of the Old Testament to be Satan, and, indeed, he does appear to have many satanic qualities. "

    To:Bugs 8:05am wrote on Jul 20, 2007 11:45 AM:

    " I see more contradictions in your posts. You state over and over that you want nothing to do with the God of the Bible. You also state that the concept of Hell is idicative of a character flaw on the part of God. Hell is simply eternal separation from the God of the Bible. A place where God is not present. So, really, Hell is God giving people what they claim to want while here on earth-separation from Him. "

    Bugs to 10:28 am wrote on Jul 20, 2007 11:29 AM:

    " Thanks for your input. I appreciate it, though we disagree. I think to continue would be pointless because we'd just be going over old territory. "

    To:Bugs wrote on Jul 20, 2007 10:28 AM:

    " Sorry, I don't come to the same conclusion as you, and I believe your analysis is subjective and flawed. And, the majority agree with me. Is that proof we are right? No. But it certainly makes your conclusions suspect at best. One could(and many have) written books about your concerns(and some were addresed on another board), but in a nutshell Jesus warns us regarding everlasting torture because he doesn't want to see anyone face that fate. So, if people do end up facing that fate, it is on them-not on Jesus who warned them. I do see your concern regarding God's instruction to the Israelites was addressed on the other board. "

    Bugs to 1:53 pm wrote on Jul 20, 2007 8:05 AM:

    " I don't think the conclusions I've reached regarding the god of the Bible and Jesus are subjective. God told the Israelites to kill women and children. Jesus threatens us with everlasting torture if we don't believe. I think it's an objective analysis to believe these are flawed individuals. "

    to michael welch from the protestant again wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:31 PM:

    " i'm not sure what this 'pascal's insurance policy' is but i know beyond any doubt that God is real, He is reliable, and His Word the Bible is the truth. i know that showing you the danger involved in ignoring God's Word isn't the main thing that will get you to trust in God's Word, but it was something i wanted to make sure you were aware of. now i can see that you are well read, so i was wondering if you had read what dave barry wrote about bringing up a hitler reference? i do get what you are trying to say about not believing something just because the majority believes it, but do you understand what it means to consistantly reject what the majority believes? "

    to michael welch from the protestant wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:22 PM:

    " you once again have choosen to take a minority view to explain an initially confusing part of the Bible. the majority reading is that Jephthah's lineage was dependant upon his daughters getting married and having children. When he gives them over to the temple for life long service, his earthly lineage is sacrificed. think of it like your only children becoming nuns. the problems that you find in scripture have all been found and studied. they all have reasonable explanations. the fact that you choose to believe the worst possible meaning is not in my control, but in yours. i must ask why your last posting seemed so irate at my analysis of your belief system. if you had complete confidence that the Bible and Christians who believe in it are wrong, then wouldn't you laugh at me instead of being angry at me? "

    To:Bugs wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:53 PM:

    " Well, character flaws are subjective, and you seem to take the word of "reasonable" people when it suits you, but discount the word of "reasonable" people when it doesn't fit into your agenda. An analysis by you(an admittedly imperfect person with character flaws) of the perfect, sinless life of Jesus is bound to result in erroneous conclusions. "

    Bugs to 9:08 am wrote on Jul 19, 2007 12:54 PM:

    " Well, you've conceded an error in your original statement. Thank you. As to your concern, there's a time when its redundant to restate an argument. If you can't see the errors, contradictions, inconsistencies of the Bible, then that's basically the end of the discussion. In the course of many postings to the faith section, I've tried to point out the numerous character flaws of Jesus, flaws that reasonable people would agree on, but to many those indoctrinated in the Christian faith, the thought of such flaws is inconceivable. I believe cognitive dissonance is the term. I run into the same problem when I try to get people to look at the evidence of Bush's complcity in 9/11. "

    Michael Welch: What "Everyone" Believes, YOU Go Along?... wrote on Jul 19, 2007 12:00 PM:

    " Well now we're at Pascal's insurance policy: God possibly doesn't exist BUT IF HE DOES BOY ARE YOU IN TROUBLE! Best to 'believe,' even tepidly -- than risk eternal hellfire etc. Look, Mr Protestant ol' boy, you're discussing here just as Bugs and I are and whenever (you've done it SEVERAL times ALREADY) you're in a quandry you fall back on 'Everybody' (almost!) believes as I do and 'everybody' believes in the Bible blah blah. MOST so-called Christians have only an occasional dusting relationship with their bibles and would be SHOCKED! yes TRULY shocked! to read say the story in Judges of how Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to Yahweh like Agamemnon did Iphigenia to Apollo. You have NO explanation or argument for these things? So you resort to threat. Okay but SO WHAT? If 'everyone' is for Hitler why not you too?????... "

    To: Bugs 7:06am post wrote on Jul 19, 2007 9:08 AM:

    " Well, you are the one that said "go read your Bible", as if to say that would prove your point. Then, you go on to say you don't believe in the Bible. Huh? That sounds like a "contradiction" to me. And, I do apologize, but I do not have chapter and verse for you. Honestly, there probably isn't a specific chapter and verse which state that specific phrase. But, the Bible as a whole is pretty clear that Jesus led a sinless life so He could be a perfect sacrifice for our sins. This is no big secret, as Christians and non-Christians are well aware that this is what the Christian faith is based on. "

    Bugs to 3:48 pm wrote on Jul 19, 2007 7:06 AM:

    " Sure, your statement is logical because the Bible is your authority. My position is just as logical because I don't believe in the Bible. But I am curious. Could you send me the chapter and verse where it says Jesus lead a sinless life? "

    to michael welch from the protestant wrote on Jul 18, 2007 7:44 PM:

    " since the topic of the original article was what books inspire your spiritual path, it would be clear to all that the Bible isn't the book that inspires your spiritual path. it sure looks like you base your spiritual path on you. if the bible is just a collection of fables then you have no worries, but if it is the Word of God, then rejecting it as you do will result in you suffering the punishment for sin. one piece of irony i found in your last statement, you talk as though you have the absolute answers or insight (satan is Gods messenger, God is not reliable) but christians do not have the right answers or insight. why should anyone believe your minority view over what has been the majority view for thousands of years? "

    To:Bugs 12:47pm wrote on Jul 18, 2007 3:48 PM:

    " Well, the Bible says he led a sinless life-so I guess there you have it.... "

    Bus to 8:51 am wrote on Jul 18, 2007 12:47 PM:

    " I've got character flaws; you've got character flaws; Welch has character flaws; and Jesus had character flaws-just read your Bible. "

    Michael Welch: Now For A Quote From -- Bob Dylan!... wrote on Jul 18, 2007 11:46 AM:

    " From Bob Dylan's 'Highway 61': 'God said to Abraham "Kill me a son";/Abe said "Wha'?!"/God said "You can do anything you want Abe but--/When you see Me comin', you better run!"' Dylan interestingly is a Jew and while I may not have the lines from the '60s album exact, you get the idea. In one stanza Dylan has capsulized so to speak the God of the 'Tanakh' quite vividly and accurately I'd say... "

    Michael Welch: "Man Of War"... wrote on Jul 18, 2007 11:38 AM:

    " One is mistaken if one doesn't realize that Satan in the 'Tanakh' (the Jewish compilation of scripture) is God's agent, not His enemy. God is a definite personality in the Bible, arbitrary, jealous, unreliable, vicious as well as generous, rewarding, indulgent -- God is BOTH malevolent AND benevolent but His actions are NOT predictable. Bugs refers to the book of Judges below in which God is 'a man of war' (as opposed to Allah who it seems is currently a 'suicide bomber' as Bloom wryly observes) and there are stories in that scripture absolutely hair-raising in their primitive fury. This is why I continually remind believers that this book they worship is NOT a 'modern' product but a portrayal of a tribal God now writ large. God is NOT reliable: ask the Jews; they've dealt with Him a lot longer... "

    To:Bugs 7:01am wrote on Jul 18, 2007 8:51 AM:

    " Jesus led a perfect, sinless life. Based on your analysis, are you sure YOU aren't the one with the character flaws? "

    Bugs to the protestant wrote on Jul 18, 2007 7:01 AM:

    " Well, according to the Bible, the god of the Old Testament did indeed start over by wiping out most of humanity and a whole bunch of innocent animals who didn't have a ticket for the Ark. That god is someone I don't want to have anything to do with. I do believe in a God, but he/she is simply unknowable. As to Jesus, from my interpretation of the Bible, he's got a whole bunch of character flaws, so I reject him on that basis. "

    to michael welch from the protestant wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:06 PM:

    " i have read job with great interest. one point you missed was that God isn't 'toying' with job, satan is. satan has to ask God to take away jobs worldly comfort, because satan posits to God that job is only faithful because God is good to him. God knew that the source of jobs faith was more then material, and he allows satan to test job. now does that mean i fully understand God? heck NO. the one thing that job shows me is that this worlds goods, friends, and comforts can be gone in an instant, but what God has in store for me is greater then all this world could possible offer. i only pray, that if my 'job time' comes, i will remain faithful and true to God like job. "

    to bugs from the protestant wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:58 PM:

    " with my reasoning, i don't even know why God didn't just start all over when he saw the results of sin in noah's time. personally, i'm glad that God's reasoning isn't my reasoning. God has far more patience, love, and understanding of what is going on then any of us. the Bible gives us some glimpse of God's timing in different parables. one of those deals with harvest time. even farmers wait to harvest until the best time to get the most out of the harvest. i don't know what God's timing is, but it certainly is beyond my understanding. you seem to begin your analysis of God in the negative. i don't know why that is, but it does seem to predetermine how you view God. "

    Michael Welch: Try Reading It As Well As "Trusting"... wrote on Jul 17, 2007 1:03 PM:

    " Another observation: folks like Bugs' critic 'believe' and 'read the Bible' but it strikes me that they hardly reflect upon what they're reading. Hitchens obviously does as do Harold Bloom and 'Bugs' himself -- not that one must agree with all they say but I'm sometimes astounded at the utter passivity of believers -- doesn't for example the book of Job intrigue them? WHY does God toy with Job? Or is what's being said here -- in such an early text -- is that what happens in this world is STILL inexplicable even when one posits a 'God' because if God wills and controls all WHY so much misery for those like Job -- who God Himself says did nothing wrong? This is a really profound bit of Bible here, full of questions; Bugs has 'issues' obviously but at least he reads and thinks as do Bloom and Hitchens... "

    Bugs to Michael wrote on Jul 17, 2007 12:42 PM:

    " You left out the part where God comes down to fight alongside Joshua. "

    Michael Welch: Read The Book Of Job... wrote on Jul 17, 2007 11:58 AM:

    " Also I recommend strongly reading the book of Job as a treatise on God and 'evil.' In this, considered one of the earliest of the sacred canon God bets Satan (who is his traveling spy on earth) that Satan can't cause Job to curse Him (God). You recall that Job bemoans his fate but insists he NEVER did ANYTHING to deserve it though his 'friends' badger him to admit some 'secret' sin. God finally appears (as a 'whirlwind') and basically tells Job that He, God, can do anything He wants and who's Job to second-guess Him? BUT to the 'friends' God admits that Job really did NOTHING WRONG! In other words whatever is God's will might be questioned (God doesn't forbid that actually) BUT THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! God's a 'law' (outside 'The Law'?) unto Himself it seems... "

    Michael Welch: Your "God" Is Indeed A "Book"... wrote on Jul 17, 2007 11:46 AM:

    " What Bugs' critic 'trusts' of course is the Bible which is really his 'God.' God as Harold Bloom observes in his essays 'Jesus and Yahweh' progressively (regressively?) retracts through the scriptures -- i. e. at first He walks in the garden,' picnics and debates with Abraham (in the forms of three angels), wrestles Jacob, attempts to kill Moses (in one of the most bizarre biblical passages!) but by the times of David and Solomon He employs surrogates like Samuel and Nathan to do His talking for Him and by Daniel's odd book He is a silent spector, 'the Ancient of Days.' During the 20th century holocaust of course He appears not at all, apparently indifferent to the destruction of the people to whom He promised so much and then forgot, while they (to their credit?) NEVER forgot Him... "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:38 AM:

    " That 7:35 am entry was from Hitchens, not myself. "

    To:Bugs 7:21am wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:16 AM:

    " My mistake. I was referring to your 10:04am post. It is your philosophy class that contradicts this idea of Epicurus, not Epicurus contradicting himself. At any rate, I choose to trust God over Epicurus. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 17, 2007 7:35 AM:

    " It was left to the Christians to find a hell from which there was no possible appeal. (And the idea is easily plagiarized: I once heard Louis Farrakhan, leader of the heretical black-only "Nation of Islam" as he drew a hideous roar from a mob in Madison Square Garden. Hurling spittle at the Jews, he yelled, "And don't you ever forget-when it's God who puts you in the ovens, it's FOREVER") "

    Bugs to 12:29 am wrote on Jul 17, 2007 7:27 AM:

    " You don't seem "uneducated" to me. But I do have a question. With your reasoning, shouldn't God delay forever putting an end to evil, so that more and more people would accept salvation? "

    Bugs to 2:26 pm wrote on Jul 17, 2007 7:21 AM:

    " Oh, absolutely not. Epicurus is simply stating that because evil exists, God either must be impotent to do anything about it, or malevolent in not putting an end to it if he/she has the ability to do so. There's no contradiction. "

    to bugs from the protestant wrote on Jul 17, 2007 12:29 AM:

    " i am certainly not a deep thinker but i see the 'questions' posted in your 7:41 post as strawman assumptions. you posted "Hitchens quotes the great Epicurus, who has some questions for God: Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? " the Bible spells out that God will end all evil in His time. He delays to allow more people to accept salvation from the punishment for evil. this epicurus person attempts to put God, the infinite and Almighty, into his, finite and limited idea of time and space. even i, as an uneducated person can see the weakness of his arguements, even if i can't adequately describe it. "

    To:Bugs 10:04am post wrote on Jul 16, 2007 2:46 PM:

    " Then Epicurus is contradicting himself when he states God must either be malevolent or impotent.... "

    Michael Welch: "Imagine There's No --"? NOW Okay But Not "Then"... wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:31 PM:

    " Religions exist and as far as we know have ALWAYS existed; obviously so much seems inexplicable (even to a 'scientific' age as ours) that the supernatural is ever attractive. A history without religions -- well if it would be any different than 70 years of communist power we wouldn't ever know! What Hitchens reveals from the quotes offered are those absurdities and ironies; I myself believe that yes human nature is altered by environment -- 'civilization' as we put it -- and its assumed norms which are always set by the elites; religion just responds to those realities and we call 'them/it' 'God' and so we assume all we suffer is both divinely inspired AND will be divinely compensated! We all die says your protestant critic and IF his 'God' exists you'll get yours -- 'good' or 'bad'... "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:26 PM:

    " Our species will never run out of fools but I dare say that there have been at least as many credulous idiots who professed faith in god as there have been dolts and simpletons who concluded otherwise. It might be immodest to suggest that the odds rather favor the intellligence and curiosity of the atheists, but it is the case that some humans have always noticed the improbability of god, the evil done in his name, the liklihood that he is man-made and the availability of less harmful alternative beliefs and explanations.-Christopher Hitchens "

    Bugs to 11:55 am wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:20 PM:

    " I disagree. I think you can pass judgment (whatever that happens to be) on the snippets I've provided from Mr. Hitchens' latest book, "god is not GREAT." He is one the great intellectuals alive today. Two books I've read by him are "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" and "No One Left to Lie To." The former excoriates one of the great evildoers of the Nixon/Ford administrations, and the latter ridicules Bill and Hillary. By the by, if there's a hell and I end up there it's because my God-given reason caused me to reject the Bible and Jesus. "

    Bugs to Michael wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:11 PM:

    " I don't think that's his assumption at all. He's just pointing out the failings of the various religions and how they've caused so much death and suffering. I think his main argument is that these religions are basically unnecessary and that humankind would be a whole lot better off had they never originated. I certainly agree with that, although I am not an atheist and Hitchens is. "

    Michael Welch: East Is East But Not So Different... wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:58 AM:

    " Even Hinduism and its atheistic adjunct Buddhism back the status quo though ostensibly they indicate that power and wealth are 'maya,' illusions of the world but still: folks are born into situations that require their dutiful performance (see the 'Bhagavid Gita' for example) and if you're a prince you should behave like a prince and if an elephant handler etc. You're to realize it's all a 'game of life' and once you've fulfilled your role you can then 'opt out' and go meditate in the woods so to speak. The Buddha simply says Well why wait? Do it now; I'll show you how! but then you have either to learn to live minimally AND/OR on other people's dimes -- like the Dalai Lama does!... "

    to bugs from the protestant wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:55 AM:

    " you seem to be well read in the writings of hitchens. since i really don't know anything about the man, i can not really respond to his ideas. i will say this though, if the bible is a hoax and God really won't judge you by his word (the Bible), then relying on hitchens is no more a benefit or hinderance then any other source. IF, however, God, the Bible, and Christians are correct, you are placing your eternal security in the ideas of just another failed human. that is a tragedy, my friend. if you truely wish to seek God, then read his word and pray for guidance. God will not let you down. "

    Michael Welch: Religions Are ALWAYS "Conservative"... wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:44 AM:

    " And certainly it's true that 'the evil men do' IS their own -- evil is based upon greed and desire for power primarily and this appears a development mainly of the dissolution of hunter-gatherer tribalism and rise of agricultural-based civilizations like Sumer and Egypt which required a vast peasantry for the huge amount of manual labor necessary to build great cities wherein a tiny elite of warrior-nobility and their requisite priests could live more or less without doing any heavy lifting. Religions are always employed to justify the status quo (literalist Christians all repeat Paul's 'Romans' at you ad nauseum) so to be ever on 'the winning side' -- that of power and wealth of course!... "

    Michael Welch: Hitchens' "Nasty" Remarks!... wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:32 AM:

    " Again the assumption of Hitchens (via Bugs) that religions MUST be benevolent in order to be plausible is wrong. Further: one notes that communism-in-power asserted an atheistic rationalism but its leaders acted like every other 'God' unto themselves and destroyed perhaps a quarter BILLION (or more) human beings within roughly a 70-year span -- at least they didn't uh waste time! But Hitchens zeroes of course on the arbitrariness and somewhat ridiculous aspects of religions, e. g. the 'problem' of evil is that God seems quite content that it should exist -- as long as it's He that controls it! Buddhism IS an opting out -- 'tune in! turn on! [and especially:] DROP OUT!' Well look at the world as it is and can you blame folks for wanting 'out' of it?... "

    Bugs to 8:46 am wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:04 AM:

    " You're assuming there's free will as opposed to determinism. My Philosphy 101 class taught that neither adherents of free will or those who thing everything is fixed can prove their case. Interesting to note that Hitchens mentions some Christian sect that believes that the "saved" were already saved even before they were born. That would be a deterministic faith. And Epicuris was one great thinker. "

    A note to Bugs concerning Epicurus wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:46 AM:

    " The "great" Epicurus seems to be forgetting about the free will of man. This led to Adams fall, etc. Certainly God can prevent evil, and he does-in Heaven. But, here on earth because of mans free will, there is indeed evil(sin). To shift the blame from man to God for evil is a cop-out, and not accurate. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:54 AM:

    " Pascal reminds me of the hypocrites and frauds who abound in Talmudic Jewish rationalization. Don't do any work on the Sabbath youself, but pay someone else to do it. You obeyed the letter of the law: who's counting? The Dalai Lama tells us you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays for her. Shia Muslims offer 'temporary marriage' selling men the permission to take a wife for an hour or two with the usual vows and then divorce her when they're done. Half of the splendid buildings in Rome would never have raised if the selling of indulgences had not been so profitable.-Christopher Hitchens "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:48 AM:

    " Thus, those who invoke 'secular' tyranny in contrast to relgion are hoping that we forget two things: the connection between the Christian churches and fascism, and the capitulation of the churches to National Socialism. This is not just my assertion: it has been admitted by the religious authorities themselves."-Hitchens "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:41 AM:

    " Hitchens quotes the great Epicurus, who has some questions for God: Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both abe and willing? Whence then is evil? "

    Bugs Raplin with more Hitchens wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:38 AM:

    " Not until the advent of the Prince of Peace do we hear of the ghastly idea of further punishing and torturing the dead. First presaged by the rantings of John the Baptist, the son of god is revealed as one who, if his milder words are not accepted straightaway, will condemn the inattentive to everlasting fire. This has provided texts for clerical sadists ever since, and features very lip-smackingly in the tirades of Islam. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:32 AM:

    " Hitchens on Buddhism: "A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:27 AM:

    " Christian reformism arose originally from the ability of its advocates to contrast the Old Testament with the New. The cobbled together ancient Jewish texts had an ill-tempered and implacable and bloody and provincial god, who was probably more frightening when he was in a good mood (the classic attribute of a dictator)....This distinction is more apparent then real, since it is only in the reported observations of Jesus that we find any mention of hell and eternal punishment."-Christopher Hitchens "

    Michael Welch: Enoch, Elijah And Mary... wrote on Jul 15, 2007 3:22 PM:

    " Catholics (I WAS one) understand that the Bible MUST be interpreted by some authority though its designated one -- the magisterium -- is hardly a 'radical' Jesus seminar sort of bunch of guys -- and it IS 'guys'of course. Relying on 'sola scriptura' re: protestantism has the obvious result we can ALL see: hundreds of denominations. This is not necessarily 'bad' in and of itself but one who 'relies' on his ability to read a translation of an ancient book without some learned explanation of what he's reading is usually reading it 'wrong.' As for 'mariology' it IS a form of goddess worship no matter how much Catholics react with 'horreur' when charged. But then (by tradition) she ascended bodily (and did not die) JUST as did and did not Enoch and Elijah in the OT so it ain't entirely 'new'... "

    to michael welch wrote on Jul 14, 2007 9:09 PM:

    " i know that these issues will not be settled on an internet disscussion board of 150 words of less. my point with bugs and mikey had to do with the degree to which catholics place devineness on the bible. i say that catholics place more faith on the devineness on their churches traditions and other writtings than on the bible. my example was all the mary doctrines. the majority of the weight of reason for following maryism is in writings and tradition rather than in the bible. if someone wishes to follow that, then that is between them and God, but for me, a protestant, i find my comfort in placing my faith in the bible and trying to model my works after the new testament christians. "

    Michael Welch: Peoples Of THE Book... wrote on Jul 14, 2007 11:47 AM:

    " I don't see how these discussions can be 'settled' but then they needn't be; we've had them over and over and they end up at the same places, i. e. literalists always have their rationales and repeated apologetics and skeptics and 'historicists' can point out that these are not resolvable IF the Bible is to be taken as a history-science text as well as the basis for two, even three religions. Obviously interpretations among Christians differ -- e. g. the pope only last week indicated that protestant 'churches' are not really 'churches' at all but apparently heretical cults. Christian literalists however have made the Bible itself their 'God,' just as militant Muslims have the Koran and orthodox Jews the Torah and Talmud, which gives a complete meaning to 'peoples OF THE book' I'd say... "

    to mikey from the protestant wrote on Jul 14, 2007 8:53 AM:

    " you posted some snippets, but didn't do any explaining as to what the protestant doctrine was suppose to be. the only thing that your snippets looked like was an atheists attempt to try to discredit the creation story. if that was your goal, that would be very strange, since catholics to believe in the creation story. also, your explanation of mary worship is very weak. you didn't post any verses in response to my questions and you just posted the catholic answer that what they are doing (bowing, praying to, building statues and shrines) is not worship. now if you buy that catholic answer, that's between you and God, but i don't buy it as non-worship and i certainly wouldn't want to stand before God and try to explain why i didn't believe that there is only one mediator between man and God..Jesus. "

    Mikey wrote on Jul 13, 2007 2:01 PM:

    " This from http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html "Worship of Mary was explicity condemned from when it first arose in the 5th century among the Collyridians. Since Protestants typically identify worship with hymn-singing and praying, they identify the singing of hymns in honor of Mary or the petitioning (in prayer) for the intercession of Mary as forms of worship. But this is not so. If you examine what Cathlics understand worship to be, namely the enactment of Sacrifice of the Mass (which is the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary), you will see that it is strictly Christo-centric. " "

    Some snippets wrote on Jul 13, 2007 1:57 PM:

    " GAL 6:2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. GAL 6:5For every man shall bear his own burden. Tim 6:16God dwells in light. 1Kings8:12 God dwells in darkness Jer 13:14/Deut 7:16/ God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive. James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ etc. God is kind, merciful, and good. Gen 1:25,26,27 Man created after the animals Gen 2:18,19 Man created before the animals Others abound. What is the lesson? Who are the audience, the speaker? When was it written? Which tradition, Yahweh or Elohim? Anyone who took a course in OT, NT, Christian Thought, or similar content learned that. "

    to mikey from the protestant wrote on Jul 13, 2007 12:51 PM:

    " please give an example of protestants building a whole doctrine from snippets of scripture. i can give you the maryism doctrines scriptural support and it is snippets of scripture with loads of traditional ideas. show me the verses where mary was without sin. show me the verses mary intercedes with God the Father in heaven for us. show me the verses where we should build statues of mary and bow, pray and worship in front of them. show me the verses that support that mary was forever a virgin. i guarentee you that i can produce far more verses in there original context which directly dispute these maryisms. as a starter try this verse..1Tim. 2:5 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" "

    Mikey to protestant poster wrote on Jul 13, 2007 12:22 PM:

    " I do know this from my conversations with Catholics: (1) they have a very rich tradition of exegesis and theology; (2) Mary "worship" is not a doctrine of their church but a tradition based on her role as the mother of Jesus; (3) their theology puts a lot of stock in interpreting texts in the context of the writer as well as contemporaneous writers rather than in a literal word by word reading. This ia also true of much Protestant theology. One of the failure of some other protestant faiths is the utter lack of context placed on the meaning of biblical verse - they use snippets to prove any point they want. As often as not you can find another snippet to contradict that one, though, so no understanding is reached. "

    Bugs to 10:45 am wrote on Jul 13, 2007 12:08 PM:

    " Oh absolutely!! You are correct. With the Catholics, you've got 4 Gods----God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Mary, mother of God. "

    to bugs at 9:40 wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:45 AM:

    " you would have to talk to each individual catholic to find out what level of divinity the bible has in their life/beliefs. maryism is one of the most non-biblical doctrines catholics have. in my personal dealings with catholics and their beliefs, i have found that they place more faith in the 'devineness' of their churches man made traditions then they place on the devineness of what is written in the bible. just ask a catholic about where in the bible it states that mary remained a virgin her whole life and watch the response. it will be based on 'church tradition.' "

    Bugs to 8:18 am wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:40 AM:

    " You stated that Catholics believe in something (that Mary had no other children) no matter what the Bible says. I took that as sort of a lack of respect for the Bible with the assumption that they don't believe it divine. "

    Bugs to 9:16 am wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:34 AM:

    " It's just what my reason tells me. God gave us all reason. I try to use mine as much as I can. "

    To:8:11am wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:16 AM:

    " I don't think so. See previous posts. "

    To:Mikey wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:01 AM:

    " I disagree. Some do believe because of the evidence. In fact, I believe Josh McDowell, mentioned earlier, did not come to faith until examining the evidence. So, we will agree to disagree. "

    to bugs at 6:50 wrote on Jul 13, 2007 8:18 AM:

    " as a protestant christian, i don't fully understand catholics. i have studied some of their doctrines and gotten into a number of discussions with catholics about their doctrine, but i would certainly not say that i can definatively state exactly what catholics are or are not. what i will say is this, i believe that some catholics are christian dispite the dogma that is taught through their churches, not because of their dogma. most of their dogma is based in the traditions established by men and not the Word of God. while most will say they believe in the divinity of the Bible, most rely on the "divineness" of the traditions of men, which are not in the Bible. hope that helps some. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 13, 2007 8:11 AM:

    " Faith based on the divinity of the Bible, the Koran, or the Old Testament is irrational. "

    To Joe, wrote on Jul 13, 2007 7:21 AM:

    " I'm curious..this is the "faith" section, so why the article on spiritual books? I know that the "faith" section isn't limited to articles on the Christian faith, but what does a article on secular books doing in the "faith" section? The only conclusion I can see is that you are supporting the idea that man's faith in man's ideas are important for man's "spiritual path." That amounts to the blind leading the blind. All men need a pure and perfect source, and the ONLY pure and perfect source is the Bible. I realize, Joe, you are trying to please everyone, but when you abandon God's word, you wind up just misleading people. "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 13, 2007 6:54 AM:

    " I found "Lord of the Rings" to be very inspiring, an epic tale of good vs evil. "

    Bugs to 5:13 pm wrote on Jul 13, 2007 6:50 AM:

    " Thank you. You answered my question directly without referring me to a book or web site. I appreciate that. But as to your answer, are you implying that Catholics don't believe in the divinty of the Bible? "

    a mom wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:32 PM:

    " Oh my.........I thought this was an article on inspirational books. Man, was I wrong. Anyway, lately I've read a lot by Mitch Albom (The Five People You Meet In Heaven) and anything I can find by Og Mandino. Sets a lot of things in perspective. Try them sometime. "

    Mikey again wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:50 PM:

    " I choose not to put the same weight on what was written by a nomadic tribe several thousand years ago as I put on the much more diverse, more informed thoughts of philosophers . I think there is great truth in the bible, OT and NT, but there are also great myths and untruths. I read it as I would read any other text, critically. Try Spinoza, try Kant, Camus, Sartre. Good stuff there. Our government is a product of the Age of Enlightenment, the central theme of which is to think autonomously and to free oneself from the "dictates of authority", i.e., the Church. I urge everyone to try it, at least once in a while. "

    Mikey wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:27 PM:

    " I know some very bright people who profess to be one sort of Christian or another. When pinned down, few actually believe many of the fundamental tenets of their respective faiths, but find moral and psychological grounding in participating in their services and being part of a community. Fine. I understand that. Some do believe, and they get some solace in their belief in a personal God. But they also admit it requires a leap of faith that is not based on any rational philosophical frame. They choose to believe not because of "evidence" but because of how they model their universe. "

    re: 2:10 wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:13 PM:

    " bugs, you are confusing at least two different subjects. one, catholics believe that mary had no children after Jesus, regardless of what the Bible says. protestants believe that mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but after Jesus she had other children by joseph. two, i have witnessed many people reply to you or direct you to books and websites that thoroughly respond to apparent contradictions, therefore you are simply trying to goad people into a fight with false or misleading statements. your approach may fool some people, but you will never fool God. i will pray that you accept Jesus before it is too late. "

    Bugs to Michael Welch wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:10 PM:

    " Of course, the number of siblings Jesus had doesn't matter; it's the fact that the Bible states he had some, which conflicts with the Biblical concept that Mary was a virgin. Just another contradiction, which literalist believers won't bother to try and explain. "

    Michael Welch: Part Three -- And I Invite Comments... wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:59 AM:

    " Re: Bugs, 'God,' whether Yahweh or some other 'person,' is under NO OBLIGATION to be 'nice.' If that's what God must be to you then of course you may imagine a 'nice' God if you wish -- a very polite compassionate 'I-feel-your-pain' God. But gods in ALL religions are not like that; rather they do have personalities and like humans behave according to their own lights, only gods can ALWAYS get away with stuff -- unless as in polytheisms they are effectively countered by even more powerful gods. I believe that ALL gods reflect human dilemmas and questions about justice, injustice and the 'Jobian' necessity of humans to endure existence. Religions to me in essential ways are tributes to human perseverance -- Judaism of course being a MOST remarkable example of such... "

    Michael Welch: Part Two... wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:46 AM:

    " Is it rationale to believe in God? I think it depends on what one means when one says 'God.' All perceptions about a supernatural world that have been systemitized into a formal religion create a 'logic' of their own; we don't know why things are as they are or even are at all as opposed to not being, so we imagine some kind of 'first cause,' a 'big bang' for instance. But why did it occur? What existed before? Nothing? And is nothing (anti-matter?) 'something' after all? Atheists must honestly say they don't know -- yet. Believers however accept the premise of a 'personal God,' i. e. one with a definite personality like Yahweh certainly has but that does not mean they know 'all about God,' unless God has say actually become in a way a book -- the Bible... "

    Michael Welch: Some Remarks: Part One... wrote on Jul 12, 2007 11:29 AM:

    " I've written these things before but I reiterate: many people don't respect nor perhaps understand that when they read ancient compilations like the Bible they are reading in another time with different presumptions. Each gospel was authored for a particular 'community' of Christians and each reflects some differing concerns and ideas about Jesus. This is an historical perspective and I realize that literalist 'believers' are unlikely to appreciate it but I think it's equally unfair for non-believers to attack the gospels without attempting at some point to look also beyond a literalist view -- for instance it DOESN'T MATTER 'how many' siblings Jesus had; the faith relies on whether Jesus is the vehicle for some sort of ultimate salvation -- it is not based on exactness of biography... "

    Bugs Raplin wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:55 PM:

    " Well, who caused God? Can you tell me that Thomas Aquinas?...and, hey Mr. Aquinas, aren't you the same fellow who said the saved will be able to view the tormented as they suffer in hell? How charming. "

    To:Mikey wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

    " Allow me to add to a previous posters list of great thinkers who don't "go along to get along": Sir Anthony Flew. Flew, a staunch atheist, was considered a champion and role model for atheists everywhere(much like Dawkins today). The reason his name popped into my head is he echoed many of the same thoughts expressed by you in these posts until, in his own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads". He participated in many debates with Gary Habermas regarding the validity of Christianity. Habermas was usually victorious in these debates, and the 2 became friends as time went on. Well, Flew is now a Theist. Come on Mikey, your arguements that faith is unreasonable and irrational just don't cut it. Just because faith is untestable doesn't mean one can't come to a reasonable decision for faith based on the evidence. "

    To:Mikey wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:18 PM:

    " Nor have I been called narrow-minded or ignorant in awhile. But, if you re-read the post you made, it not only comes off as narrow-minded but also ignorant to the point someone thought you were being sarcastic. Not saying you are narrow-minded or ignorant-just that your post reads that way. Lets take a look at your 11:46am post. You state the only rational basis for being a Christian is they are the dominant religious sect in the west. Do you really believe that? Someone posting to Bugs at 10:28am asked some questions you may want to consider. Another person posting to Bugs yesterday mentioned great thinkers like Sir Isaac Newton, Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, and C.S. Lewis. These don't strike me as people that just "go along to get along". So, why should we take your word over most educated people in this country-including these great thinkers? "

    More re Aquinas from Mikey wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:13 PM:

    " First, it is common for sub-atomic particles like electrons to come into existence from bundles of energy without cause, falsifying premise 1. Second, premise 1 and 4 contradict each other: any first cause is an exception to the claim that every being is caused by something other than itself. If God is an exception, any other event/being can be an exception, even the creation of the universe. Third, there is no reason to believe there is something intrinsically impossible re an infinite series of events. Fourth, even if we accept the idea of a first cause, we cannot conclude that this first cause is the biblical God. In fact, there are good reasons to infer from experience that no such all-just, all-knowing being could possibly exist. [These ideas are from several sources, but they are widely available.] "

    Mikey re Aquinas' proof of God is wrong on several levels wrote on Jul 11, 2007 12:07 PM:

    " In a nutshell Aquinas claims: 1.Every event/being is caused by something other than itself. 2.Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself. 3.The string of causes cannot be infinitely long. 4.If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause. 5.Therefore, there must be a first cause. 6.The first cause is God. The argument is fallacious on several points. "

    Mikey wrote on Jul 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

    " I have not been called narrow minded in a while. I am just not very open to the idea that a human person is divine or even that a anthropomorphic deity exists who "cares" enough about us to "redeem" us. Faith is indeed irrational insofar as it is untestable and based on assumptions that are not self-evident to an observer. The only rational basis for being Christian is that they are the dominant religious sect in the West (for now) and it is easier to go along to get along than to walk one's own enlightened path. What good has Christianity wrought? It has exterminated native people on three continents, it has jailed or executed in horrible ways those who dare to disagree with them, it has kept us mired in superstition long after we should have known better, and its teachings are consistent. "

    Bugs to 10: