Reflecting on the sadness in Mother Teresa’s letters : La Crosse Tribune

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:29 PM:

" rick, when you didn't pay your whole medical bill while living in LaCrosse, was that a sin? "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 12:03 PM:

" As I said today re: BGS I will no longer harangue you over responding to my posts; you can indeed 'choose your battles' and I shall simply do as I did below -- make comments as I see fit and say what I want to without expecting ANY replies. I have studied early Christianity etc. and know pretty well what the scholarship portends. By the way most scholars do NOT contend that the gospels are 'first-hand' accounts but employ the names of disciples as 'authoritative' devices. Mark is thought to be written between 65-70 CE; Matthew circa 80; Luke circa 90; John around 100. All are products of different Christian communities and emphasize various aspects and of course ALL post-date Paul's letters which speak absolutely nothing about Jesus' life pre-crucifixion... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 5:02 PM:

" Phil, why write so much just to tell Michael you won't respond to his points? Why not just respond to him? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:58 PM:

" You can 'interrupt' Michael. I'm not going around and round with you on your points but it does give Sauk another view point to consider. I eluded to it on another post, but I recognize that you are well read and have alot of knowledge. Your posts bring up alot of points that take many words and lots of posts to discuss/debate/or debunk. While I disagree with alot of your conclusions to your observations I don't have a problem with you posting them. I will echo BrianGSmith (Don't tell him I agreed with him here....it'll go to his head) you might get more discussion if you stuck to one main theme/topic and exspanded as you got into the discussion. Your long posts are an overload of topics IMO. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

" As for Christianity some Christians (Marcion their spokesperson) wanted to jettison the Jewish scriptures and keep only the gospel of John (the most anti-Jewish) and the letters of Paul (like Galatians) that attacked the 'Ebionites' or Christianized Jews like Peter and James 'the brother of the Lord.' Yahweh was too war-like and cruel; in fact an early church father Tertullian declared a Christian could NOT be a soldier. Some took Jesus' pacifism seriously back then. When as 'P'OB' points out the church became an adjunct of Constantine's empire then of course it MUST come up with 'just wars' et. al. or fail as a viable 'universal' (which is the meaning of 'catholic') religion... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 12:16 PM:

" 'PO'B' (I'm interrupting I know) is simply stating a literalist doctrine, one that the great majority of Christians have always believed. The Bible of course is a compendium of the Hebraic religion (in the OT) with many distinct oddities that clearly delineate the struggle for dominance by the 'Yahwehists' or the 'Yahweh Alone' view. I think the roots are in the rejection of Canaanite polytheism (see the story of Laban's household gods and Rachel's theft of them in Genesis) that fueled the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrew tribe. I also believe that the Egyptian monotheism (the world's first monotheism) of the pharoah Ankhaten deeply influenced Hebrew monotheism but Yahweh yet remains a 'tribal god' of sorts, that gigantic 'Man of War' (see Joshua) and a troublesome and burdensome personality for the much-beleaguered Jews... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 8:18 AM:

" By the time of Constantine, there was a movement to organize the body of believers into a governmental type organization. That is the birth of the Catholic Church. Your source seems to indicate that man decided what God had inspired, but that is wrong. Man recognized early in the first century what God had inspired and simply spread the news to other bodies of believers. Now some writings were believed by some 'early fathers' but not by others. However, what we have today as the NT is what the overwhelming majority recognized as God's inspired Word. (http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml) I agree that your posting of Deut. is from the Bible, but I also say that your interpretation of what that means today is wrong. I also maintain that the Bible is infallible. Man is fallible in his understanding of the Bible, though. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 8:10 AM:

" Sauk, men do sometimes misinterpret God's Word wrong, however the Bible is not in error, it is mens reading of it that winds up in error. Now I don't know where you get your information but you have some misconceptions. All of what we now know of as the New Testament was written in the first century. These books or letters were written by acknowledged apostles or people who had actual contact with Jesus. These letters/books were so cherished that they were copied and distributed to other Christian Churches. Because of the source and the power of the writings they were known to be inspired by God. Of Course there crept up gnostic writtings about the same time so different churches would get togather and inform others of false books. These meetings went on regularly for the first couple of hundred years of Christianity. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:24 PM:

" Phil, I am only posting in return to your declarations that the bible is infalliable and as youn would agree all my postings are from the bible. I am not an authority over you, all I do is try to show you that not everything is at it seems.Just because some people said something 2000 years ago and no one challanged that does not mean that we have to follow the same ideology today as they may have been wrong. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:20 PM:

" Phil, so you do admit that men "may have" interpreted Gods message wrong? This in turn "may have" made the bible wrong as well right? Here is some information on the editions you requested. By 150 A.D., there were hundreds of texts in existence, some of which were in contradiction with each other. Constantine I, in an attempt to re-establish one empire with a unifying religion to back it up, felt that there should be a consensus as to what books should be the basis for this religion. There were two opposing camps of thought. Arius felt that Jesus was a supreme human, but no God. Opposing was Athanasius, who felt Jesus was both man and God. In 325, Constantine I convened the First Council of Nicaea and decreed that only one creed should emerge. The Nicene Creed banned Arias and his fellow Arians as heretics. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:13 PM:

" Sauk, I used the WWII orders as an example of reading something in context. In the Old Testament you can see part of the nature of God, you can see history of man and Israel, you can read poetry and prophecy. If you really want to understand Christianity, then you should read the New Testament. Jesus simplifies and clears up the directions of people who seek righteousness. It is a completion of the Old Testament. Your either/or of the Bible is ridiculous and your attempt to be some kind of authority over me, is silly. Now, unless you have a real question your misdirection and false accuasations will get you no further response from me. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:01 PM:

" Sauk, you really need to calm down and reread my posts. I never said anything like "everyone is a Muslim who doesnt agree with me." I ASKED if you were a Muslim because they are one group who believes the Bible was corrupted. If your not a Muslim, fine, but give me some proof that the Bible has "other editions." Now you are putting certain meanings in places I haven't. For instance, the ONLY thing that God wrote with his own hand is the ten commandments. The rest of the Bible was written by men inspired by God. Are man's limited words perfect in describing all of the unlimited perfection of God? No. However, the message of salvation and sanctification is perfect. There are not errors in God's word on message but only errors in how men carry out God's message. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 18, 2007 5:42 PM:

" Also Phil anyone who doubts the bible was written by humans has to be a Muslim? Where were you during history class? For more information take a look at the nicean creeds and councils, inconsistencies between the apostles, writings of a mad men locked up in an island dying for revenge against romans. Cmon Phil you can do better then that then to call everyone Muslim who doesnt agree with you. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 18, 2007 5:12 PM:

" Hey Phil, so you want to choose and pick which parts of bible do you want to follow huh? Come on comparing GODS LAWS with WW2 orders? Who are you kidding if you dont mind me asking? It is one of the above either 1) Bible was written by humans for the laws of the days past or 2) GOD does not know how to write laws that are eternal and can only write them for that day? Now either follow the Bible fully Phil or not the choice is upto you, but dont preach to others about a book you dont follow parts of. Remember you said Word of God was infalliable.. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:27 AM:

" The Bible of course is 'the Word of God' for Jews and Christians -- provided you recognize that for Jews it definitely does NOT include the gospels et. al. and Christians cherry-pick the Jewish scriptures as well as reinterpret them so to 'prove' their assertions about Jesus. The Bhagavad Gita is one of the holiest texts of Hinduism (concerning 'dharma,' duty) and the Qur'an is for Muslims the last revelation of God to his prophet Muhammed. These are all religious contentions and may be believed or disbelieved as one's upbringing, culture and inclination choose. All religions 'make sense' within their contexts and don't make sense or seem deliberately or unavoidably obscure within alien contexts. Assertions of 'absolute truth' are unprovable finally so faith or not in the religion is ultimately a human choice depending on how much thought one is capable of... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:18 AM:

" I'm wondering where I EVER said that 'nothing' involving United States' policies did ANY 'good'? However I recall how the founder of the Catholic Worker movement Dorothy Day who was a pacifist was confronted after the destruction of European Jewry became widely publicized; she was challenged whether she now felt she should have supported entrance into WWII. Day rather drily observed that it was clear that the war had NOT been fought 'to save the Jews' because obviously it hadn't been very successful in doing so had it? Too much American history (as is biblical 'history') is based upon 'faith' and fantasy as well as propaganda. Hitler and Stalin created triumphalist societies based upon fantasies; we Americans need not imitate them; that is NOT 'patriotism' but self-delusion... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:46 AM:

" Sauk, you also asserted that you believe that the Bible has been messed up with 'other editions.' Do you have any proof of such? Also, may I ask, are you from a Muslim background? The reason I ask is because Muslims say that the Bible is corrupted. What obliterates that comment is that the Quran says that the Bible in his time were not in error.(2:87,4:163,5:46) We can look at scripture from before Mohammeds time and see that it is the same Bible we have today. Here's some links to look at (http://www.carm.org/islam/Bibletokoran.htm) and (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bible/Text/wijngaards.html) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:33 AM:

" Dear Sauk, Yes the Bible is the Word of God. Yes it is true. No, not everything in there is a directive to people today, that's why you need to know the context or setting of the verses or chapter. You can read unclassified military documents from World War II seeing restrictions on Japanese Americans or German Americans. Do we still adhere to those 'orders' today? No, because you read them in their context of history. Here is a link talking about those specific verses (http://www.carm.org/diff/Deut22_13.htm). As a Christian my current directive would be found in verses like these:Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"Col 3:19 "Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them." "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 17, 2007 9:41 PM:

" Phil - You are the one giving Sassima about how other religions treat woman but you cannot back up your own book. Yeah I dont believe in Bible because people messed it up with their own editions. But you do. Please post do you believe that the part I posted is the true word of God or not in your opinion. That simple..If it is then accept it and say so otherwise you are accepting that you are selective about the Bible you follow. Simple task for you, yes it is Word Of God or Not Word of God will do. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:25 PM:

" rick you said "the attack on New York was blamed on Saddam and you know it." I know of no such thing. In researching AlQueda they saw that Iraqi Intellegence had met with AQ reps in Germany. The truth is that Saddam used his money to pay off terrorists. Abu Nidel was even staying in Iraq. Saddam may not have wanted terrorists taking down his power structure, but he was sure willing to help them take down ours. The intelligence prior to invasion was evidence enough for congress to authorize the invasion. The only thing that is overwhelming is that Saddam had more money, resources, weapons (gas and biological) and means to attack America. Given Saddams history, US acted properly. And if you don't know that you are only reading what suits you. BTW, a WMD doesn't have to be an ICBM. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:09 PM:

" rick, white phosphorous is used in grenades and night illumination rounds and probably a dozen other munitions. I know that it burns at a very high temperature, but I don't believe that it is an 'outlawed' munition. When the US found out about the gassing, sanctions were put into place. "Where does your empathy take you when more than a million Iraqis are dead?" First, where did you get that number? What is it supposed to represent? If you are saying those are all innocent deaths caused by America, I say bunk. As for my empathy, I feel horribly for the Iraqi's who are constantly being killed by radial Muslims. I can't really imagine the fear/pain/anger of dealing with such monsters. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:01 PM:

" Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak, I don't know why you are posting to me again. You said that you don't believe the Bible to be true. So me explaining context, history, laws for the priests, laws for the people, etc. would just be a waste of time. Plus you just said don't tell me different times. All you want is an argument or maybe you think you will show me some 'inconsistancy' I have never seen, and suddenly go "Wow! Thanks Sauk. Now I see that you are right and the Bible is false." Well you can relax, cause that aint going to happen. If you are serious about 'inconsistancies' there are a number of websites that do a great job explaining them. But then again, you don't believe the Bible, so it all becomes moot. Oh, and it's the Bible through the Holy Spirit that is my guide. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 17, 2007 7:39 PM:

" And in case you were wondering that was Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 17, 2007 7:37 PM:

" To Phil - "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." I am glad you believe in the principles of your guiding book Phil. And please save the times have changed story cause I aint buying that one, you said yourself that Bible is your guide. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 4:19 PM:

" Phil O'Bates: Read the report War and Occupation in Iraq by the Global Policy Forum. White phosphorus was used in Fallujah. There have been numerous other war crimes as well. If Saddam used mustard gas, fine, he also used white phosphorus. He was a bad man. The U.S. knew. They knew about the gassing. Where does your empathy take you when more than a million Iraqis are dead? And yes, the attack on New York was blamed on Saddam and you know it. They just waited til after Afghanistan, then began fabricating a case against Iraq claiming they were in cahoots with al qaeda. You know that's true. The evidence that Saddam posed no threat to the U.S., that he had no WMDs is overwhelming, and if you don't know that you are only reading what suits you. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 2:02 PM:

" Now Michael your comments are more thought out and closer to the truth. Yes, it's true that primarily the US has not put the morality or Human rights issue as the main reason for doing things. It is usually political pressure (Somolia) or economic (China) or national security (Iraq, Afghanistan). Politicians sometimes play the morality or human rights card to gain acceptance. Sometimes they may actually mean it. If Saddam had complied with UN sanctions, not tried to assasinate GHB, and not made other threats to the US, I would bet that we would have left him alone. To imply that the US never does anything to help provide freedom and safety to the oppressed of the world is false. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 1:48 PM:

" Rick also..."Don't you think it's bizarre that you mention empathy when the stated reasons had to do with fictitious weapons and a fictitious link with the attack on New York?" Two strawman arguments in one statement, not bad. No one said Iraq caused 9/11. 9/11 caused America (Bush, Congress, etc.) to not take threats to our security lightly. You may believe that Saddam had no dangerous weapons but then you would have to ignore reports like this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D47C7304-B454-4294-8A21-DBEC5E2AACBE})or this (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008568) or this (http://www.nysun.com/article/26514) "You've moved yourself out of the realm of reasonable debate." Debating with you is out of the bounds of reason. But I'm hoping you'll catch a glimmer of truth. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 1:47 PM:

" Rick your ability to streach the truth must be a quality that Slovenia likes in its professors. "It took a long time for you sinners to come to realize how bad Saddam was." Sure. But once we knew he was bad we started doing something about it."..he used white phosphorous on the Kurds, which you sinners now condemn" No it was condemned and it was Mustard gas. "at the same time you sinners don't seem to mind the U.S. using it." Where did the US gas anyone? "As far as the attack on Iraq being engendered by empathy, is naivete a sin? Is willful dishonesty a sin?" It was one of the reasons and no I'm not being dishonest. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 11:56 AM:

" If the United States were dedicated to 'saving the world' the war would be in Darfur nes pas? Or Zimbabwe or some place made a worse hell by someone else other than ourselves. We cared nothing for Saddam's depredations as long as he was 'useful' as a counter to Iran; Rumsfeld himself came as a Reagan envoy, heartily shook the bloody hand and expressed Ronnie's 'admiration.' The US plays an IMPERIAL game, not a moral one; morality is for 'suckers' like well Jesus for instance and you get 'crucified' for it is the conventional wisdom. Lack of morality however leads precisely to the invasion of Iraq so 'by their FRUITS you SHALL KNOW THEM'... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 10:44 AM:

" It took a long time for you sinners to come to realize how bad Saddam was. You didn't seem to mind whiile he was fighting Iran in the 80s, nor when he used white phosphorous on the Kurds, which you sinners now condemn at the same time you sinners don't seem to mind the U.S. using it. Do you sinners not know that Saddam was a client since 1963? As far as the attack on Iraq being engendered by empathy, is naivete a sin? Is willful dishonesty a sin? Don't you think it's bizarre that you mention empathy when the stated reasons had to do with fictitious weapons and a fictitious link with the attack on New York? You've moved yourself out of the realm of reasonable debate. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Rick, empathy is defined as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;" Empathy is precisely one of the reason we are in Iraq. Under Saddam there was not freedom but tyranny. Under Saddam torture rooms and executions without trial were everyday events. Under Saddam, hundreds of thousands (~300,000 I last heard) were killed either through genocide or just Saddams paranoia. Did you not read of Saddams sons and how they abused and killed elementary age school girls, or tortured soccer players if they lost a game? Christians empathized with the Iraqi's and sacrificed to give them a chance at freedom. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 16, 2007 7:20 PM:

" Rick, because you refuse to define sin or recognize your sin state, I'm afraid this back and forth is done for now. I will agree with you a little. Bush is a sinner. Now while he nor I have committed the gross sins of say Hitler or Manson, he nor I are any more worthy of heaven then Hitler or Manson. We Humans see our righteousness kind of like valleys and mountains. The more of a sinner we think of them in a valley. The more righteous, we think of being on a Mountain. But if the level of righteous to reach heaven were measured it would be like measuring the distance from Earth to Pluto. Sure the person on the mountain top is closer to heaven, but in God's eyes both the Hitlers and the Mother Teresa's are light years from reaching Heaven on their own. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:47 PM:

" It seems difficult to post on this board; perhaps it's because I'm poor and use a public computer? But suddenly I see my first post appearing in its complete form so I made my points twice. We have over 200 on this site and the numbers may overwhelm Marc's new 'system'? I know that Rick welcomes me; I just don't see the attraction in exploring 'sin' which obviously means different things to different people, even among Christians. I don't like 'PO'B's religious attitudes but he's 'easier' than many I've encountered. A religion often puts one 'under the thumb' -- so Jefferson's fine declaration (etched into his monument) 'of eternal hostility against any tyranny over the mind of man,' by which of course he meant religious also... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:16 PM:

" Well actually my comment wasn't posted was it? Only a bit of it. What to do? I was trying to say that all religions have nasty and cruel aspects -- if one reads say Joshua, Judges and even investigates exactly WHY King Saul lost the favor of his pal Yahweh one would find as much violence and God-condoned slaughter as in the Koran. The New Testament of course has Jesus the pacifist but since he's just TOO 'good' it must override him with Paul's apologetics for state-sanctioned violence. Yes I had noted that cutting off heads is a bloody business but 'Christians' dropped two atomic bombs, one on Nagasaki, a city with the largest Christian Japanese population in 1945. I don't think Christians are so much 'better' than anyone else; I don't see it... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:15 PM:

" Mister Welch: I never write without expecting your observation, at least not here. So leap on in. Maybe sometimes I'm not fair to O'Bates, maybe sometimes I am wasting my time with his ilk. But sometimes I am really fascinated by the working of earnest minds that are incomprehensible, ultimately, to me. For instance, the sincere Christian being for the war in Iraq--I'll never understand it other than as a mental glitch at best, a short-circuiting of intellect by faith, faith becoming a habit that bleeds into political thought and precludes empathy at the very best... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:10 PM:

" Furthermore, perhaps covering some old ground, I believe that if I am wrong about the existence of a Christian God, He would look at my life and remark, 'Good fellow', while he would look at yours and say, 'Didn't quite get me, but good enough effort (at least, I hope for your sake)'. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:08 PM:

" I don't agree with your book, Phil; therefore I don't accept any of your definitions to the point where I would associate my life with them. If I have done wrong in a way that you would define as a sin, I would not agree that that makes me a sinner. Your book does not allow for that nuance. I do. So whatever my definition of sin, we are not using the same code, so I could hardly subject myself to your set of standards. By my standards, if sin is an acceptable word (I rarely use it, but for this debate I don't mind), Bush, for instance, is a sinner to be placed with your Manson and your Hitler, and comparatively I am a saint. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:05 PM:

" I can see that 'P'OB' and Rick have developed an exchange but it all has a rather murky feel to me -- then it's none of my business in a sense. I will however (it may be of no 'worth' to anyone but myself) observe that all religions have oddities, eccentricities and fantasies: the Bible is quite as ruthless a sacred text as the Koran if you are familiar with for example Joshua or Judges or even why King Saul lost favor. (Look it up in I Samuel.) Muslim-dominated cultures are yes more truly 'mid-eastern,' somewhat more like, well Jesus' time -- you know Jesus would be far more 'at home' in the West Bank than in Tel Aviv. Disparaging religions as 'uncivilized' is an old device; still WE 'Christians' dropped the atomic bombs didn't we? A bit more I'd say than cutting off a head?... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 16, 2007 11:46 AM:

" To help try to clear this up for you look at your examples..." I am not, for instance, a runner. However, yesterday, I ran with my son briefly. I am not a killer but when I was in India I killed a lot of mosquitoes." I would then ask you to define what your definition was of a killer or a runner. You would give them and then I could understand your point. However, I could say that you did run and you did kill. The same is true with sin. You may define sinner as someone like Hitler or Charles Manson. I could agree that you don't fit that difinition, but I could point out to you (once you give a definition of sin) that you did sin. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 16, 2007 11:39 AM:

" So why don't you give me a definition of what you believe a sin to be? You said "I don't kow if I have sinned, but I am not a sinner." That really doesn't make any sense. For that to make sense you would have to say something like "I don't know if I have sinned, so therefore I don't believe I am a sinner." At this point you would have to ask me what I or the Bible defines as sin, or you would have to define sin yourself. Your desire to try to 'keep yourself in the dark' by dancing around a word is peculiar. The reason I used "doing anything wrong" as a definition of what a sin is, is because that is a good general description that the Bible gives. So I ask you again...what is your definition of sin? "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 6:35 AM:

" Or, to put it another way, since you argue dishonestly (I never said I never did anything wrong), I obviously reject your single source--your Bible--and as your definitions derive from that source, I am unlikely to accept them. I am not, for instance, a runner. However, yesterday, I ran with my son briefly. I am not a killer but when I was in India I killed a lot of mosquitoes. I don't kow if I have sinned, but I am not a sinner. Imagine if the Koran said everyone had the stain of sin on him--would you say that's right, then, I am a sinner? "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 6:31 AM:

" Phil O': The college professor never said he had never done anything wrong. He said he is not a sinner. Can you see the difference? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 15, 2007 7:41 PM:

" So you don't accept my answer that everyone is a sinner because the Bible says so. I could also tell you that I have never met anyone who thought that they had never done anything wrong or committed a sin. So I don't know why you won't enlighten me with what you think a sin is and why you think you are not a sinner. Your answer "just because I say so" is incredibly weak coming from a college professor. I'm sure that that reasoning won't fly when your standing before your creator. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 15, 2007 5:57 PM:

" Oh, and there is this marvel: 'Rick, one of the other problems with the phrasing you would prefer I use is that it makes a few wrong assumptions. I know that everyone sins.' The problem with my preferred phrasing is that it makes wrong assumptions--well, that I know that follows is a mighty big assumption. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 15, 2007 5:55 PM:

" I see this is hopeless. O'Bates is accused of only expressing himself through his book and his answer is to express himself through his book. I am asked to explain how it is that I am not a sinner. The answer is simple: I am not a sinner. One good thing this 'exchange' has done for me is confirm my atheism. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 15, 2007 4:21 PM:

" A vital word somehow left out of the 4:04 post...Grace. ("For by Grace are you saved through faith, and that it is not of yourself, it is a gift of God. Not of works, that way no one can boost." is the full statement.) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 15, 2007 4:18 PM:

" Rick, I think you are also confused on the issue of what judging is. The main form of judging I can not do is the kind where I hand out the punishment for non-Christians. Warning them about God's punishment is not a sin. Now, I can judge whether it is proper for me or anyone in my family to go to certain events. I can hand out punishment to my kids for violating family judgements. I can as a member of a church board, judge members of a church in their behavior and issue punishments as needed (ex. a S.S. teacher is arrested for DUI, punishment: no longer a S.S. teacher). You seem to think that when I tell you or others that you are sinners that I am violating God's Word. Quite the contrary. I am proclaiming God's Word. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 15, 2007 4:04 PM:

" Rick, one of the other problems with the phrasing you would prefer I use is that it makes a few wrong assumptions. I know that everyone sins. It isn't a question of 'you might be sinning' it is simply a fact, we are all sinners. It also kind of imply's that a person can just refrain from all sin. That too is impossible. Let's suppose you don't swear, don't kill, don't sleep around, pay your taxes, throw nice get togethers, brush your teeth 3 times a day, feed the poor, etc. That's all good and we all should strive to be good, but the best that we can be, on our own, is not good enough to get into heaven. Jesus said that by are you saved, not by works. It doesn't mean that works aren't good, but they don't eliminate the sin stain on your soul. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 15, 2007 1:20 PM:

" To rick, well either she is correct or I am. The thing is that I know that she is wrong about the maya stuff. Now, you and she may think that is insane, because you have no such assurance, but that's where it stands. Other religions have some validity in helping people to be good at times, but you can be as good as possible and not enter Heaven. There is NO OTHER WAY to heaven then through Jesus. And no, it isn't a sin to tell people that they are sinners because that is part of spreading the gospel. Why don't you tell me why you think that you are not a sinner. I know that I'm a sinner, but my soul has been saved by the Grace of God. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 15, 2007 4:51 AM:

" Phil O'Bates: I don't see you answering Miss Perumal's post. You remain within the Bible to discuss sin, she speaks to you from within Hindu scripture to explain how Maya has misled you. You have no response to that. A 'sane' response might be a respectful admission that perhaps other religions have as much validity as yours. Regarding sin, I am hardly offended by being called a sinner, but I believe that your relaying of Biblical quotes to tell others they are sinners surely must be a sin against your god, who alone should be the judge of that issue. At best, you should have the humility to phrase it like this, 'Be careful, according to my understanding you may be sinning.' That would be acceptable. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:11 PM:

" Dear sasi, I talked to a Muslim lady a few years ago, before 9/11, and I asked her many questions which she didn't have any answers for. Like, why isn't there a physical pleasure heaven for women like there is for me? If Mohammed was the prime example, how do women follow him? Why are women, dogs, and donkeys talked about as lowly and even evil in the Koran? Why would a Muslim woman live a chaste, respectful life, dedicated to her husband, be sent to heaven to become a one of many virgins to be ravished by Muslim men? Check out these sites: http://www.exmuslim.com/ http://prophetofdoom.net/go.aspx?z=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apostatesofislam.com%2fmain.htm http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/jihadpages/women.htm "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:40 PM:

" Also sasikala perumal, that's nice that you wish to read the Koran that way, but those that read jihad as a spiritual and not physical struggle are a minority. It would also take some great mental gymnastics to think that Mohammad was telling his warriors to engage in a spiritual war when he was engaging in physical war. They are verses in the Koran and Hadith and other sacred Muslim writtings which say that only the crippled have an excuse not to wage jihad. If it was a spiritual battle, even the crippled could do that. Besides, it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see that Islam today and always has advanced by the sword. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:32 PM:

" Dear sasikala perumal, I am not judging people (i.e. handing out a sentence for a crime), I am simply stating what the Bible says and I know to be true...ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is no person that has lived on this Earth, except for Jesus, that has not sinned. That includes, any pastor, priest, pope, evangelist, and even Mother Teresa. If you do not recognize that you are in a fallen or less then perfect state, then I would call that extremely pious and egotistical. Maybe you have a different definition of what a sinner is. If so enlighten me. Another reason I point out that all have sinned is because people must recognize their fallen state and that imperfection must be corrected to be with perfection. When people see this they can then call on Jesus to save (forgive)their imperfection. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:43 PM:

" For the record, I am a woman, and I have also read the Koran (the spelling of the translation I have read), and find that it does not condone violence as you have claimed it does. As a woman, I believe I understand the western dismay at what they perceive as the poor treatment of women in eastern religions. Hinduism at times assigns a place, though never definitively, and the westerner seems to me to be forever without a place. I believe that psychology also explains the fervor of the Christian. I pity the insane, but that is a personal view, not doctrinal. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:38 PM:

" Mr. O'Bates, I will write without expressing doubt, for that is your register. To be insane is to be caught in the delusion called Maya, which could be called an absolute misperception of the world, attachment to material things, for instance, or attachment to ego--which your record on this argument suggests is your case--attachment to a false doctrine, belief in a false god, etc. To call you insane is to inform you that you have yet to perceive reality in its true form, that you are still trapped in the world of names and forms (namarupa), so attached to the world as to judge others (I am describing, not judging, which you will have to trust), and call them sinners. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:25 PM:

" The Bible says that all have sinned. Thats me, you, everybody. If you are wondering what the Bible calls sin it falls pretty much into two categories...1) violation of God's Law, 2) (for Christians) whatever is not of faith. The Jews used to think if they didn't physically murder someone in cold blood, then they didn't commit murder. But Jesus said that if you call your brother a fool, you have committed murder in your heart. When people put their own intellect above Scriture, they make themselves a god. That is in direct violation of not having any gods before Yahweh. I really don't understand your taking offense. What do you think being a sinner is? "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 14, 2007 5:33 PM:

" Let me try a different lingo, Phil O: Where do you get off telling other people they are sinners? "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 14, 2007 1:21 PM:

" Rick's trying I think to lighten the overcast since we've hit the wall yet again. But I don't believe it would (has?) REALLY bothered Rick to be called a 'sinner' (I NEVER did that even when I was a practicing Catholic but then I never thought he'd ever hit me!) but he would wonder about the experiment. I'd NOT 'turn the other cheek' but then I don't think Christianity is especially a 'practical' religion; what 'strikes' me (so to speak!) is how few Christians still on the inside TURN that proverbial cheek. But then they always have Paul and 'eye for an eye' to mitigate poor ol' idealistic Jesus... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 1:09 PM:

" "If you called me a sinner in person could I bust you in the jaw?" I'm sure that physically you could probably do quite a bit to me. If you are asking would hitting me be a sin...I have to say yes. "Would you turn the other cheek if I did?" Yes. "Which of us would go to hell--he who usurps the Lord and calls an infidel a sinner, or he who smacks?" The one who rejects Jesus as savior. (I'm not really sure what you mean by 'usurping the Lord and calls and infidel a sinner' but these are my answers.) "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:45 PM:

" Phil O: A theological question: If you called me a sinner in person could I bust you in the jaw? Would you turn the other cheek if I did? Which of us would go to hell--he who usurps the Lord and calls an infidel a sinner, or he who smacks? "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:21 PM:

" 'PO'B's motivation or rather 'mission' is to convert, by playing good cop (Jesus' 'free' gift) then bad cop ('burn in hell' if you don't take proffered gift, a sort of middle eastern reaction to insult writ large) but indeed the last thing proselytizers want is a truly intellectual argument. They assume a general ignorance (THEY're to know the Bible 'better') but that you recall (sentimentally?) some basics from childhood say and you've subsequently 'fallen away' into a melancholy malaise and now can be directed to the absolute surety of literalist Christianity. Most folks who get attracted leave (see Dungar's experience below) because evangelicals are SO controlling but some are quite satisfied to have 'everything' explained to them and no more thinking or analyzing required anymore!... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:59 AM:

" Well again I'm not trying to 'win' some debate -- I don't think such is 'winnable' in any actual sense anyway -- and I understand 'P'OB's motivation, his proselytizing, and he's as permitted to use this board for that as I am to discuss religions in another sense. Never or only occasionally shall the twains meet but in the past I have noticed these boards too heavily dominated by evangelical literalists pounding doctrine and I wanted to introduce another way of approaching religions, without their rigidity and dogmatic 'judgments.' Now I can see that 'P'OB' is all that remains of that late platoon of evangelists; they don't like analysis or any opposition that isn't of the cartoonish 'village atheist'-baiting kind they can knock down with a verse. But indeed: where have all the proselytizers gone, long time passing?... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:16 AM:

" rick, Michael is partly right when he recognizes that my primary job is to spread the Word. Spreading the word is like sowing seeds. People who want to learn of God are like good soil, accept the Word. People who don't want to accept the Word are like rocky ground. As a Christian it isn't my job to 'crush' those rocks into soil through debate. Mainly because it wont work. Secondly, if coming to God was about debates and intellegence then 1)faith wouldn't be needed. And 2) some people would be left out because they lacked the 'intellegence'. Everyone can exercise faith though. Does this mean I can't study different religions/ NO! In fact if you look up Christian apologetics on the web, you will find many sites that do just that. It's just that I won't lead anyone to Jesus with endless debates. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:00 AM:

" Dear rick, let's break down your accusations. "You refuse to discuss history" Sasi said she/he would post history but never did, therefore no comments necessary. If you are talking about Michaels posts, I already explained my Welch position. "make false claims about refuting elsewhere" As Phil O'Bates I posted to you on the article about the names of God. As anonymous posters I have refuted Michaels claims before. "and quote your single book ad nauseum." My support is primarily the Bible. If you don't believe it then that's your problem, not mine. "I believe something that prevents me from thinking." Quite contrary to that, what I believe has opened up my thinking tremendously. I do believe that your thinking prevents you from believing, and that raises your intellect above the Word of God. That is a sin. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:50 AM:

" Dear Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak, I don't know how that verse supports your idea that the Bible is fallible. You don't believe those things mentioned in that verse are possible, but for those things to be true, it doesn't need you to believe it. Since you have stated out front that you don't believe the Bible to be true I won't waste your time quoting from it. This shows that you aren't interested in it's truths so as a Christian, I must follow Jesus's direction to his disciples when people rejected them....leave them (you) alone. I will continue to pray for you and all those who don't know Jesus, though. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 14, 2007 6:11 AM:

" Phil 0: I don't know if Michael congratulated me, but I did declare him the winner of the debate, for you shrank from it with muscular ignominy. You refuse to discuss history, make false claims--surely a sin--about refuting elsewhere, and quote your single book ad nauseum. The statement behind your words is plain: I believe something that prevents me from thinking. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 13, 2007 9:19 PM:

" To Phil - You say Jesus is without fault and all knowing? Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." I claim that Bible is written by humans and thus falliable, inconsistent just like every book. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 13, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Dear Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak, You should read my post on Sept 11 @ 9:57. You will clearly see that I have never thought of myself as one without fault or all knowing. What I point out is that Jesus is without fault and all knowing. The verse you posted needs to be read in its context. When Paul wrote his letter to the church at Rome he didn't separate his message with chapters. Read Chapter 1, then read Chapter 2. While I do commit some of the same sins as unsaved people, I am not committing the sin of rejecting the gift of salvation. By rejecting God's free gift, you are calling God a liar. If you die in this state, you will have died with a sin that is unpardonable (blaspheme of the Holy Spirit). It is good that you are at least reading a little bit of the Bible. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 13, 2007 7:39 PM:

" To Phil the infalliable and all knowing - "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things" (Romans 2:1) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 13, 2007 6:02 PM:

" To Rick, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world (or 'win a debate'), and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Mark 8:36,37 I know that in yours and Michael's mind you won't 'lose' a debate when arguing against the validity of Christianity. But what will it profit you in the end? The truth is, online, with no moderator or audience to poll, you'll never know who 'won' or 'lost'. That's just another reason why it's a waste of time to continually go over the same stuff. But if you and Michael feel better congratulating each other, who am I to get in the way of some short lived happiness? "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 13, 2007 5:15 PM:

" Dear Michael: You just won a debate hands down. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 13, 2007 2:50 PM:

" Ok Michael, I'll give you one last post. I spent a few years engaging people like you in endless debates about Christianity, because I thought that was what I was supposed to do as a Christian. I have looked at many different aspects of many different religions and none compare to the beauty that is Christ. Recently, I have realized that, while a Christian should be well versed in knowing what they believe and why, engaging in endless debates with people who aren't searching for answers about Jesus, is just a waste of time. The Bible says to be prepared to give a reason to those who ASK you why. (1 Peter 3:15) But it also says avoid endless disputes. (1 Tim. 6:20) Michael, I truely don't see any progress debating you anymore. That doesn't mean that I won't defend my faith to others though. Good Day, Sir. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 13, 2007 1:36 PM:

" The religious impulse is so universal, practically the 'first' intellectual attempt of humankind I'd say, that it ought to be respected wherever found. ALL religions deserve our consideration and investigation even if we are, as Rick and I, probably 'atheists' or at least 'agnostics.' MY difficulty with 'P'OB' and friends is not their particular 'faith' but their arrogance, intolerance and ignorance of others'; they don't even WANT to know anything about another religion that they can't employ against it. That's the 'sin' of literalist evangelicals and since they don't know they've sinned they can't be held responsible but it's unfortunate that means they are, ultimately, so boring... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 13, 2007 12:45 PM:

" Incidentally, I am not a sinner either, at least not so much as to be worth the attention of any god, and I am not searching--you're right. I study, and I think, and I express. But I am not a lost soul. Perhaps perceiving me as a searcher is the way for the Christian to justify conversing with such a satanic force as myself. Let me say now, though, that I am entirely pro-Job and wouldn't put him through any misfortune of any kind. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 13, 2007 12:42 PM:

" Michael, that was extremely well put. I hope those you addressed take the time to consider it honestly. I'm afraid, though, that for mister Phil O'Buster, the case is hopeless. I tried to get him to respond but he only says he answered somewhere else, or in your case he answered everything, etc. Basically he posts the same thing every time. In the case of Sasikala, he twists the case to her hating because she rejects his truth. What pious person wouldn't besides the precisely correct (for him) Christian. As for history, that is a topic he scrupulously avoids. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:53 AM:

" Did Rick say he was 'searching'? For what? A discussion I think, not for spiritual enlightenment. I too was/am indeed searching for that ever-elusive discussion; it's just that you, 'RD,' 'Kenneth Krause' et. al. are apparently SOLELY dedicated to proselytizing and because I am honestly writing about religion from an informed objectivity that is alien to you, you won't even address me directly. In your sensibility if I don't agree with your opinions no exchange is possible! I find that an odd standard to say the least. The joy of intellectual debate lies precisely in exploring unfamiliar ideas and in disagreement; presenting turgid 'proclamations of faith' is for Sunday morning rite. I'm sorry too; you're just not up to it, 'PO'B', but I presume you can't help it... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 12, 2007 3:49 PM:

" And rick, As to Michael Welch, I've been over all of his claims and accuasations. It's just a waste of time and bandwidth to do it all over again and yet exspect a different result. Michael on the other hand, seems to think repeating the same arguements makes him correct. Fine, I'll leave him to his illusion. It seems to me there is a saying about doing the same thing over and over again, but exspecting different results. It appears that you and I may have also reached an impass. I sensed a sincerity in some of your posts, so I thought I would try to show you some answers. I do understand wanting answers, but I think now that maybe you are just asking so you can have your 'fight.' I do wish you well if you are truely searching. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 12, 2007 3:42 PM:

" rick, be honest, the only thing that wouldn't "insult" sasi is me saying the Hindu religion is a/or the way to God. Seems a little thin skinned for someone who believes their religion is the 'tap root' of Christianity. I didn't twist her "gentle words." She accused me of hate by telling me my religious convictions are false. Plus she resorts to calling me insane. I spoke plainly, she didn't like it and has apparently left. Fine, that's her choice. I did respond in the other forumn about God as to your accuasation of Christain violence. As for sasi's claim that Christianity is simply an off shoot, I say BS. She never posted any "proof" so I left her to her illusion. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 12, 2007 2:12 PM:

" Again I must say that the 'exchange' has become deadly dull; the proselytizer is NOT going to convert his objects and he ignores my attempts at providing context and, frankly, the basis for a truly intelligent discussion of religious differences and similarities. 'PO'B' is ONLY a 'witness' here who has taken a vow never to 'play' with Welch (Welch knows too much!) and who is just slightly livelier regurgitating old anti-Bill Clinton canards on the 'Opinion' section's editorial re: 9-11. He seems energized by attacking BC (for bj) but uninspired to write anything of Bible BCs and ADs. Okey-dokey! Today's Rosh Hashanah by the way so a happy new year and if the folks below continue I only wish for them something livelier... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 12, 2007 2:07 PM:

" Phil O'Bates: If that's all there is, my friend, then let's stop dancing...You answer no one's questions, repeat that the only truth is that you believe (claim to know) to be true. You insult a good natured Hindu correspondent and twist her gentle words. You have no response to anything Welch argues. You never responded to any post about the devastation visited upon non-Christians by Christians. And I am sure you will never respond to the very insightful point by Sasikala that Christianity is but a minor offshoot, ultimately, of the much grander religion Hinduism. The explanatin for the last point, my guess at least, is that Hinduism simply wasn't bloodthirsty enough for this political world within which Christianity has thrived even divided into hundreds of factions. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 12, 2007 12:18 PM:

" Today's a problematic posting day -- a pain in the hmm day Marc? -- and I think my previous post here just got lost. Anyway I wanted to correct a mis-impression I may have made below re: the monotheisms: it's Christianity and Islam that are 'confessional,' i. e. all one has to do is declare belief and interestingly Buddhism is similarly confessional as Joe Campbell points out, and lies in the same relationship to Hinduism as Christianity to Judaism. I also wanted to commiserate with Sasi; 'PO'B' is a proselytizer and therefore ALL discussion with him (the former 'RD'?) will be turned toward 'conversion.' Maybe for a real discussion Rick and Sasi could correct any mistakes I've made re: Hinduism or amplify etc.?... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:57 PM:

" Dear Rick, of course no one would believe the 'tripe' you wrote, but then that isn't the God of Christianity. You said "Your god is a mean-spirited psycho who killed once but is now against the hell penalty. He wants you to think you're a sinner but that it's okay." God isn't a phsyco and He isn't against the 'hell penalty' but he does want to save you from it. God wants you to recognize that you are a sinner, but he doesn't say "that it's ok to just sin." I am still a sinner, but I am saved by the Grace of God. Now because I am saved can I just go on sinning merrily along? NO! I will still face punishment for my sin, but my soul is saved for eternity with Jesus. (1 Cor. 3:11-15) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 6:26 PM:

" Dear sasikala perumal, thank you for affirming this verse...1Cor. 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." By the way, is calling someone insane considered loving in the hindu faith? "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:15 PM:

" Mr. O'Bates: I beleive you are insane. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 2:44 PM:

" Dear sasikala perumal, I can not stop anyone from believing whatever they want. All I do is proclaim the truth, you will believe whatever you want to believe and will be held accountable for it. The fact that you are bothered by my words shows that you recognize that you may be in error. You see, you or anyone else could say that their own personal god will condemn me to their idea of hell, but I am not bothered in the least because I KNOW that I know the truth. Your belief is supported by your own hope that your belief is correct, mine is through God's own Spirit. I ask you to try God. Ask sincerely for Him to open your eyes and then read the Book of John in the Bible. If God doesn't come through for you, at least you can say you tried. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 1:58 PM:

" Sasi's correct of course that ALL religions have 'links'; recall my reference to the Greeks: Alexander invaded the Indus valley in the 4th century BCE and the polytheism of the Greeks could mesh with Indian polytheism as in both religions (among the educated) the gods are symbolic. Greek neo-platonism and even Christian gnosticism are obviously influenced by Indian thought; Jesus in the gnostic gospels behaves indeed more like a seer or a buddha. To imagine that the mideast is/was a 'wall' between west and east is illusory; ideas blended then as they do today. The rigidity of literalists tries to deny and impune other religious thought but it is virtually impossible to isolate the human spirit and certainly not 'forever'... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 1:04 PM:

" Dear O'Bates: Next time you send me a gift, put a hundred bucks in it. Your god is a mean-spirited psycho who killed once but is now against the hell penalty. He wants you to think you're a sinner but that it's okay. I don't get the two personalities, but I am sure a good shrink would. Still, I don't think any shrink would explain why people believe such tripe. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 11, 2007 12:56 PM:

" Yes, I see now that Mr. Sauk was mocking Christians. As for Mr. O'Bates, I ask only that he allow others to believe what they like without publicly telling them that they are damned. I think it is that we Hindus simply do not understand the evangelical impulse. As I implied previously, I personally believe that Christianity is an insignificant (spiritually) offshoot of Hinduism. But I would not care if Christians simply went off and believed what they believe and left others alone. But I do admit that this is only my opinion. The Christians on this web site all seem to find it necessary to claim that they know the truth and no other truth is possible, that those who do not believe as they do are going to hell. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 12:11 PM:

" To westernized Christians peering into the eastern world without any preparation it all looks like 'demons' and horrific half-animal gods they immediately (and rightly in an ironic way) identify with levantine images of Egyptian gods say. Also westerners have imbibed not just Yahweh and the Semites but the Greeks who emphasized the individual's priority and quest, something the Hebraic religion certainly did not. In Judaism (a very small remnant after all) the 'group' is more important than the one (you can see how that MUST be for Jews in particular) but that's also true in Hinduism in that your life right now is merely a 'passage' to (one hopes) higher consciousness. Christian critics like 'PO'B' are simply spinning doctrine without understanding; they 'witness' but offensively -- they just can't seem to help it... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:59 AM:

" In Hinduism one is in a certain sense one's own 'savior,' i. e. if one follows the proper rites and fulfills one's 'dharma' (one's duty, one's role in the life of the moment -- which is the origin of 'castes' by the way) one 'graduates' into a higher form of consciousness so to speak, even to become a 'god' as the gods also are only in rotation to that final dissolution into the Ultimate. 'Sin' in this view lies in neglecting 'dharma' so that the next life puts you 'down' in order to re-learn what you apparently missed. Your times in 'heavens' and 'hells' are periods of reward and/or punishment but are not your real aim which is that union with the All which is 'all about you'... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

" Just as most of us in arguing with a literalist Christian, Sasi's been spun about in his turning gyre. The misery of literalists is that they don't really respect another religion plus they know almost nothing about Hinduism but propagandized self-servings. I joked below that I think of myself (only 'think') as a 'Jewish Hindu'; but actually the two are alike as Joe Campbell points out in that they are both ethnic religions and one must essentially be born into them. The monotheisms are religions of 'belief' -- one declares 'There is no God but --' etc. and you're in. Hinduism is a process of getting 'out' of the travails of this world and unifying with the Ultimate; it has parallels in the monotheisms but inexact ones... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:29 AM:

" Dear Sauk, that is a clever cut and paste attempt to confuse people on the reality of Christain doctrine. I could pull some old orders from Washington to bomb Tokyo or Dresden, would that then mean that is the current policy of Washington? Were the working conditions in the North during the Civil War being run by the standards of God? The answers are No. Think about it. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:24 AM:

" Oh, and rick, I nor any other Christian can save anyone. The only thing that I or any other Christian can do is proclaim or tell others about the gift of salvation. It is then up to the individual to seek God, and up to God to save them. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:21 AM:

" Dear rick harsch, yes God does hate sin. It is an abomination, a poison, the reason for all evil in the Universe. It is opposite of all God stands for. Sin needs to destroyed. The beauty and love of God, though, is that the "sin stain" on each human would result in all of us humans being destroyed with the sin. God doesn't want to destroy all of us humans so he has provided a way for the human punishment of sin to be paid. That payment was paid by Jesus. Now, Jesus holds the payment for our sins, but we need to recognize our sin state, recognize Jesus's attonement, and ask for a pardon from the punishment for our individual "sin stain." When you look at the whole picture you see an INCREDIBLY LOVING GOD. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:13 AM:

" Dear sasikala perumal, you are telling me that my religious convictions are false, and therefore by your definition that is hate. Now, I really don't care if you hate me or my beliefs, what I'm warning you against though, is ignoring God's warnings as written in the Bible. You also mischaracterize me. I am not always right, but God is. Is the truth offensive to people living in sin? Sure. God cannot be for 'everything.' That doesn't even make sense logically. So if God is for somethings he is going to be against others. Being that God is for perfection he must be against sin (imperfection either intentional or not). God does hate sin and sin must be punished. That is justice. The Creator of the Universe is your God weather you recognize Him or not. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:44 AM:

" By the way, all typos in the previous post were managed by Marc Wehrs in a split second. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:43 AM:

" Madam Perumal, I believe that Sauk of the Long Name is supporting your argument, giving you a bloodthirsty quote from the Bible. At least I think that's his intent. The other guy, O'Bates, which a strange way to contract that verb, is in fact one of the more good-natured of the Christians you will fine emerging from the driftless zone. He just can't think. As you noted in the first post of yours, you are indeed under threat of everlasting suffering, and if that isn't hatred, I don't know what it. If I am wrong, if they save you, let me know. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:33 AM:

" I do not hate by my definition--I do not interfere with your faith. All you seem capable of is repeating that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Not only is that offensive to Hindus when you are speaking with us, but it is not a very effective argument. You answer none of my points. As to the post with the long name--why would someone from India volunteer to serve a man from Palestine? And, Mr. O'Bates, why would I ask myself what I would tell someone else's god? Why would I respect someone else's god if he is calling me a sinner? My god does not call you a sinner. "

Sauk Makataimeshekiakiak wrote on Sep 11, 2007 12:40 AM:

" Here is the salvation being offered sasikala They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 8:43 PM:

" Also, sasikala perumal, you need to recognize that by your definition of hate, that you are hating me. Here, simply reread what you wrote to me, " I believe that the attempt to convince me that my religious convictions are false reflects a lack of respect that is the equivalent of hate." I see that you have placed your faith in your teachers and your 'history' which is fine to a degree. You must ask yourself, is that what you are going to tell God when you are standing before Him giving an account of why you rejected Jesus's gift of salvation? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 8:38 PM:

" Dear sasikala perumal, I recognize that you believe that you are not a sinner, but that is not what the Word of God says: "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1John 1:6-8 Your arguement is with God. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:18 PM:

" Incidentally, Mt. O'Bates, I am not, and have never been, a 'sinner'. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:17 PM:

" Dear Mr. O'Bates, after long consideration, I believe that the attempt to convince me that my religious convictions are false reflects a lack of respect that is the equivalent of hate. Please do not love me soooooooo much. If you continue in this manner I may take the time to list all of the Christian tales that derived from Hindu tales, which could suggest that your religion is nothing more than an insignifcant offshoot of my own--except, of course, it is not insignificant in its impact on history--I would especially point to the depredations visited by your Christians upon my country. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 10, 2007 11:22 AM:

" Re: 'PO'B' below it isn't 'hate' of course; it's arrogance (though inadvertent, often). I'm not a Hindu either (re: Harsch) but I am a 'Jewish Hindu,' of sorts, i. e. I am rather entranced with the oddities of Yahweh and so steeped in the Bible of my western 'heritage' but I think Hinduism is more sensible all in all. Re: 'sin, original' -- Hindus don't have it; the world has NOT been 'corrupted' but it merely turns in circling cycles -- enlightened times vs unenlightened (GUESS where we are now hmmm?!) and life goes on obla-dee obla da! and you 'get it' (WE'RE ALL part of the whole!) or not, in which case you have to try again (reincarnation). That's no more 'fantastic' than the religious concepts we know; it's just that we know so little about 'the eastern way'... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 9, 2007 8:19 PM:

" This is to sasikala perumal, you are not hated. In fact you are loved soooo very much that God sent his only son to earth to pay the penalty for sin which he never committed. The penalty for your sin, my sin, Michael Welch's sin, rick harsch's sin, everyone's sin was paid. The only thing you need to do to spend eternity with God is accept ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus as your savior. People who tell you that the path that you are on without Jesus will lead to distruction, aren't telling you this out of hate, but out of love. They want you to experience Heaven with God. "

Dan M. wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:25 PM:

" Testing...testing.....cool! "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:40 PM:

" by the way, Michael Welch and me are friends but though i have studied Hinduism extensively, I am not a Hindu. I refer him to this Miss Perumal for any further Hindu conversation. She is surely more qualified than myself, though I share her gentle outrage. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:02 PM:

" And Sasi too! Who has been a Hindu longer than 'we,' born in a culture and civilization twice as ancient as our western one and that has a much more sophisticated and profound sense of the 'divine' as well as of the 'turning of the screw' of life so to speak. Literalist Christians show every day right here on this blog why America is distrusted and disliked all over the world as a giant version of some arrogant yahooish lout trampling through cultures and histories it knows less than nothing of... "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:00 PM:

" Michael, you can call me love, but just don't kiss me because then I'll turn into a Democrat and you know very well I am far left of that, and thus that much farther than god. But regarding the Hindu religion, as I know it, Miss Perumal has every reason to be offended AND detached, for in Hinduism god is indeed a sort of atomization that is present and enlivens all living beings. And no Hindu would reject a good deed. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:54 PM:

" Indeed, Rick my love! As a Hindu of course you KNOW that NO ONE is 'separated from God' except that he/she not recognize the eternal ineffable in him/herself. The 'face of God' is never 'hidden' for a Hindu because wherever one turns -- voila! 'God' is there!... "

sasikala perumal wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:50 PM:

" As a Hindu woman who was educated in La Crosse, I would like to express my revulsion at these posts. I returned to this site as an exercise in nostalgia only to find that I am one of the damned and hated. This is especially disturbing in that my country has been evangelized by you Christians for many centuries, and I do not think that the ideas expressed here were expressed so explicitly to my people. Thank you. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:29 PM:

" Headline: WELCH IS FOREVER SEPARATED FROM YAHWEH: YAHOO......Michael, that's how you can still get a headline. Meantime from what you have read you can see that as an atheist I am forever separated from the god of someone else's choice. "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:12 PM:

" Oh gee! Instantanteous posting! NOW that's an improvement -- as well as a temptation! WHICH inspires me to comment further on the messy anti-Catholicism rife on or rifling this blog. Protestant evangelicals (I call them 'literalists' re: their dulling/dullard reading of the great and terrible Oz book, 'Bible') are by definition anti-Catholic but per Pastor Holt many realize they must be polite about it. To accuse Mother (or 'Miss' re: literalist sensitivity) Teresa of heresy or apostasy because she was an intelligent human being is exploitation of the most telling and craven kind. Literalists do not 'love' Jesus; they love their self-creation of superiority and religious dominance -- 'Yahweh' is indeed their real 'God' for He's easily as cruel as they... "

Michael Welch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:58 AM:

" Initially attempting this post I couldn't even separate my words -- theyraninonelonglineasifIwereattempting'FinnegansWake' -- so I think Marc may want to investigate this aspect of the experiment. I also wish I could title my mini-essays as I did before though perhaps I was the only one so thoroughly entertained by them?! Hmm I don't know that this new format WILL work out well as is, though the intention is something I'd hoped for; I suppose it requires 'tweaking.' Re: the deterioration of this uh 'discussion' below into 'real Christians can only be evangelical Republicans' it may be just as well that a barrier to more such nonsense has been erected... "

To:Rick Harsch 10:04am wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:31 AM:

" That was sort of my point. You would be getting for eternity what you claim now: no God. I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. Re your last sentence-somewhat abrupt and blunt but not totally off the mark. Thank God He died so that I can be freed from the bonds of sin and have eternal life. "

To:9/7 10:07am wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:28 AM:

" As evidenced by Pastor Holts post, most Christians agree with you about this particular post. Please don't judge all Christians by this one poster. "

To:Paradox wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:11 AM:

" You appear to believe good works will get you to heaven, which is unbiblical. There is some Biblical support for just wars and executing criminals, but no Biblical support that I can find for mothers killing their babies. Also, by your logic, if you are against the war and against the death penalty, it would follow you would have to be against abortion. I will assume you are not a hypocrite, and are against all 3. "

Rick Harsch: all democrats are damned wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:07 AM:

" That has to go down as one of the funniest posts I've ever read. The Republicans lead the country into two murderous escapades and the Democrats are all going to hell. So to this brand of Christian murder is not a sin, but kissing a person of the same sex is a trap-door to Hell. "

rick harsch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:04 AM:

" It's the blind leading the lemmings...As an atheist, I don't believe in a god I could be separated from. I think that's obvious. I don't believe in heaven or hell--I think that's obvious...As for all this good works versus doing nothing but living in the shed blood of Christ being everything, what I wonder is if Jesus's own good works were good for nothing. Do you mean to say 'Thank God He died?' "

Paradox wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:47 AM:

" When you say you are pro-life, you cant be pro-war and pro-death penalty as well. So if you support the war and death penalty, welcome to the dark side...You aint going to heaven anytime soon no matter how much you beg/believe/cry out to Jesus "

To:Rick Harsch wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:13 AM:

" I would like to respond to your post to Pastor Holt if I may. As a Christian, I believe good works do not earn your way to heaven. I believe the only way to heaven is through the shed blood of Jesus. If works could get you to heaven, Christ died for nothing. Let me ask you a question. Hell is eternal separation from God. As an atheist, isn't this what you claim to desire anyway? "

To Mikey wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:17 AM:

" It evolved into this from the fact that she didn't hear from God for 50 year's? That has to concern even you doesn't it? There are people making comments on here like everyone knows what their talking about. I want them to try and back up their comments with proof.It's all part of healthy dialogue in the end... "

Mikey wrote on Sep 7, 2007 6:47 AM:

" Wow. I thought the article was about the struggles of Mother Teresa, who worked failingly amid the poverty and despair of the Indian underclass. Now it seems to have evolved into a debate about who gets saved and how, and Catholic vs. Evangelical crap. I think most reasonable people would say that Mother Teresa was a great woman who devoted her life to charity. We would be in a better place if more of us were like her. I will leave her ultimate fate in God's hands, not the bloggers'. "

To Pastor Holt wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:04 PM:

" As a non Christian person,I'm wondering what this "salvation" is that you talk about? Saved from what? "

the problem with Christians wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:25 PM:

" The problem with Christians is not their core beliefs. Who can argue with Judeo-Christian principles, really? The problem with Christians is that the believe they are right about EVERYTHING. Seriously... drive into the parking lot of any area church on a sunday with a "stop the war" sticker on your car, or some other liberal slogan and just WATCH the disapproving looks you get. Christians claim to be loving but they end up being some of the most hurtful people out there. "

To Pastor Holt: wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:09 PM:

" IF that post was authentic, then I feel the need to say that I think you're failing your congregation if you do not make it clear that political decisions are moral decisions, and that living a Christ-centered life is NOT compatible with following the Democrat party or the Catholic church. "

HOW can you be a democrat and be saved? wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:03 PM:

" I am sorry, Pastor Holt, but that makes me ANGRY. Here is what the democrat party stands for: gay marriage, abortion, adultery, and relegating America to equal or lesser status than muslim countries. Democrats are anti war. Democrats are environmentalists- ie care more about taking care of the earth than their souls. Democrats think it's fine to be gay, pedophile, whatever. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS FAITH IN JESUS ALONE that saves. But how can you possibly say that your parents are saved and support the democrat party? HOW? I never thought YOU would turn out to be a political relativist. I promise you I will NEVER darken the doors of your church again. Your wishy-washy relativism disgusts me, and I am sure that it disgusts God "

Hello Pastor, from Rick Harsch wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:02 PM:

" Maybe you can tell me: do you true Christian people really believe that all, say, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians are not saved? Does that mean they are going to Hell? Finally, does a life of good works based on the belief in good works, a life truly devoted to helping the wretched of the Earth, result in Hell if the person is an atheist? "

Pastor David Holt wrote on Sep 6, 2007 4:27 PM:

" As the Sr. Pastor of First Evangelical Free Church let me set the record straight: 1. I have never said that Catholics are not saved. A true Christian is one who has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation, regardless of what church they attend. There are probably some at First Free who are not saved. All are welcome at our church. 2. I have never said that if someone becomes a Christian they will no longer be a democrat. My parents are truly saved and they are democrats. 3. I have never said that someone who is truly saved will not struggle with depression. There are many Christ-followers in the Bible who struggled with emotional issues. 4. Remember that God's Word is true and accurate. Many blogs on this board are not. "

Christian hatred indeed... making more atheist and agnostics every day wrote on Sep 6, 2007 4:20 PM:

" something tells me that is not the intended effect "

To:3:12pm wrote on Sep 6, 2007 4:19 PM:

" I do get it but you are incorrect. It is not Biblical

SECTION SPONSORS

Comments »