Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 18, 2007 9:00 PM:
" Oh yeah, and Michael, this thread has pretty much run it's coarse I think. Besides, I think by Saturday, this particular story will probably disappear to the archives. I'm sure will continue butting heads on these topics on other stories as they pop up. See you later. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 18, 2007 8:58 PM:
" Michael, I will admit that I probably don't put enough qualifiers on my postings as well. My 2:27 post was an attempt to explain why I answer some of your posts. I read them as you making blanket statements about Christianity, that I (in my experience, knowledge, understanding) see as untrue. I will also say that posting on the internet loses some of the cues of conversation one gets face to face. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't posted on here with hate or anger. Sometimes, though, I read over my past posts and can see how some people might think that I'm being mean, if they didn't know me. My intentions on the Trib pages is to express the truth as I know it the best that I can. I don't always succeed. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 18, 2007 2:08 PM:
" I agree with Rick that 'PO'B' keeps up his 'good cop/bad cop' routine but it is the usual for literalist (evangelical) proselytizing -- in fact it's in the gospels when Jesus himself goes into said rants. I can't see how 'PO'B' could permit (in his mind) anyone a 'pass' out of hell AND continue to believe as HE does. Having once been a Christian (at least I thought I was; again 'PO'B' may have to 'excise' me) I believed as Harsch wishes 'P' would. Now of course 'P' would claim that 'God will decide' etc. but DOCTRINALLY he has questioned whether 'some' Catholics for example are 'Christian' and so on rather regularly. He may forego expressing himself fully but he EVER leaves the distinct impression re: those doctrinal 'hurdles' that they mayn't be evaded, i. e. the 'threats' ('warnings') do get written by him notwithstanding... "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 18, 2007 1:35 PM:
" What's fascinating to me (in my opinion) in these debates is the awkward interplay between faith and reason. It seems that if you go beyond saying 'this is what I believe', then sooner or later reason is a wall you can not scale. What seems to happen then is that the debate turns acrimonious or someone displays flexibility. I give for example Phil O'Bates, who ranges from almost irresistably kind, or polite, to near menacing (You'll get it in the end!). What I can't get past is the firm belief that the non believer in Jesus' resurrection is bound for Hell. More than anything, that's what keeps me posting. I want to see the Christian allow that, for instance, Sasikala Perumal or Michael Welch is not necessarily doomed because they don't believe the same thing as another person. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 18, 2007 11:17 AM:
" 'PO'B' I think you're begging the question -- you SAY that Jesus is the Jewish messiah but you refuse to say why. Also the 'presumption' is always that what we write are indeed our 'opinions'; when YOU make assertions you don't ALWAYS write 'in MY opinion' do you? You raise these matters (in my opinion!) whenever you're in a tight spot intellectually and wish to break off by blaming your opponent for 'indiscretions' you yourself are just as 'guilty' of. Okay. There's no coercion involved here; if you're concluding your further participation on this board you're obviously free to do so but don't blame me... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 17, 2007 2:27 PM:
" Michael, I really have just two main comments: 1) I'm not going to do a cut and paste of why I (a non-Jew) believes Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah. I think that would best be handled by a Messianic Jew who came to Jesus from a Jewish background. 2) My point when I talked about you saying things like "Christians believe" or "Jews understand" is that you should put a qualifier onto it such as "in my opinion." You like to make blanket statements about Christians that I now doesn't include me, and I am a Christian. The truth is that neither one of us knows for sure what the majority Christian belief is. We just have opinions based on our experiences or our readings. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 17, 2007 12:49 PM:
" I'll add some more: I have known MANY Christians who are 'good people' and help others, who even vote 'left' or at least 'liberal' and I KNOW (again I DO 'know') that their religion is VERY important to the way they see the world. Many are much more generous about 'rival' religious beliefs than are 'PO'B' and the literalist Christians I usually encounter here on these boards. However it is NOT true that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. don't behave as well and as generously as individual Christians; my experience is that generosity and compassion are universal human traits and so is cruelty: as I have illustrated here many times it is also a trait that 'even' Christians display... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 17, 2007 11:34 AM:
" I'm not sure what Rick is asking of me that I haven't written before but here goes: dying for one's religion is ubiquitous; that's what they think they're doing when they blow themselves up in Iraq eh? People have sacrificed their lives for religious beliefs throughout human history and for ALL the major religions. Buddhist monks are incarcerated, beaten and some killed RIGHT NOW, in Myanmar-Burma, for marching in the name of the dignity and worth of all living things which is what Buddhism teaches. The Christian hell is especially vicious and I think 'created' by the gospel writers in order to impress upon non-believers (especially the Jews for whom that hell is somewhat nebulous) that Boy are you in trouble! if you don't believe what we say! The saddest, most disappointing words stuck in Jesus' mouth concern his rants re: 'hell'... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 17, 2007 11:23 AM:
" The argument that 'everybody' or nearly everybody 'believes such and so' and then YOU ought to believe it is a form of social coercion, 'of that tyranny over the MIND of man' that Jefferson (the agnostic, at the least) swore 'eternal vigilance' against. MOST people believe many things that aren't exactly true but sound 'true' because they hear them over and over. I think MOST Christians are such because they've been raised to be; MOST who attend services probably don't attend each and every Sunday and many don't read the Bible or any scholarly books about such. Their beliefs are 'inherited' so to speak and serve largely as comforts and explanations in times of trial which is fine; that's what they're for... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 17, 2007 11:15 AM:
" Jews who convert to Christianity I would presume to have accepted Christian interpretations of their scriptures? And as Judaism is an 'ethnic' religion no Jew forfeits his 'Jewness' by such conversion (especially re: Hitlerian standards; converts did NOT 'escape' the camps) but no matter how 'beautiful' their declarations sound to Christians (hmmm) I doubt that they sound so TO most Jews. I'd invite 'PO'B' to explain here why Jesus would have been the JEWISH messiah; that's what the board is for. As for never hearing some interpretations of scripture -- I would suppose at some time or another one had 'never heard' of even Jesus. That's why one tries to acquire what's called an 'education' nes pas?... "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 4:27 PM:
" Michael, since the O'Bates won't answer me, tell me what you think of my extension of his logic. Also a word about hell, or eternal separation, would be nice since we're going to be in the same apartment. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 4:24 PM:
" No religious opinion is a majority opinion, but what Jews believe is probably what a majority of Jews believe. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:22 PM:
" Michael, the angels that appeared to Joshua and Abraham being God is your interpretation. What leads you there, I don't know, but I can honestly say that I have never heard the three angels as depicting the trinity of God. On the topic of Jesus as the Messiah, I will say this: I'm not a Jew or any kind of expert on Jewish traditions or how they understand the Torah, but I have listened to converted Jews explain how beautifully Jesus does fulfill the prophecies of the Messiah and how the Passover meal shows Jesus as the Messiah. I say these things to point out that your over generalization of what "Christians believe" or what "Jews understand" is not universal or even a majority opinion. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:13 PM:
" And of course the gospels ARE written in order to evoke the Jewish scriptures but so to interpret them in the context of that universal salvation, i. e. the Davidic throne IS 'restored' but spiritually, not literally (in this the messianic Jews are the 'literalists'!) for -- remember! -- Jesus' 'kingdom is not of THIS world.' In Revelation indeed the 'new Jerusalem' (temple, kingdom) descends FROM heaven to earth and as Jesus states in the gospels 'Destroy THIS "temple" and I shall rebuild it in three days' -- which means he, Jesus, is the 'temple' now, in Christian doctrine... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:05 PM:
" In Daniel you're interpreting the temple as the 'second (Herodian) temple' which does not exist at the time of the writing so the reference is obviously to the Babylonian destruction and predictions of further disasters re: its rebuilding. That's how Jews would see their own scriptures; and Christians in turn reinterpret these texts to suit their religious doctrines. In such 'apocalyptic' books as Daniel (just as in Revelation) you have ample opportunity to 'plug in' whatever 'present' you wish -- some have said D predicts the cold war etc. But Jesus does not restore the Davidic throne -- you might say David Ben-Gurion for one would be a 'better' messiah... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:52 PM:
" I may as well post my 'Noah' response here (and test my own 'Uncle Josh'ness): in the scriptures, depicting Yahweh is always for the Jewish authors a problematic enterprise, hence 'the angel.' In the Sodom and Gomorrah story 'the three angels' who picnic with Abraham before setting off to destroy the cities are often interpreted by Christians as a first showing for 'the trinity' which is clearly 'God,' in the doctrine. Also when Abraham walks along with 'them' he pleads for mercy for S & G (note: Abraham here is MORE merciful than God) and the reply is 'I will not' if thus and so. In Joshua the patriarch WORSHIPS before 'the Man' because (now) the ground is 'holy' (see Exodus 3) and it is so because 'HE is here' is the distinct implication... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:52 PM:
" Jesus's primary purpose was for Israel, but they largely rejected him. Now if you assume that the NT was made up to 'fulfill' OT prophecies, there's not alot I can say to probably disuade you of that, but there are some prophecies that even that argument fails on. Here's one example: the Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27. Here's a site by Messianic Jews who have looked at all of these arguments:(http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay) For seeing Jesus revealed in Passover see: ( http://www.menorah.org/the%20messiah%20in%20the%20passover.html) "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:39 PM:
" I'm reminded here of a scene in Woody Allen's film 'Radio Days' when on Yom Kippur 'Uncle Josh' goes next door to complain to a secular (even Marxist!) Jew when that neighbor is playing his radio while working in his back yard that he (the neighbor) is disturbing the observant. Josh returns a couple hours later now convinced that the non-believer is right; J has even broken the proscribed fast and has eaten (among other things) pork chops! As he's explaining his 'unconversion' he starts suffering chest pains (it turns out to be severe heartburn) just when he says 'God doesn't care' about what such as he do. Well of course his wife Ceil and sister Tess immediately pounce 'See! Yer bein' punished!' etc. I feel that way about those flummoxed posts on 'Noah'... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:08 PM:
" And the key to understanding history in the modern sense is 'scholarship' which is continual questioning and research. Of course by definition a 'supernatural' event is always MORE questionable; however in antiquity this was not so though some writers were indeed more skeptical than others, especially about events closer to their immediate understanding. Tacitus thought of the 'followers of Chrestos' as gullible types, ignorant folks and/or even the 1st century equivalent of 'new age' faddists and deplored the rejection of 'the old-time religion' of the Roman fathers (the 'faith of HIS fathers' so to speak). Many Greek and Roman intellectuals rejected Christianity initially (before it became 'official') but as it cleverly conflated the Greco-Roman with the Jewish it had distinct appeal to the middle and lower classes... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:51 PM:
" Yeah exactly re: history and faith -- that's why I say these are RELIGIOUS books; after all EVERY religion presents an historical context -- unlike say 'Narnia' or 'Middle Earth' -- the Noah story has its clear antecedent in Sumerian religious mythology. (By the way I can't seem to post on the Noah board for some cyber-reason that may as well be 'supernatural' to me.) The gospels owe a great deal to the Jewish scriptures and record Jesus' life (or 'lives,' per each gospel version) as evoking figures, stories and symbols in the Israelite religion. But the messiah aspect is altered as I said into a universal, not Jewish, 'salvation' that is not political but 'otherworldly,' i. e. spiritual. So this is NOT a JEWISH messiah.. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:38 PM:
" Again the Jewish messiah is a political figure who restores Israel to Davidic greatness and independence; he is not a 'god.' Granted there ARE mystical and supernatural aspects to him but then all religions involve such; the beings needn't be 'immortals' to get into this kind of stuff. In the Jewish scriptures both Enoch (see Genesis) and Elijah (see II Kings) do not die; rather they are both taken up into heaven by God Himself or in the case of Elijah via that dramatic flaming chariot. Every passover seder (meal) an empty chair is supposed to be placed at the table in case Elijah returns which would of course be a messianic signal. In the gospels John the baptist denies being Elijah but nevertheless the Christian interpretation is usually that he is, figuratively at least, and then Jesus is therefore yes you know... "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:36 PM:
" Also lost in reference to the 10/14 4:50 O'Bates post: By that logic (basically, it must be true if people believe it), we must accept an Islamic heaven that people kill and die for, and we must ask whether Jesus was immortal since the Jews don't accept his resurrection. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:33 PM:
" I'm not sure what you mean by "unadulterated history" but I will agree that the NT wasn't written as a history book. In a history book I don't believe you would find stories of things such as the virgin birth, walking on water, turning water to wine, or the resurrection. These items, while I know to be true, are known that way through faith and not proof. History books like science must rely on verifiable evidence. What is verifiable in the NT is history, what isn't is taken on faith. Now just because something is taken on faith or is not verifiable, doesn't mean that it isn't true. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:04 PM:
" The gospels are usually 'conflated' into one story as per the Christmas one with 'wise men' AND 'shepherds tending their flocks by night' but of course readers know that the former are ONLY in Matthew and the latter ONLY in Luke. The reasons are the different points of view: in Matthew, the most Jewish of gospels, Jesus is presented as a 'new Moses' and the travails of his birth with the 'evil king' Herod et. al. parallel the first chapter in Exodus. 'Out of Egypt I have called My son' also refers to the Moses-Jesus construct. In Luke the 'magnificat' (monologue) of Mary decries the rich and powerful and proclaims 'good news' for the poor so to speak so the initial 'witnesses' are not exalted magi but ignorant shepherds living in the open. (The shepherds-in-Bethlehem theme also obviously evokes David the shepherd-king and messianic hopes...) "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:53 AM:
" For some reason I'm having a helluva time posting today too; I'll try again: 'PO'B' has presented the usual arguments for the gospels' 'historicity' and if literalists did not accept them then they would no longer BE literalists. There are of course MANY scholars of biblical literature who have offered other interpretations and because there are so few sources about Jesus and early Christianity outside the NT naturally the focus must be on examining it, but also within the historical and cultural contexts of the times. I am not questioning the gospels as 'genuine' works but I do not see them as unadulterated 'history.' Christianity is a religion and the predominant one in 'the west' so the presumption is that it is 'the norm.' I say it ought be examined as other religions are... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 15, 2007 5:10 PM:
" Also, the basis for accepting ancient texts as reliable have the NT as more trust worthy then Aristotle's or Homer's writtings (http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm). The Bible was written with proofs that even unbelievers knew to be true. (Acts 2:22) These show that the Bible was written in the time of eyewitnesses and that the Apostles were not afraid to proclaim what they knew to be true. Lastly, when you witness first hand the miraculous life changing effect that accepting Jesus has on peoples lives, you get reaffirmation that Jesus is God and our only salvation. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 15, 2007 4:46 PM:
" Michael, here's a quick recap of what got lost...Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the Messiah (http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay) I nor any other Christian base their life on the teachings of Paul, but on the teachings of Jesus. Paul even says he's a sinner and Jesus is the savior. Polycarp, a disciple of John, comments that the Gospels were even accepted by the heretics of the first century because even they recognized their accuracy. What the heretics did was add to the Gospels. Luke has been ranked as a 'historian of the 1st rank' because of his historically accurate accounts, verified through archealogy. The Gospels don't contradict themselves, they look at the same events through different lenses. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 15, 2007 4:37 PM:
" Hey! How come my other comments aren't posted? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 15, 2007 1:54 PM:
" Ok Michael, I'll try to respond as best I can in the time I have. Part of your posts have to do with the reliability of the New Testament. The reason for this is because, as most people who have looked at historical documentation on the resurection know, the New Testament is the primary source for this. Prior to the 19th century it was thought that the NT was composed around 130-150 years after Christ. After studying things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts most historians could not date the age of the NT as older then 80 years after Christ. They could very well have been written sooner but the proof isn't there yet. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 15, 2007 1:06 PM:
" Time for me to go again; I hope 'PO'B' has the opportunity to comment on/contend with my posts later today. I look forward to those comments tomorrow I hope... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 15, 2007 1:01 PM:
" It's interesting too that the assertion the 'original twelve' died for the new religion is NOT based on gospel sources except for the death of James, brother of John not Jesus, in Acts. Not even the executions of Peter and Paul in Rome are recorded -- all this comes from 'church tradition,' i. e. mainly that of the proto-church of Rome, the Catholic church eventually. Even some of the names of the followers differ in the gospels and raelly only Peter, John, Andrew and James get very much print -- aside of course from the oddly named 'Judas Iscariot.' One can also note that in doctrine said Judas as well as Caiaphas the high priest, Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate are absolutely necessary to complete the universal salvation. (Both Judas and Pilate were then designated 'saints' in some gnostic traditions...) "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 15, 2007 12:41 PM:
" For Paul, the real founder of Christianity (the religion ABOUT Jesus), the messianic component re: the Jews is superseded by a universal doctrine; now the 'original sin' of Adam is expiated (to degree, i. e. it still exists) by the 'payment' in blood of the ultimate sacrifice -- a human one. In Genesis God intervenes to stop that sacrifice of the son (of Abraham in this case) but in the gospels He refuses; He turns away and even Jesus is quoted as imploring Him 'Why have You forsaken me?' In this new doctrine the human sacrifice IS necessary and through it the 'son' becomes a 'god' -- it's easy to see then why the Greeks et. al. understood and the Jews were appalled with Paul's amalgam of the Greco and Jewish religions into Paul's new one... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 15, 2007 12:32 PM:
" I'm sorry 'PO'B' hasn't had time to post since yesterday afternoon but I'd like to continue my discussion of the gospels. (By the way I think 'P' did well in his responses -- within those tightened strictures of literalism.) The resurrection became the doctrine for continuing 'Jesusism' so to speak; as the failed messiah, the slain 'king' discarded like a criminal, yes the movement would have died with him. But his followers 'saw him again'; however in a greatly different way re: the 'road to Emmaus' incident in Luke wherein (significantly) they do NOT recognize him until THE BREAKING AND BLESSING of the bread which is his specific ritual established in that 'last supper.' Jesus 'returns' ('the return of the king') but, like Gandolf say, in a new form, something between human and angel, a 'demi-god' of sorts, like say Hercules, the son of a god... "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 15, 2007 4:47 AM:
" I guess when the wrath of O'Bates (eternal separation from his own argument) is provoked (self-), eternal separation from GOD is a flaming ordeal. It doesn't take much for the gentle believer to become a brimstone flinging pedant. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 5:32 PM:
" Good discussion by the way! Thank you 'P'! Looks like it's a 'rest period' now so I take my leave 'til tomorrow when I hope to see more from 'PO'B' yes but then also from Rick -- for 'all is commentary' of course!... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 5:16 PM:
" By the way some French classes have been pure hell!... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 5:04 PM:
" The gospels were authored decades after Jesus' death -- Mark circa 65-70 CE; Matt about 80; Luke 90; John around 100. NONE were 'first-hand' despite the attributions to two of the so-called 'original twelve.' The four gospels were written in different styles for different communities: Mark is a very 'lean and hungry' story of a Jesus not at all certain of success; Matt recounts a very Jewish Jesus who appeals more to Jewish Christians; Luke tells of two 'journeys,' first to Jerusalem by Jesus, then to Rome by Paul (in Acts, 'the sequel'), in a gospel primarily for gentiles; John is a gnostic, mystical sort, VERY anti-Jewish, alienated completely from the Jewish community. They are NOT 'biographies' but RELIGIOUS accounts... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:52 PM:
" Jesus lives in the gospels -- both canonical and non- -- and he has apt things to say that are well worth hearing and pondering. But his religion is not your religion and your religion is 'about' him, not 'of' him. That however is not his fault. He was a good Jew to the end. As for the 'soul saving' again you've descended to threatening me -- you've been playing 'good cop/bad cop' just like all such literalist proselytizers do. I know I know -- 'it's your duty' but it isn't what I'm discussing. I am a 'Jesusist' as I said, not a 'Christian'... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:50 PM:
" So Michael, you think that Jesus died and "that's that?" If Jesus did not rise from the dead then you would be right. The ONLY explanation for the growth of Christianity imediately after the death of Jesus can be because Jesus rose from the dead. You have to keep in mind that the earliest Christians were Jews. The Apostles were Jews. They surely were thinking like you while Jesus was in the grave, because they were thinking of an Earthly Davidic Kingdom. If Jesus doesn't rise from the dead, they surely don't try to create a following after a dead savior. All the Jews or Rome would have had to do is show them the body or grave and this 'dead hero' worship would have died. When you also recognize the Apostles accepted to be killed verses deny Jesus rose from the dead, you have HUGE reason to believe! "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:46 PM:
" 'P' -- I know perfectly well what it means in its King Jamesian version. Of course I was making another (and apt) point with the word 'suffering.' I know about 'jots and tittles' too but if you want to continue in that vein then YOU've 'missed the point'... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:42 PM:
" Michael, you posted "But it's not 'unreasonable' or even unwise to examine one's 'feelings' more closely eh?" Sure, examine your 'feelings' but understand that your feelings are fickle, they change with the wind. Jesus is eternal and does not change. Also understand, that your feelings or knowledge aren't going to save your soul. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:41 PM:
" And sure the crucifixion is certainly a 'stumbling block' -- why? Because the Jewish messiah is a political one who by certain 'signs and wonders' (such as the descent from heaven of the mysterious figure mentioned in Daniel, 'the son of MAN' -- not 'of God' note) arises to 'restore' the glories of the Davidic-Solomonic throne -- the good ol' days -- and expel the 'kittim' (the unbelievers, i. e. the Greeks and Romans) and then lead all the diasporic Jews (THOUSANDS of Jews already lived outside Palestine in the 1st centuries BCE and CE) 'back to Jerusalem' and religious theocracy aka 'freedom' -- for theocrats at least. Crucifixion simply meant he failed, obviously, and died ignobly as a 'criminal.' Too bad but that's that. To the Greeks sure it seemed a foolish belief to exalt this dead man as a 'god'... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:37 PM:
" Maybe your just trying to be funny, Michael, but read the whole verse. It says "Suffer the little children and forbid them NOT..." I realize it's kind of 'Yoda speak' for some, but what it is saying in modern terms is "Do NOT suffer (prohibit) or forbid the little children to come to Jesus." When you read the whole chapter the context clearly shows you that. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:28 PM:
" This part of the letter of Paul only serves as Paul's rationale. As a Jew Paul knows that scriptural study is 'commanded' and that 'all is commentary' but he is saying the Jews require a 'sign from God' -- well obviously Paul wrote BEFORE the gospels of which he is consequently ignorant because those gospels are purportedly full of such 'signs.' However the 'signs' definitely DID NOT add up to a 'JEWISH messiah.' Now Jesus can be the 'gentile messiah' if wanted but in the forum in Athens yes the Greeks did seek some intellectual understanding; still, if you want to 'feel' your way into a belief, sure many people do. But it's not 'unreasonable' or even unwise to examine one's 'feelings' more closely eh?... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:14 PM:
" Oh the little children 'suffer' all right! The boogy-man leans over their night-times oft in Christianaland. But sure the reason religions have caused SO much war, devastation and suffering is precisely that it is far easier to believe literally than metaphorically -- unfortunately it is not more accurate and as I say it does huge harm. People generally receive extremely inadequate religious educations I'll admit and I can only write here to encourage those who can and/or will to explore the unknown with greater sensitivity... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:13 PM:
" Your "religious sophistication" comment also reminds me of these verses: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;" 1 Cor. 1:18-23
"
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:07 PM:
" So Michael, your religion is one of "religious sophistication?" That sounds like an exclusive club of religious intellectuals. That's why God's way to Him and Heaven are so much better, because even those who can't read, are mentally handicapped, or can't afford to attend the right religious sophistication education centers can have faith in Jesus. "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 19:14 "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 14, 2007 3:57 PM:
" Hell will not be like your college liberal arts class. Here are a few indicators to think about: Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Sodom and Gomorrah are no longer. Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." Is Sodom still burning? Neither will those who will be sentenced to Hell. Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." As you can see, it's not a French class. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 3:43 PM:
" By the way 'the Buddha story' is a 'metaphor' as are ALL religious stories (see 'Noah') and it is indeed 'believable' as a spiritual revelation, an insight into the exact nature of It All. And ALL religions have these insights and therefore are equally 'believable' for them IF you are receptive and prepared (culturally or at least intellectually) to receive them. All religions evolve and adapt to changing times and cultures or they stop existing except as arcane but fascinating 'legends.' LITERAL belief (like 'PO'B's) IS understandable because religious sophistication is hardly encouraged by the hierarchies of sects; however the more sensitive one becomes to ALL the closer one gets to anything that may be called 'ultimate truth'... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 14, 2007 3:13 PM:
" Oh poor Jesus! His purported followers constantly treat him like Job: save HIM too from his 'friends'! But 'PO'B' again reveals the 'flip side' -- believe in the religion about Jesus or go to hell. Therefore Jesus (the Jew), the Buddha, Gandhi and eventually Harsch an' me can share a cold-water er 'hot' (VEERRRRY HOT! nes pas?) flat and we'll have some interesting conversations -- maybe Rick and I can pick up enough Aramaic and perfect some Hindi 'cuz we'll have -- well eternity to do it huh?! (What language does Satan speak? AH! The only 'civilized' language of course! Satan speaks French!...) "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 3:19 PM:
" Interestingly, I cannot imagine a Buddhist responding as Phil did: you will have to answer for your faith in the Bible over your faith in Buddha someday. The Buddhist would be happily inclusive. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 3:17 PM:
" Phil, when judgment day comes, you're in for one hell of a spanking, threatening people that way. What keeps you from listening (reading)? Welch gives you a Buddha and a Jesus that are deeply similar and you simply can't understand what he is saying. Welch presents his image of Jesus and you refuse to discuss it, having what we used to call a hissy fit, accusing him of being the 'all knowing' for accusing you of being rather unJesus-like. Why not address the point? Remember: love your enemies Phil--they might not be real enemies. You might benefit from their wisdom. You might yet escape that spanking. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 13, 2007 3:08 PM:
" Michael, you top off your sadness with more sadness. You demonstrate your faith in the story of Buddha over your faith in the Bible. You can believe that Buddha story if you like, but you will have to answer for it someday. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 2:06 PM:
" Exactly! Your 'God' truly IS a sad, frightening image; I present the mirror and you think you see 'another' -- and that the Hindus quite rightly call 'maya' or 'illusion.' When the Buddha sat under the tree the god-demons tried to entice him first with sex and then with fear; the armies of 'orcs' shot hoards of arrows at the Buddha and the arrows turned into flowers as the Buddha refused fear (as well as sex!) as ultimate realities; instead he trusted his own understanding. That is NOT a 'sad' story but a most hopeful one as when Jesus answers the query 'How many times does one forgive any wrong?' with 'Oh innumerable times! More than YOU can count!' 'Fear NOT' -- good advice from Jesus and the Buddha... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 13, 2007 1:54 PM:
" Michael, your postings are truely sad. Your image of God is crafted from your notions. Rick's image of God is crafted from his notions. My image of God is crafted by the Bible or God's own Word. They are all not the same, but yes, your versions are not pretty, and your consequences for holding to them will not be either. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 1:21 PM:
" There IS no other 'image' of God than mine -- or Rick's -- or YOURS. That's precisely what I (and now I think I DO understand what Rick has been trying to do) have attempted to show you: what YOUR 'God' looks like. NOT a 'pretty' picture... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 13, 2007 1:07 PM:
" Michael, sometimes your postings tell more about yourself and your prejudices then you realize. This one is great..."I know that there are many Christians who would agree more with me (and Rick) then 'PO'B'" You KNOW? Wow! Maybe your name should be something like "the all knowing Michael Welch." You claim to be 'more Jesus like' yet dismiss what He believed without a blink (Genesis) and make prejudical judgements my actions toward others without proof. It's funny too, how you attempt to justify or explain rick's beliefs. While you may be close to the truth on rick, I have never seen him even try to explain his views that way. In one way, you and rick are very much alike, you both attempt to make God in your own image. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 12:51 PM:
" I know that there are many Christians who would agree more with me (and Rick) than with 'PO'B'; I realize that this exchange is skewered by the narrowness of it -- that those other professed Christians aren't posting. They however are often placed at a disadvantage by doctrinal differences and the humanity of anything discussed can be dissolved in quite meaningless digressions about say the Virgin Mary etc. But I am continually amazed by how unJesus-like in his views 'PO'B' really is: how he disdains non-violence for what General Sanchez, former commander in Iraq, has now called 'an on-going nightmare'; and 'PO'B' even rejects aid to the poor and ill that could actually be sustained and do some permanent good. History teaches us that religions don't help much -- unless people PRACTICE rather than merely 'believe' -- unless they take James seriously or even I Corinthians 13... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 12:07 PM:
" 'Sin' is a doctrinal term and that's how religionists define it: 'ALL are sinners' because God goofed -- He made fallible human beings and then blamed THEM for their humanity. (See the 'Noah' article for Saturday -- 'Faith' day!) What Rick recognizes (I've known Rick for more than 20 years) is called 'ethics' and is re: Aristotle about the proper empathetic treatment of our fellows -- who are after all in the same 'condition' any of us are in: hence Marx, Freud, yes Gandhi, even Einstein, all genuine humanists, also not 'infallible.' 'Sin' for Rick is NOT 'doctrinal'; it is I think e. g. to leave others sick and poor when a society as rich as -- well even Slovenia -- could do something about such. Consequently I believe Rick's ethics ARE superior to Christians' sin -- which is why I am a 'Jesusist' and no longer a 'Christian'... "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 13, 2007 9:24 AM:
" Speaking of Rick, Michael, I guess Phil and I now correspond through you, so if you can channel me here: what Phil doesn't get is that I do not believe in his god, so nothing I do be related to that. I refuse to call myself a sinner, just as I would refuse to call myself a criminal. I tried to explain this to Phil, but since he is a mook, he refuses to accept it. I did not define mook because the Scorsese film Mean Streets does it better than I can. But mainly, just because I am called a sinner and deny it does not mean that I must define sin. Any definition given by the accusing party is enough for me. I am not that. Thanks Mike. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 12, 2007 3:41 PM:
" That's fine, Michael, that you define sin. I would even bet that you would accept the title of sinner given your definition. The thing with rick is that he said he wasn't a sinner. So I wanted to know why he thought so. Part of trying to find out I asked him what he thought a sinner was and what sin is. Oddly enough, he decided to just dance around those two simple questions and never answer them. To me, that is just a vain attempt to ignore ones own condition. I think rick thinks that if he ignores his condition long enough, he would have an excuse when he stands before God. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 11, 2007 11:53 AM:
" It's fair enough of course to state as 'reasons' what Rick has stated but the discussion here has been a pretty tight circle and I saw no reason for 'PO'B' to alter his religious duty to proselytize -- proselytizing being not unique to Christianity yet the great difficulty for others is that Christians come from societies often FAR richer and conversion is sometimes 'purchased' (re: 'outreach') and so resented. I myself find the proselytizing simply boring and as for 'sin' it's a 'sin' to bore me -- but then I should see the 'beam' in my eye? 'Sin' is doctrinaire for religions and has to do EXCLUSIVELY with breaking its particular 'laws.' Jews differentiate between sins against God and sins against others -- God forgives the first but only the sinned against can forgive the second. ('Forgive' me? I 'forgive' you...) "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 11, 2007 11:35 AM:
" Regarding sin, Phil, I answered you more completely than you understood. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 11, 2007 11:33 AM:
" Perhaps then the sign that warns of the end of the road comes from the absurd question regarding what an internet blog poster wishes to accomplish. As for you, Phil, I see you have trouble being original, accusing me twice in a row now with what I accuse you of. What you and Michael (in this instance) should understand is that your questions arise from presumptions that are not necessarily shared. I think it goes without saying that people blog in order to engage in debate, conversation, communication, to exercise their grammar, their wordsmithery, opinions, and a vast etcetera. To ask what one wishes to accomplish in this context implies the insult that their expressions are not up to snuff. But I propose that the sniffers of the snuff are out of order. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 11, 2007 11:25 AM:
" When the words 'flat tax' are uttered we have INDEED come to 'the end of the road' -- for the moment... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 11, 2007 4:51 AM:
" Really, professor rick, who's trying to be the school marm here? It was your own post I was asking about. You don't want to answer....why? I can only guess. It is you who wants to control the questions and the answers and at the same time not give answers yourself. (definition of sin ring a bell) Nah, I don't think there's anything I need to ask of you anymore. I can see you just want to play the clown. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 11, 2007 4:35 AM:
" Don't be a school marm, Phil. Ask better questions. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:33 PM:
" Rick, if you really want me or anyone else to take you serious, you need to be serious. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:43 PM:
" Flat tax. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:19 AM:
" I studied some theology at St John's Univ at Collegeville MN a few years ago and I've read a number of books over the years on various religious subjects blah blah blah which mean that I am interested in Jewish and Christian histories especially; also I've been greatly influenced by the work of the mythologist Joseph Campbell as well as stimulated by Sigmund Freud and lately the literary critic Harold Bloom. I keep trying to engage a discussion on scholarship etc. which is often (because the sources are problematic) speculative, admittedly. Most literalists don't like these sorts of exchanges but I write what I want to anyway and I'm glad to know that 'PO'B' at least bothers to read them. That's what I'm about -- as well as not leaving the 'Faith' board to literalists alone and I seem to have accomplished the latter... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 10, 2007 5:07 AM:
" To refresh your memory just look back to what you wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:18 PM:
"My guess is that you know very well what we wish to accomplish, Michael." Michael never did say if he knew what you wished to accomplish, but I am curious what you wish to accomplish. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:28 AM:
" Three pointed back at yourself? Remember that's a man speaking to a child. What do 'we' wish to achieve? What a strange question. Surely not conversion, though. Outreach programs that you describe are quite humane. You could save time by calling them humanitarian aid programs. The good works are slightly tainted by the motivation. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:00 PM:
" So what is it rick that you and Sasikala wish to achieve? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 9, 2007 6:27 PM:
" Sasikala, please read my post to rick where I describe what I mean by outreach. Now, I understand if I came to your house and you had a sign that said "Christian evangelists stay away" but I knocked anyway and tried to engage you in a debate. That would be unacceptable. However, you have a strange idea of what an open internet forum on faith/religion is about. Nobody makes you come here. Nobody is forcing anything on you against your will. You come here of your own free will to defend or discuss your beliefs. This statement, "Don't tell me what the truth is if you know that I see it differently in a profound way. That is quite disrespectful." reminds me of what my Dad told me about pointing fingers...you have three pointed back at yourself. Think about it. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 9, 2007 6:18 PM:
" No rick, what I am saying is that a debate on line will probably not yield any fruit of conversion. When I talk about outreach, I'm talking about disaster relief, financial aid in the inner city, community work projects amoungst the people. When people see the works of love they are then interested in the belief system behind it. When they are interested in the belief system behind it, they ask questions. This thing between Sasikala and me didn't really have anyone asking about why I believe what I do. It was mainly an attack or defense of what I or she believes. Now it is no transgression to stand up for what I believe on this open internet board. If Sasikala doesn't want my response, then she can simply say "Don't respond to me." Then I'll say fine. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:07 PM:
" Speaking for myself, Mr. O'Bates (though Mr. Harsch is right), I am not in search of truth and peace, both of which I have in good measure. Yes I do find the 'outreach' extension of your post a typical example of your not being able to quite when you are reasonable. I do find Christian outreach to be a 'transgression', as Mr. Harsch puts it. I am a Hindu, leave that be. Don't tell me what the truth is if you know that I see it differently in a profound way. That is quite disrespectful. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:01 PM:
" phil, you basically say that you and ms. perumal are equals in your viewpoints but can't resist 'that is why Christian outreach programs...' Can you not see the offense, the transgression, of reaching out to those who don't extend a hand? The Hindus are not evangelical. Why can't you respect that and refrain from being so yourself--if indeed you and Ms. Perumal are both human? "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:06 PM:
" I can't decide whether 'regretable' should be 'regrettable' -- neither 'look' right whenever I actually SEE them in print. You know you get to like those that continue the discussion no matter what -- I'm even getting used to 'Krusty'! Anyway I appreciate EVERYONE's efforts here though I sometimes am non-plussed. We'all ought to go over to Jimmy Gillman's and post since he's got THE 'hot topic' on the Trib blog today -- but uh regrettably (two gs DO look right here) Jim G's board takes A DAY (sometimes more!) to post! Wish something could be done about that -- nudge nudge... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:35 PM:
" I do agree with 'PO'B' that it's regretable more people with his view don't post but a year ago they were dominating any 'discussions' about religion by evading real exchange with all-purpose 'promos' of books by one Josh McDowell and another apologist which they treated practically as neo-gospels. (Most counter-criticism was from 'village atheist' types who simply baited with one-liners.) Trying to write about actual biblical scholarship was VERY difficult as well as getting into metaphoric and socio-cultural ideas but I kept going and POOF! Most the 'true believers' vanished -- even before the new sign-up. There's an uneasiness in exploring one's religion for fear I think that one will in spite of himself doubt that EVERYTHING is absolutely the way it's presented... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:20 AM:
" I don't know EXACTLY what R & S hope to accomplish no; 'PO'B' isn't going to change his religion or his certainty and actually he is rather more receptive than most of the literalists I've encountered. His great 'flaw' from my view is his insistence on that literalness which almost naturally leads him to disparage other religions but in this I think he's not different from militant Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. -- i. e. the majority of religionists believe they have 'the truth and nothing but.' In that sense 'PO'B' IS 'logical' and he will ALWAYS fall back on doctrinal absolutes unless and until he stops believing in them. Maybe that's the objective of us critics? But I HAVE hoped there is a 'middle' ground -- a substitution of metaphor for historicity. But admittedly that sort of 'religion' seems a very 'weak tea' to most... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:46 PM:
" Michael, even though I don't respond to all of your posts, I do enjoy reading some of them. You are right to some extent about "the only game in town" comment. Like yourself, I like to discuss and explore my spiritual beliefs, but sadly, I think, too many people just push the "I believe" button without thinking about why. I think too many people avoid the faith discussions because they don't really know why they believe what they do and they don't want to take the time to do a little reading. I think they also don't want to be embarassed. But all of that doesn't make sense when you can be anonomous on the internet. I know that there are far more learned Christians out there who could present better then me, but sadly, I'm not reading from any on here. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:37 PM:
" Dear Sasikala, I understand what you are basically saying when you used the phrase "we might as well be different species." You are arguing in defense of your beliefs and I am arguing in defense of mine. Unless we have some recognizable common ground, it just becomes a fruitless brawl. Our common ground is that we are both humans (I would say God's dear Creations), but I believe unless we have actual human interaction, it becomes too easy to dismiss viewpoints on the internet. That's why Christian outreach programs are so valuable because you actually have person to person interaction. I truely wish you well in your search for peace and truth. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:18 PM:
" My guess is that you know very well what we wish to accomplish, Michael. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:45 PM:
" A 'believer' has his own 'logic'; I personally think it's fruitless to attack any religious belief as 'illogical' as virtually all such beliefs suspend rational reflection. But I do like to discuss such beliefs AS beliefs and explore what they imply. 'PO'B' has reached some sort of 'impass' with Rick -- he says -- however he actually enjoys Rick much more than me and never 'resists' responding to him for very long as Rick (and occasionally 'Sasikala') is practically the only game in town anymore. I admit I don't see what Rick (or 'PO'B' for that matter) might wish to accomplish but that's their business. And sure I like acknowledgement but I even enjoy posting my ideas if only as a form of self-expression and for self-clarity... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:46 AM:
" I've said what I believe -- not that 'ALL religions are HISTORICAL "truth"' but that they are ALL MYTHOLOGIES with none 'truer' except within the especial history and culture of a people. I did NOT say 'everything is true' but, e. g., that the sun appears at a CERTAIN place and time IS 'relative' given the season -- which doesn't mean the sun's appearance is questionable. And so religions 'are' but what the gods stand for and what are their ultimate purposes differ. 'PO'B' believes what he will and I'm not saying he can't defend his religious understanding -- I think he does so quite well contra Rick -- but he doesn't convince me that Christianity has the 'only god(s) that is or ever was.' (And usually what is deemed 'logical' is what is most familiar...) "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:18 AM:
" Gandhi when in South Africa at the turn of the 19th-20th century served as a non-combatant in the ambulance corps -- rather Hemingwayesque! He volunteered during the Boer war and in the Zulu rebellion of 1906 in which he nursed Zulu (a black tribe of course) wounded when 'white' uh 'Christians' wouldn't. As I've said actions can speak louder than whatever intemperate words may have been said by a YOUNG man at the time, words he may well have regretted later, when wiser? Attacking Gandhi, especially by purported Christians who believe THEMSELVES saved but not necessarily others -- hmmm what happened to 'the beam in YOUR own eye' before 'the sliver in your neighbor's? -- has always struck me as an avenue to advertise Christian 'superiority.' And a web site that deliberately or ignorantly misspells the name reinforces that suspicion... "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 7, 2007 2:12 PM:
" Phil, you prove my point about logic not being your strong suit. You posit, I answer beginning with 'if'. This is this. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2007 11:28 AM:
" Ok, rick, let's clear up this logic question. First, Michael said "what you believe about your religion is 'true' for you." I then posed the logic question "Do you believe that there are more then one truths? If so, then how could Jesus be the only way and just one of the ways (buddhist)? Logic would tell you only one can be true." Now, I recognize that you see that Jesus isn't the only way, but you are confirming that both statements can not be true. While I whole heartedly disagree with you, your answer shows that Michael's relativistic answer can not be true. It also shows your error in this quote "Phil, Logic, like history, is not your strong suit. Logic dictates their can be only one truth?" "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 7, 2007 7:16 AM:
" Phil, I did answer your main question. If you pose it as either/or, then obviously Jesus in not the sole answer. Quite obviously. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 6, 2007 10:40 PM:
" Rick, since you avoid answering the question that there can't be two options in the way to heaven, and because you resort to 'school yard' tactics (claiming to know that I "feel dwarfed" by Michael) I'm going to be ignoring you on this thread. When you get something constructive to say, maybe I'll respond. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 6, 2007 10:36 PM:
" Michael, I don't have alot of time right now, but I wanted to clear up some of your mis-statements about MY beliefs. 1)I can't know for sure if SOMEONE ELSE is saved, but I do KNOW that I am saved. 2)I believe that not ALL Catholics are Christian (follow Christ's teachings...the Bible). I have met some Catholics who I would say are true believers, but then again it gets back to the fact that I don't decide who is or who isn't....God does. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 4:22 PM:
"
Michael, you're posts are indeed provocative, but only in this case to Phil O' Bates, who feels dwarfed by you and seems unable to respond without embarrassing himself. As you see below, Madam Perumal, too, makes him respond foolishly. 'I don't make sense, well what do you think of this: Gandhi was racist.' Schoolyard stuff. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 4:19 PM:
" Well, Phil, if it's either/or, then obviously you're wrong about Jesus. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 1:44 PM:
" I wonder about a web site that can't/won't spell 'Gandhi' but sure 'the great man' could have said something 'regrettable' as did hmm Luther and Calvin re: Jews? Or Pat Robertson for that matter about -- well almost anything. I still see Gandhi (even with his 'flaws' -- whatever one deems them to be) as far more Jesus-like than George W. Bush for instance. Gandhi and Jesus shared a pacifist view and few present-day Christians do -- Paul does trump Jesus EVERY time! Jesus had insisted that he 'came for the Jews' and that gentiles were not to be included because one should not 'feed the dogs' -- NOT very 'nice' as the Syro-Phoenician woman after all was asking him to heal her daughter. Of course being a decent man he relented. We cannot ALWAYS be judged by what we say eh? But by what we do?... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 12:51 PM:
" I mention Gandhi a great deal because I do admire him though I make no claim for his 'perfection' -- but then I don't believe Jesus or any other human being is 'perfect' if by that term is meant always to be temperate, fair, kind, wise and never exhibit any but the most admirable qualities 100% of the time -- WHEW! Of course when one views the character of 'Yahweh' in the 'Tanakh' you clearly see a Someone of questionable equanimity! In polytheisms such as Hinduism and the Greco-Roman etc. the diversity of 'the gods' is realistic and we don't have to pretend they're 'nice' or fair when they're patently not -- as God is (admittedly!) NOT fair to Job. Gods are superhumans really -- except for the Hindu concept of the 'Overall Everything' so to speak that is beyond any such mere 'personalization' as e. g. Yahweh... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 11:45 AM:
" A Jew is a Jew if his/her mother is/was a Jew -- at least by the most orthodox standard. So Jews are 'collective,' i. e. the promise of their specialness was given to 'Abraham AND HIS DESCENDANTS FOREVER' -- but note that 'PO'B' as a Christian iterates several times that Jesus saves INDIVIDUALLY. Being a Christian is to be LESS connected to other Christians; most view any other Christian outside their own denomination as suspect -- as 'PO'B' does: Catholics are not REALLY 'Christians' to 'PO'B' though without the Roman church there'd be no protestant ones. Islam is also collective BUT like Christianity it is riven by sectionalism as we can so vividly observe in Iraq. Sunnis HATE shi'ites and vice versa as Christians dislike Christian 'heretics' and 'apostates.' Religions are very uncomfortable 'places' to be -- which is why I no longer try to be in any... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 11:33 AM:
" The conundrum of 'belief' and 'action' in Christianity caused the protestant 'reformation' re: Luther's insistence that NOTHING a human conceived and wrapped forever in earthly sin could do would 'earn' him a place with such exalted perfection as where God is. Humans in Christianity are seen dualistically really -- as the instruments and creation of God and so 'nearest' to Him but also as fatally entwined in their own willful egotism re: Adam and Eve. Jesus as I said is to 'free' one from this sin yet only partially -- i. e. a Christian can always (if he is alive) slip back into that state of condemnation; consequently a certain anxiety pervades even those who believe they are 'saved'; as 'PO'B' has noted: you can NEVER be absolutely sure... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2007 11:23 AM:
" Talking to me I think is apparently much less interesting though I think I'm as 'provocative' as anyone else on this blog. Well: 'truth' indeed differs from perspective as was indicated below (e. g. the film 'Rashomon'). I myself do not believe in the literal 'truth' of 'gods'; I have stated that religions appear to me to be the projections of particular cultures and peoples that develop over time and experiences. The 'WORLD religions' as they are called have universal aspects but I agree with the mythologist Joseph Campbell that both Hinduism and Judaism are really 'ethnic' religions and that one has to be born into them. Both are heavily dependent upon keeping rituals -- 'action' -- and less so re: inner beliefs which is why I see Christianity (as well as Buddhism) per Campbell as primarily religions of 'belief'... "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 6, 2007 11:12 AM:
" Mr. O'Bates: I am not 'sold' on Gandhi, I just happen to know a great deal about his life. It is just that I found it strange that you suddenly went on the Gandhi attack. But I've been thinking...you are a Christian, a true believer, a specific type of Christian, and I have no reason to believe you are not sincere. So that being the basis for your thoughts reflected here, there is really no reason to debate with you. We might as well be of different species'. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:19 PM:
" Finally, rick, if I thought I earned my way into heaven then yes, I can imagine there would be feelings of superiority. However, I know that I didn't earn Heaven, it is a gift of God. I know that I am a foul sinner, undeserving of heaven, but I also know that everyone else is a foul sinner and everyone else can recieve this amazing gift of salvation. If my feelings were truely that of superiority, wouldn't I keep quiet about this treasure so as to keep "the low lifes out" and to "stay on top" so to speak? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:03 PM:
" Rick, answer this question, How can Jesus be the only way to Heaven AND there are many paths to Heaven? Both of those can not be true at the same time. It is also interesting again that you judge me as having no empathy. I do have feelings for others. It is because of empathy that I wish for no one to miss out on the salvation of Christ. If you think empathy means to hide the truth so that peoples feelings aren't hurt, then you don't really know what love is. As for Bible's unchanged status see (http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm) "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:50 PM:
" Sasikala, I'm not trying to bait you into anything. Is it possible that that website I posted with all of its references were made up? I suppose. If I was a follower of Gandhi I would research the references. But if you are sold on Gandhi, then that's your choice. That leads to another area you don't understand about God...He doesn't force anyone to believe or 'set them straight.' He gave us all the opportunity to choose Him or reject Him. Just like you would not want to force someone to be with you if they truely don't don't want to be with you, so too God gives us the chance to choose. If you die choosing to reject Jesus as your savior, God will grant your request and you will be eternally separated from God. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:44 PM:
" Lest you misunderstand me, Mr. O'bates, my final sentence was ironic. Your 'evidence' is false. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:42 PM:
" Mr. O'Bates: Now you have stooped to trying to bait me. I have read many biographies of Gandhi, many texts of Indian history, innumerable writings by Gandhi, including his autobiography, and no website could match the scholaship I have taken in. Gandhi held no such views regarding blacks. You are quite wrong and should be ashamed first for your attempt to elicit an angry response from me and second for the failute of your god to set him straight. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:31 PM:
" Sasikala, did I ever say that Gandhi wasn't an extraordinary person? No, I didn't. His good works probably out weigh my own, but good works, even when all good originates from God, is not good enough to get into heaven. God recognized that and sent Jesus to pay the penalty for our sin debt. Also, there is evidence out there that Gandhi didn't view Blacks as equal to Indians. One of his problems with the British and Europeans is that they treated Indians and Blacks as lower class. Gandhi believed that Indians were superior to Blacks. (http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm) "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:22 PM:
" Sasikala, I really don't see what you are talking about when you say I'm not capable of responding to you. Your Muslim chant to me "there is no god but allah" is strange. If you are trying to compare me to Islam, wouldn't that be the same as being disrespectful? Maybe it's you who is incapable of responding without respect. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:03 PM:
" So Sasikala, you believe I am insane to a degree, but you are trying to enlighten me, right? So how can an insane person insult you? If I walked right now into the psyc. ward and an insane person called me or my beliefs all the foulest things possible, I would recognize their condition and not be insulted. However, if I walked into an institution I respected and knew that had the truth on their side, and a person from that place called me and my beliefs all wrong, I would be concerned, possibly insulted, and I would attempt to enlighten that person. I see the same thing in your responses to me. There is something in the things I post that you know to be true, but you engage me because you want to find me insane and quench your feeling of being in the wrong. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 6:59 PM:
" Mr. O'Bates, now you have become evasive, discursive and ultimately incomprehensilbe, incapable of directly responding to me. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 6:55 PM:
" Sasikala, for me to disrespect you I would have to take something from you that you deserved or ignore a request of yours. Example: You are waiting in line, and I cut in front of you, or you have a sign which says "no Christian evangelists" and I knock on your door anyway. On this open forum of religious discussion, if you don't like what I'm saying fine, but to accuse me of disrespecting your beliefs shows that you really don't understand what an open forum is. The irony is that if you followed your own advice you would see that by you saying "Giving your god credit is disrespectful." is disrespectful to God. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 6:53 PM:
" Speaking in your own language then, Mr. O'Bates, you don't see it because the one true god is Brahma, and the soul, Atman, is Brahma, And you are composed of the essence of Brahma, and I am not amazed you don't see that. In short, again, your argument is that you are simply right, and to refuse to acknowledge your god is disrespectful. Or la illaha illah Allah, Mohammedan rasulu, if you prefer. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 6:47 PM:
" First, rick, I will get to your comments after I answer/respond to sasikala. Second, Sasikala I did not mean any disrespect by calling you Sasi. It was simply my way of shortening your name. Like calling Michael, Mike. Now that I know you don't want to be called Sasi, I wont do it anymore. Now a part of what you said is 'disrespectful' (your logic not mine) of Christianity by claiming that the Almighty in Christianity is just one of many gods or not the Almighty single God of the Universe. By you not recognizing that there is only one true God that disrespects God Almighty. For me to accept your belief system (God Almighty just another god) would be to disrespect the one true God and therefore violate my own belief. I find it amazing that you don't see that. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:59 PM:
" Incidentally, the trashing of my property would not be, in my religious terms, offensive or disrespectful. I would question your motives, certainly, but private property does not hold primacy in Hinduism as it apparently does in Christian countries, or at least yours. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:48 PM:
" The name is Sasikala. There are degrees of offensiveness and disrespect. Yes I believe you are insane in a fashion, but I personally suffer nothing. I am only trying to enlighten you. Not in the manner you try to enlighten, by insisting on your view being correct, rather by explaining that other views exist with the same clarity and intensity of your own. Disrespectful by stating your spiritual 'knowledge' cannot be disrespectful in an open forum? Why is that. Diminishing the life of Gandhi by attributing his goodness to the Christian god is quite disrespectful, as well as, in my view, ignorant of the nature of humanity--various religions produce extraordinary people...various religions. Giving your god credit is disrespectful. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:40 PM:
" Phil O'bates, as death is a sort of ultimate, your assertion that those who don't see things your way are not 'going to heaven' is certainly a form of superiority. Imagine, Phil up there and the Mahatma down there, so to speak. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:39 PM:
" Sasi, it still makes no sense that you feel insulted or disrespected. If you supposedly 'know' that you are right and I am wrong, then you would just cast off my statements as those of a crazy person. Didn't you state once before that you believed me to mislead by some force and therefore insane? (You can answer honestly, I won't be offended.) As for disrespected, if I went into your temple or house or whatever and trashed your property, that would make sense. But here, in America, in an open religious forum, for you to say I'm being disrespectful by stating my spritual knowledge, is quite ironic. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:37 PM:
" And, by the way, the Bible has changed over the last 2000 years, not that it matters. And if you don't know that you are hardly well-versed in Christian history. But that is clear when you say that history focuses on the negative, a pathetic response to Welch's posts, which I also warned you were out of your league. You persist and diminish yourself. Your take on the Jews being accepted by the Romans while the Christians were not, at first, is a glaring example. What if Philism were to be declared a religion today (I resisted Philistinism, and I am proud of that restraint). Would it be an instant success, do you think? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:33 PM:
" You are right sasi, I don't feel superior. What I do know, though is that Jesus is superior to all of us humans, Gandhi included. My acceptance of Jesus doesn't make me superior to you or anyone else. My acceptance of Jesus requires me to humble myself before Jesus and recognize his eternal superiority, and my fallen, inferior state. Jesus has forgiven me of the eternal punishment of sin, but that doesn't elevate me higher then anyone. "
rick harsch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:32 PM:
" Phil, Logic, like history, is not your strong suit. Logic dictates their can be only one truth? Watch the movie Rashomon. Or read philosophy, or history. Logic has extraordinary limitations especially in the area of religion. I warned you about Sasikala Perumal making a monkey out of you, not you find yourself making excuses for saying that a Non-Christians believe in having multiple wives. And your crediting your God with the good of Gandhi is extraordinary, to say the least. Jesus seemed to believe in walking in other men's shoes--empathy--you apparently don't. Every religious argument you make boild down to your BELIEF that Jesus must be accepted. Luckily the Hindus and Buddhists and Animists are not so dogmatic and outward-looking. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:25 PM:
" No, sasikala, just because someone does something good doesn't make them a Christian. A non Christian can do good and the source of that good ultimately comes from God, but a Christian is one who has accepted Jesus as their savior. I know of no evidence which shows that Gandhi was a Christian or accepted Jesus as his savior. My example that some people may call something that God calls wrong (multiple wives) good, was not saying that Hindus do that. I was simply trying to defray an discussion on what good is. Good is what God calls good. Loving your neighbor is good. Non-Christians can love their neighbor without becoming a Christian. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:21 PM:
" In addition, Mr. O'Bates, Gandhi spent whatever longer life you attribute to him was spent trying to extract Christianity from Christians and peace from both Hindus and Moslems; there was no chance that he would accept a non-Hindu religion. Your comment is in fact enormously disrespectful and insulting to all non-Christians, implying that our lives as they proceed are a chance to accept Christ, the right thing to do, rather than practice our own religions, the wrong thing to do. But, of course, you don't feel superior. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:17 PM:
" In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self contradictory. "
sasikala perumal wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:16 PM:
" Mr. O'Bates, You wrote: 'However, I know that all good things come from God, so any good that came from Gandhi's actions actually came about because of God', which credits God for Gandhi's goodness, which makes him Christian, albeit reluctantly. And, you wrote this: 'Now, if you are not a Christian then to you having multiple wives is a 'good' thing.' Maybe you don't know that Hindus do not have multiple wives, but your statement stands for itself, which makes you quite an ignorant man if you stand by it. I hope you think it over and retract it for the sake of your reputation, such as it may be. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 2:43 PM:
" One last (possibly) comment on "Christian" anti-semitism. One of the sites I visited to view their take on that topic was Jews for Jesus. These are Messianic Jews and they would have surely dealt with this idea. Basically they say what I've been trying to say...anti-semitism isn't a teaching of Jesus, therefore it isn't a doctrine of Christianity. It has been used by people who call themselves Christians though. Here's the link (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/community/antisemiticchristians)On a separate issue, you say that my belief is "true for me". Do you believe that there are more then one truths? If so, then how could Jesus be the only way and just one of the ways (buddhist)? Logic would tell you only one can be true. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 1:42 PM:
" I personally have a great time writing about religions; I think I enjoy that topic so much because it relates (well just view my posts below!) to so many other aspects of life and experience. Like Harsch my sense of Jesus, as a figure in the gospels as well as in history, is quite positive; moreover I can find much to criticize in ALL religions really and if you've followed my postings you may remember that I have done so: e. g. I do think that the cultures in which Islam has flourished are 'excessively' patriarchal; I find 'Yahweh' a troublesome and troubling God for the ever-patient Jews; and the degree of 'detachment' in some of Hinduism and especially Buddhism is somewhat mind-boggling for me -- but I see them ALL with interest, not disdain... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 1:14 PM:
" I have been called 'anti-Christian' but I didn't accuse you. I think you actually make my point if you can just reverse your thinking -- MUCH of what I've read here in arguments about 'faith' (for a year now -- again not exclusively or most egregiously from you personally) pertaining to non-Christian religions has also concentrated on the negative. Many literalist Christians understand very little about other religions except the aspects they can use in order to view that religion and its practitioners in the most critical way. What you believe about your religion is 'true' for you sure and I'm not addressing that specifically (I would if you wanted to but I don't think you do); I'm saying Christianity has a problematic legacy too -- as do ALL the 'major' religions -- and Christians should at least recognize 'the beam in your own eye' as was once advised... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2007 12:34 PM:
" Michael, who said you were anti-Christian? In response to this "My main point has always been that one religion does not appear to me to be 'superior' to another in terms of the behavior of its followers." Partly true. Religion is man's attempt to reach God through rituals and work. No religion can do that. True Christianity is not a religion but a way of life following Jesus. What I am saying is the only way to reach God is through Jesus. When a person accepts Jesus's gift of salvation they can then reach God. Christians are no more 'superior' then Jews or Buddists or atheists. What Christians are is saved from eternal punishment. What you always seem to emphasize about 'Christian' history is the evil done in its name. What you ignore is all the great things done in Christ's name. History like newspapers, like to highlight the bad. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 12:01 PM:
" I'm saying a lot here but I'm trying to communicate my concerns as thoroughly as I can. I think the discussion about Iran illustrates too how folks can seize upon some immediate aspects of a 'case' and generalize far too much about a particular society and culture from that. I mentioned for example the horrible punitive bombing inflicted on north Korea which destroyed dikes and flooded rice production areas which resulted in mass starvation. WE AMERICANS did that which doesn't mean Korean communists are loveable innocents but it does (should at least) shed light on why they'd seek THEIR 'bomb.' Likewise the Iranian experience which may be 'ancient arcane history' to Americans but is NOT to Iranians. The 'other side' also has a 'view' -- and that's why I emphasize 'empathy'... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 11:48 AM:
" What has always disturbed me is how blithely (it seems) some self-described Christians attack the beliefs and cultures of other religions without knowing very much about those religions and societies while ignoring or dismissing that problematic Christian record. Jesus in canonical and non-canonical 'gospels' seems a very good man, like Gandhi in fact and so not without human flaws; Jesus can be very irascible, even insulting at times (re: the much TOO put-upon 'scribes and pharisees' and remember the 'Syro-Phoenician woman' who he virtually calls a 'dog'), but his ethics are very fine. The history of countries populated by Christians show that those ethics are often 'honored only in the breach' and that lust for power and its brother greed usually override them... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2007 11:37 AM:
" Christianity wasn't 'born yesterday'; it has a history. I wasn't saying that anti-semetism was 'doctrinal' nor was slave-holding for that matter; however Christians have used many passages in the Bible to justify both. The inquisition of the Vatican by the way was directed largely toward CHRISTIAN 'heresies' (about which it could be quite cruel) and it was the notorious SPANISH inquisition which persecuted Sephardic Jews (among others). That was engineered as an instrument of the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon; the Vatican protected the Jewish community within Rome as I mentioned before. And I'm not asking you who is 'saved' but I am saying that reading folks out of the history of your religion is non-sensical. Of course a 'just God' (whoever that 'God' would be) would approve of Gandhi for example but that becomes a narrower and narrower 'g
Advertisement 