River Valley Blogs

Michael Welch Perhaps More Sadistic Than Adolf H... wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Then there were 'the camps,' the gulag, and Khrushchev was once queried about why so many of the arrested confessed and he said simply 'Beat beat!' Unca Joe, like Adolf, NEVER 'visited' those camps but apparently he did reserve a 'room' next to the cells in which certain prisoners were kept -- Bulganov for one who irritated JS greatly; he is said to have 'observed' both the torture AND the coup de grace. What expression had he on his face no one can know of course but I 'vote' something between amusement and satisfaction. 'Sadistic'? Could well be. (Hitler ORDERED 'sadistic' acts it may well be but he it seems NEVER personally watched them...) "

harsch wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Stalin remains hard to read. Most people executed by his order had a bullet put in the brian post-haste. In other word he was not a conventional sadist. "

Michael Welch More Stuff I Have Read... wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:13 PM:

" The Volkov book is very useful in providing a basis for understanding the political aspects of Shostakovich's work following the 'Muddle Instead Of Music' denunciation in Pravda in 1936, widely thought to have been written or (appropriately!) 'dictated' by Stalin Hisself. Apparently Gorky as well as certain left wing 'western' writers like Romain Rolland intervened and moreover it was rumored that DS might commit suicide and Unca Joe at the time thought that would damage the international image of Soviet culture! (Mayakovsky, a much vaunted 'revolutionary' poet by that Sov propaganda machine, had killed himself a few years before.) Still Stalin 'operated' with some caprice; perhaps he enjoyed 'dangling' DS?... "

harsch wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Thanks to you I am in another Shosty phase...I have all the string quartets and more in the car in a special bag. By the way, symphony five was supposed to be a mockery of Stalin and pals as well--see if you can spot it. Maybe if you buy the CD the liner notes will help. Also, when listening to mid to late shostakovich you need to know his four not signature which dominates the eigth quartet and tenth symphony and appears in many other places... "

Michael Welch Den Of Iniquity... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Hey Rick I'm a 'good girl'! But uh what were those 'numbers' again?! Hey by the way my 'image verification' reads 'jung1' -- wow huh?... "

harsch wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Yes, i am a masturbator, but no, never a denbater. Michael, the 11th symphony is forgettable. The best are 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 (THE best) 13 and 14. Get the quartets and cello and violin concerti, too. Now. go now. They're great to masurbate to--in the den. "

Michael Welch Musical Chairs... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:30 PM:

" I bought the 11th symphony of Shostakovich and I'll get the other stuff as time goes by. I'd love to have you send me your analyses; I'm hardly as practiced a music person as you. I tend to 'know' it seems what 'every' movie ever made is about (re: 'D[isc]J[ockey]') but am not nearly so omniscient on their scores. Love Broadway musicals however... "

Re Harsch and Michael wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:38 AM:

" As Harsch says, there may be no "good" denbaters, but I know of at least a couple master debaters. "

harsch contd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:18 PM:

" are variations on his abilities, the eight is the Dresden piece. He wept over it--famously--and it was thought he wept over the tragedy of it, but it turns out he wept over the perfection of his own work. The ninth is a madcap suture of the third, the tenth through 14the are for the drawer, and thus variable and brilliant, the 15th and last is a gorgeous self-requiem written in the seventies. I saw it performed in Iowa City, and if you can get through the first movement without weeping yourself to sleep, you will see how the second would thrill and audience member in person. Then come several movement, one explicitly funereal, and finally the last, in which Dmitri more or less, and apropos, fades away... "

Michael from Harsch wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:14 PM:

" I've had to spend more time in my car than I prefer lately, so I am grateful to you for bringing Shostakovich up. Previously I had been listening to Beethoven string quartets when alone and Dylan or Adam Snyder when Arjun is in the car. I now have a Shosty bag attached to the gear shift and will go through the quartets one by one (after two days of listening to 8, 9 and 10). Maybe if I can find it I will send you my analysis of the quartets (one by one) that I wrote for an interested friend a few years ago. If you don't have them, buy them. The first is a spectacular effort to show it is easily done, the second is his first attempt to absorb folk (gypsy) music into the genre, the third is his triumphal realization of the form, the fourth through seventh "

Harsch re wm tell wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Over here Mujo and Haso the Bosniaks are the Sven and Oly for jokes. In one, there is a bow and arrow contest. A barker says here is a boy with an apple on his head: who will dare shoot it off? A man steps forward, etc., does it, and says I...am William Tell. so next they put a cherry on the boys head...and the successfull archer says I...am Robin Hood. so they put a blueberry on the kid's head and a man steps forward, puts an arrow directly into the kid's forehead, and Mujo says I...am sorry. "

Harsch wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:26 PM:

" As you can see by the latest post on the first blog above, our ferosious compost is voyueristically read. Are you the lonely guy with too much time on your hands or am I? And what is a diatribe? If you can do it in 150 words or less I congratulate you. "

Michael Welch Homer Simpson Is Their Proof... wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:54 AM:

" Literalism is the uh BANE of thoughtful Bible reading because it only results in the ability to 'quote.' As I've said before it's NOT the quotes that are a problem; it's what do they mean? ALL religious writing MUST be 'interpreted' especially for 'modern' life; and if there are no 'loopholes' the religion dies... "

harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:05 PM:

" The funny thing is that as an opinion-bearing man I am often 'brought down'--to my benefit. But here I have yet to encounter a good debater. Every fallacy in the book is used ignorantly, nothing so much as ignoring entire blogs only to occasionally harp on a snippet of one. It's amazing really, that no one on the right, no one of the literalists, has much in the way of brains. "

Michael Welch Nobody Knows Reads The Trouble I See... wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:14 PM:

" It doesn't matter really; I comment for my own interest, am pleased with what I'd deem any 'interesting' responses and just go on my way whether I am ignored or no. 'They' seek to bring YOU down at the moment; something that, from my experience, endurance resolves -- 'they' respect endurance even if it annoys them. And proselytizing on the blog IS after all FAR MORE 'boring' than we are so we have that 'one up' in the game... "

Harsch to Mike wrote on Jun 26, 2008 2:37 PM:

" I know for a fact that many of our longer posts are not read through so I think the easily bored take care of themselves by not thinking--failing to realize that thought forestalls boredom. And of course some like to try to insult us by saying they are bored with us. It's a slightly more sophisticated way of being childish. I'll send you more of Simian Song soon. "

Michael Welch Monkey Busyness... wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:19 PM:

" Fine -- the context is intriguing; I look forward to further excerpts. You know this is fun Rick: we can talk about Stalin and Shostakovich (on another Jim blog) and your bonobo book and nobody cares -- free to be you and me! I only hope we don't overly bore the posters or Jimmy... "

harsch to the lone gunman welch wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:34 PM:

" The key is that the bonobos are talking, reviewing historic instances in areas that are monkey-less. They, in their Zaire jungle redoubt are reviewing man. Science has shown that the Bonobo responds to language, being especially pleased with rhyme, wordplay, alliteration, low comedy, and high scumbrage. To the Bonobo, formal language is a soporific. "

Michael Welch Rick In Poundian Verse... wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:27 PM:

" I wrote you a letter I haven't mailed yet -- along with those David Ray Griffin 9-11 books -- and in it I said that the beginning of your book (that's all you/ve sent) reminded me of Ezra Pound being both obscure and comic at the same time. As usual you have a great talent with word play and I always wonder WHERE you are going with whatever you're doing -- understanding that you think these things out no matter how 'impulsive' your writing seems to be. I hope you'll send me more and I can try harder to 'get it'... "

Hey Michael...its me rick wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:34 PM:

" Mike, since we seem to be alone here, tell me what you think of the first two pages of Simian Song... "

Michael Welch And Through The Loophole Rides La Pucelle The Maid DOrleans... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:58 AM:

" Or 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends' -- yet ANOTHER war of Christian slaughtering Christian for the sake of -- of -- of -- the future Joan of Arc?!... "

harsch wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:00 PM:

" A yawning loophole is technically a breach in the defense through which the horsemen cometh. "

Michael Welch Gandhi Is The Best Christ-Like Guy... wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Also re: 'loopholes' what I mean is that Jesus sez oh 'love your enemies' which I use a lot I know but that's because it's the MOST challenging. He even says DON'T resist evil, pray for, turn the other etc., etc., you know the litany by now. HOWEVER for nearly TWO MILLENNIA Christians have fought endless enemies, slaughered each other (not to mention Jews and Muslims) and exalted the idea of 'the state' uber alles based upon Paul's letter to the Romans -- a 'loophole' of yawning chasm. That's why I'd observe that Gandhi seems the MOST 'Christ-like' guy of recent times, besting ANY Christian you can name in my opinion. And if we just go through the nefarious 'list' starting with Jim Bakker, Swaggert et. al., TALK about hypocrisy! Then they're 'sorry'; fine but they, like most criminals, weren't so 'sorry' until they were caught eh?!... "

Michael Welch Id Like To See Christianity Tried... wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:57 AM:

" I'm not a 'theist' but in the 'Hindu' sense: I do believe that if one wishes to name All That There Was, Is And Will Be 'God,' that is acceptable for lack of any term more specific. I am sure there are professors of antiquity who are not theists, just as there are scientists (and evolutionary ones too!) who are. I'm with Freud and Einstein on this -- there's a great psychological need for The Perfect Parent who will ever look after you and per C. S. Lewis, with the death of his beloved wife, we 'all' WANT to see our loved ones again eh? I find LITERALISM in ANY religion the 'enemy' of love and understanding however so re: Gandhi on western civilization -- let's say Christianity instead: Yes I think they should try it!... "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Michael, I know you think Fields would find plenty of loopholes, and my contention is that any perceived loopholes are closed upon further examination. I have a friend who used to be a militant atheist. Sadly, he knew the Bible more than I did at the time. Out of frustration at not being able to address his concerns, I asked him to come with me for a visit with one of my college professors of ancient history. Well, the meeting was very enlightening. My friend threw out the supposed contradictions and loopholes, and my professor answered them and closed them. It was a good 3 hour meeting, and very respectful and beneficial. My friend isn't a Christian, yet (: ,but he is a Theist.... "

Harsch...One of Welchs best posts wrote on Jun 21, 2008 4:55 PM:

" At least one of Welch's best posts wasn't lost on Krause "

Michael Welch What About Christianity -- I Think Someone Should Try It... wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:04 PM:

" Further, I appreciate Mr Krause's compliment but as I say below this is YOUR religion, now -- mine once also and I did pay some attention to its strictures and I even read its gospels etc., and I came to see that NO religion lasts for two millennia without 'loopholes.' The great vaudeville comic and 1930s era movie star W. C. Fields was a purported atheist who one day was discovered reading the Bible. His friend started -- Bill what are you doing?! 'Lookin' fer loopholes, lookin' fer loopholes' Fields drawled in his trademark 'side mouth.' My experience with Christianity is that he'd find PLENTY... "

Michael Welch No Perfeck Knights -- Or Nations... wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:56 AM:

" And what is 'honoring' Che -- just saying what his image is among the very poorest in Latin America? I myself will NEVER wear a Che tee because it's SO ubiquitous that it's become commercial -- how 'bout a good ol' fashioned TROTSKY tee for a change?! Or Tito?! (Rick can you get me one -- XXL?) But per Harsch I wrote that Guevara was in fact a dedicated man and after all didn't Washington, Hamilton et. al., cause the deaths of folks in THEIR revolution? The US one was far more successful in certain senses but US history is rife with cruelties and violences against the poor and records this nation's exploitation of MANY other peoples. But as Joe E. Brown replied to Jack Lemmon -- Nobody's 'perfeck' eh?... "

Michael Welch YOUR God Is YOUR Problem... wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:46 AM:

" Life is contradictory and so is Christianity -- Jesus is pacifistic personally but then he rants in Matthew about an apocalyptic time in which those who have given birth will curse those births and folks will call for the mountains to topple upon them. In Revelation Jesus is transformed into the double-sword-tongued miscalled 'Lamb' whose coming marks the beginning of horrid tribulations and the slaughter of millions. Che Guevara was an idealistic revolutionary in a revolution that didn't work out so well so he left town to try it somewhere else. That Jesus appears more like GANDHI (can't ANY Christian spell the name properly?) is YOUR problem however -- Christianity is not MY religion; it's supposed to be yours, remember?... "

Wha..... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Michael Welsh honors Che, a killer of innocent people without a trial or judge, yet calls people to the pacifism of Ghandi? It's confusing and contradictory statements like those which keep people from expecting too much from Michael W. "

Kenneth W Krause to Michael Welch wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Michael, it is not often that I agree with you. When I do, I consider it a momentous occasion. Thank you for your "Tough Trip To Paradise" post. We all, especially myself, need to reminded of these things periodically. You are absolutely correct. "

Michael Welch Tough Trip To Paradise... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:18 PM:

" I do think 'Miss Q' does love her 'God'; it's DOING what he says that's the most difficult isn't it? 'LOVE (not just 'tolerate' but he said 'LOVE' -- that's a big charge) your enemies; BLESS them that persecute you.' (That means Harsch too, as well as Osama bin Laden eh?) It means the poor ought always to be cared for before the rich get their tax cuts; it means that getting stuff at Wal-Mart is NOT the priority of your day; it means that pacifism and passive resistance per Gandhi are the correct attitudes toward conflict. See -- 'believing in Jesus' is not so hard as FOLLOWING his example, his model. But actions speak loudest though of course the words ('Word'?) are indeed necessary... "

suzie baby from Harsch wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:47 PM:

" I guess you probably don't know about Manu, or Buddha, or Lao Tzu, or even Gilgamesh, but take it easy, love your god and try not to offend him. "

Michael Welch Che And Elvis As Gods And Heroes... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:05 PM:

" 'Che' and even 'Elvis' are per Harsch good examples of modern mythologies that have quasi-religious aspects and though we live in an electronic, visual and instant information age that prevents such, both figures would have achieved statuses as 'gods' in the antiquity of 2000 years ago. The 'truth' is that Che Guevara was a communist 'Perfeck Knight' for many; he was an even more heroic figure than Fidel and indeed may have, in a Christ comparison, been betrayed by Castro, in the 'Judas' role. Some folks DO REALLY think that 'Elvis lives!' and there is certainly an Elvis cult that includes even a former premier of Japan... "

Michael Welch Sing Muse Etc.... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:54 AM:

" I have also said (over and over) that I agree with most scholars that the gospels are 'reliable' as consistent documents from the second century -- the earliest fragment is from John (circa 125 CE if I recall correctly), ironically because it's usually considered the last written, circa 100. I don't consider of course the Iliad and the Odyssey 'histories' but as per the gospels they both have an historical context -- as most of us I think know that there is archeological evidence that Troy was sacked sometime before the last millenium BCE. I myself believe there was a 'Trojan war' as I think there was likely A 'Jesus' but I don't rely on Homer as an historian and he'd be the LAST to say he was -- he also was a RELIGIOUS writer of RELIGIOUS truths re: the Greeks... "

Michael Welch The REAL Founder Is Constantine The Great... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

" I realize that EVERYONE LOVES repetition but I have already explained that the gospels' rendition of Jesus is NOT a 'lie'; it is a mythology and a RELIGIOUS truth. I am NOT Brian Smith here; I am not a militant atheist; I have great respect for ALL religions as the proto-science, proto-philosophy of antiquity. Only the Greeks -- Aristotle say -- began to edge away from religion as THE basis of knowledge (and that's why we owe them such a huge debt) though 'Ari' of course made the nod toward 'prime mover.' The apostles are mythical characters, as are Achilles and Agamemnon, and we DON'T 'know' who they really were but yes obviously Christianity prevailed -- but that's largely due to the emperor, 'St' Constantine... "

Suzie Q to Krause and Harsch wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:18 AM:

" Just google 'reliability of the Bible' and you get many articles with referenced data. Basically the New Testament of the Bible has more qualifiers than any other ancient manuscript. The closest is Homer's work. They look at a few things: when the original was written, the time span between the event and the writing, the earliest available copy, the time span between original and copy, and variations in copies. The New Testament was written within a generation (40-100yr) of the event. The earliest copy is from about 125 years after the event. (Homer's earliest copy is about 500 years after the original writing.) There are over 24,000 copies of the New Testament (about 600 of Iliad). The variations in the copies are about .5%. (Homers works have variations from 5-10%) "

Harsch on Welch wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:42 PM:

" See Che guevara T-shirts for a comparison. Welch is absolutely right. The reason for the Che phenomenon is not that Che can withstand modern historical inquiry, but that poverty and injustice is rife today and people need a symbol. Che fits the bill for the masses, as did Jesus in his time, whoever he was, whatever he was. "

Dear little suzie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:38 PM:

" You poor thing, you know so little. Chriatianity did not arise when persecution was at its greatest. Many cults were persecuted out of existence. The Jews had it comaparatively good, historically speaking. Not good, but comparatively. You poor thing. "

harsch to kenneth wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Given that about a thousand years separates the 'events' described by Homer and those of the Gospels, I would imagine historians would have a great deal more to work with. The thing to accept, I believe, is that no historian can be absolutely sure. This of course does not demean that torment of Achilles nor especially the teachings of Christ. But in the end you have, for instance, people in Slovenia convinced that Jason and company reached Vrhnika, Slovenia, and that Medea did her deeds in the Gulf of Kvarner. Maybe, maybe not, but the power of the myths, the human insight they provide, are undeniable. What the Christian should understand about us infidels: we are not necessarily evil or anti-Christian, rather we are skeptical. I, for instance, love the Jesus taught to me in my youth yet recoil at the posts of those who purport to speak for him. "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:36 PM:

" It may take me awhile to dig it up, but there was an interesting study comparing the historical reliability of the Gospels to the historical reliability of Homers Odyssey. Basically, the Gospels were found to be many times more reliable(using whatever criteria Historians use to determine this type of thing). Anyway, it may take a couple days, but I will check my literature and see if I can get the specifics. "

To Michael wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:31 PM:

" You are missing the point of Suzie Q's post. What you areasking us to believe is not that Christs followers were martyred for what they thought to be true. They would have willingly dies for something they themselves knew to be a lie. "

Suzy Q wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:05 PM:

" I read a non-Christian book analyzing the rise of Christianity (wish I could remember the title)that observed some facts about Christianity which were unique. One, it arouse in the same year of its supposedly crucified leader. Cults of fallen leaders have always arisen many years (like 10 or more) after the hero is slain. Christianity arose in the place of it's supposed slain leader. Cults of slain hero's always rose up in places away from their leaders last demise for obvious reasons. (How great was this guy? We killed him here.) Christianity arose when persecution was the greatest. To become a Christian meant being an outcast at the least and probably killed without worry. Christianity had to have something extra-ordinary to cause that. I know it was Jesus who rose from the dead. "

harsch wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:32 PM:

" I never doubted the integrity or honesty of any ancient writer; in fact, I hold the authors of the Bible to precisely the same standard as I do the authors of any mythical text, except for the Iliad and Odyssey which I hold to a higher standard as they have a single named author. "

Michael Welch Then You Ought To Become A Jew... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:32 PM:

" The martyrdoms of the apostles are NOT recorded in the New Testament but for the stoning of a 'James' who is usually identified as the brother of John, not 'the brother of the Lord.' All these martyrdoms come via the church of Rome and its early 'church fathers' but none are documented by eyewitnesses -- they are what is called 'tradition.' Christians did NOT die for 'lies' -- they died for RELIGIOUS 'truth,' not mundane historical facts as I said. EVERY religion has been attacked and persecuted at times and the practitioners of ALL have died for their beliefs -- Christians slaughtered thousands, later millions, of Jews and yet Jews still retained Judaism; by YOUR standard then YOU ought to convert to Judaism. (By the way thousands of Christians did convert over the last two millennia...) "

Michael Welch Far From The First Christians -- Are Christians Now... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Religions are not about historical 'facts'; they concern themselves with religious and philosophical 'truths.' The life of Jesus is a model essentially, one that early Christians who were pacifistic and communistic (i. e., they compiled their goods and shared them out equally, 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his need' -- see Acts) took seriously it seems. The idea that 'all' you REALLY have to 'do' is 'believe' and then you're somehow free to behave violently etc. (just say you're sorry), many first Christians didn't like. And of course the 'official' NT STILL INCLUDES the letters of James ('faith without works' is zilch) -- no matter that Martin Luther later wanted to pitch them... "

Starfish wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Thank you, Michael. And so it was until the realization of political utility (Constantine) and, ultimately, the glue of empire (Charlemagne). "

To Michael wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:41 PM:

" I guess I would refer you to the post by "Suzie Q". I have attempted to convey this idea in the past, but she does so more eloquently. Besides the other evidence alluded to, this is pretty compelling. Many die for what they believe in---but who would willingly die for something they know to be a lie? "

Michael Welch Thats All Folks... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:46 AM:

" None of the events of Jesus' life are recorded in the Romanized Jewish historian Josephus' extensive histories of the Jewish people. There is a short paragraph about Jesus which calls him a 'teacher' and a 'healer' but it is obviously glossed by later Christians to say things that Josephus, who was NOT a convert to Christianity, wouldn't write. (Even McDowell does not claim this passage is reliable.) The other reference to Jesus in the first century is from the Roman historian Tacitus who basically dismisses the 'followers of Chrestus' as a ridiculous cult, with sort of a snobby elitist attitude equivalent to, say, having Hare Krishnas harassing the educated at the coliseum gates. So other than the gospels, 'official' and gnostic, that's all folks! for the 1st century... "

Michael Welch More Trouble... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:32 AM:

" As I wrote below the 'Jesus of faith' clearly predominates because the 'Jesus of history' is almost unknowable. There are NO contemporary accounts; no references to his trial and execution in ANY official records preserved from the time, either of the Jerusalem temple or of the Romans who were, like 'US,' a very bureaucratic folk. In the letters of Paul, written (even literalists agree) from the 40s to the 60s, the Jewish Greek convert says absolutely NOTHING about Jesus' birth AND his ministry; Paul ONLY knows that he was crucified and was said to be 'resurrected.' Paul apparently knew both James, 'the brother of the Lord,' and Peter, the apostle we assume, but it seems they related NOTHING about Jesus' life to P. Curious isn't it?... "

Michael Welch Trouble Along The Way... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:22 AM:

" It is not my assumption that literalists will not stop being literalists. There IS however a great deal of scholarship examining the origins of Christianity but the 'popular' literalist reference to McDowell (or Lee Strobel) is predictable and no one ever seems to have read anything else. I did read McD's 'Evidence For Christianity' and found it a good compendium of information on historical Jesus research for those who never have, but JMcD then dismisses it all as 'speculative' and gives only the reasons repeated here -- e. g. that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who are four that NO ONE knows hardly anything about OUTSIDE the gospels, are the real 'authorities.' So much for scholarship!... "

Suzi Q wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:13 AM:

" I heard Chuck Colson talk about the Gospel writers sincere conviction to go to their graves, even while being tortured, and never once denied Jesus.

He compared that to his experience with Watergate. He was part of the most powerful people in America. They weren't facing death, just some jail time and imbarassment. Yet, all four of them gave up their lies. The Gospel writers weren't powerful. In fact, keeping to their story made them worse then just criminal. They had everything to gain by admitting they were lying and death and pain if they kept to their stories. Yet not ONE ever cracked and denied Christ. The ONLY way all apostles wouldn't break is if they were telling the truth. "

Starfish wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:06 AM:

" The historian was Josephus and his mention was oblique ("They're talking about this guy. . ."). In fact, probably dozens of thousands of rebels were lynched in the manner ascribed to that of Jesus and there were plenty of apocalyptic cults expecting the "End Game" at any moment--the Final Battle between the forces of good and evil. Sound familar? If I was reading up on the most recent Packers-Bears game, I would get quite different perspectives from the Chicago Tribune and the Milwaukee Journal--particularly in the later week wrap-up. It is not impugning the integrity of the Gospel--or biblical--writers to question to look for more information to put them in context. It is scholarly curiosity and it fits in quite nicely with intelligent faith. "

To Harsch wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:41 AM:

" I am still unclear as to why you doubt the Gospel writers integrity or honesty in the first place? Also, if you they were in fact not being honest, what their motivation was for their dishonesty? I really think if you haven't done so already, you need to read McDowells book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". For some reason, you hold the Gospel writers to a higher standard than other ancient historical texts. "

harsch...evidence wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:57 PM:

" I believe that Jesus was mentioned outside the Bible just once or twice by one historian from the second century (I may be slightly off and I can't remember the historian's name). Nevertheless, I see no reason to believe he did not exist, but it is obvious that proof of anything about his life is impossible to find, much less proof of resurrection. As for Thomas, he most likely never reached the India of today; the most compelling evidence is that he died in Sindh. "

Cage Fighter wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:44 PM:

" Brian, this is admittedly only your humble opinion. Yes, others share your humble opinion. My opinion differs. Others share my opinion. We all have absolute beliefs. "

Planet to BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:41 PM:

" Regarding your question about the Old Testament quote relating to the 30 pieces of silver--Zechariah 11:12. I have seen no evidence of past dishonesty or untrustworthiness of the Biblical authors, so if you are alleging such, I would need proof, or some compelling motivation to lie. Brian, I understand you are a skeptic, so naturally you would put your faith in the "Skeptics Annotated Bible". You asked me the reason for my faith, and I told you. I respect your right to disagree. "

Dear brother Cage Fighter wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:14 PM:

" I assume nothing.....the belief that a god or creator would communicate in a universally understood method is my humble opinion and the opinion of many Founding Fathers and Patriots. Because this god didn't simultaneously communicate with other advanced contemporary civilizations of the Jews I have to reject the story as fable and beyond reason. - BrianGSmith "

Dear Planet wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Elijah? That character is an enigma of the Bible traversing centuries of biblical stories. You have no proof "Elijah" came or when. The other prophecies require such a huge suspension of reason as to be rendered silly. Please give me the OT quote about the 30 pieces of Silver and then tell my why many believe the "editors" of the New Testament made sure they wrote stories that somehow matched "prophecies" of the OT. Do we call Jesus "Emanuel" for example......? NO we don't. Go read the "Skeptics Annotated Bible", it's online and written without divine intervention. - BrianGSmith "

To Michael Welch wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Re 11:50am post: Michael, what you ignore is that people did "examine" the evidence for and against the Christian faith. The aforementioned Josh McDowell was a skeptic at one point in his life who set out to disprove Christianity. His research and examination of the evidence led him to believe that Jesus was real, historical, and literal. He also concluded that His life, death, and bodily resurrection, as documented in the New Testament was real, historical, and literal. I understand you dispute his conclusions. But to say no one has examined these things is simply not true. "

Michael Welch See Richard Burton In Equus... wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Other religions -- like Hinduism say -- offer equally satisfying and interesting conceptions of 'reality' (and non-reality) and what's important and what's not. What I appreciate about polytheisms is what the mythologist Joseph Campbell did -- they can be 'universalized' and the gods interrelated to other cultures. In the film 'Equus' Richard Burton's child psychiatrist understands a troubled boy's 'religion' of horses through his own study of ancient Greek culture. Everything in the Greek natural world -- brooks, groves, hills and dales -- was 'sacred' and had their own gods of 'place' and 'being.' This is very Hindu too of course, and while rather fatalistic re: 'life' it is also wonderfully sensitive... "

Michael Welch Christian Is As Christian Does... wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Historically Jesus is just so incredibly obscure that the famed missionary doctor Albert Schweitzer -- before he left for west Africa, a religious scholar of some note -- wrote a 'final' study on the search for 'historical Jesus' that concluded it didn't really matter because one could NOT find 'him'; only the Jesus of faith was clear to people. Schweitzer then, contra Paul perhaps and pro James, decided that as a Christian he'd better start to 'do' something that that Jesus of faith would want and so pitched out his scholarly pursuits, got a medical degree and left town in order to 'do good' in a faraway place. Schweitzer was a man who UNDERSTOOD what the gospels MEANT -- and they have nothing to do with 'history' per se... "

Michael Welch A Different Understanding Of History... wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:50 AM:

" I understand the willingness to just let your 'faith' be your guide -- if 'everyone' tells me it's true then why bother to examine? But are you familiar with the cult of Asclepius the legendary faith healer of the Greeks? The stories of his miracles are quite similar to those of Jesus and obviously they were believed but in antiquity accounts of 'great men' were constructed to reveal them in ways that reinforced their legends; the standard of historical research was not the same as today; i. e. the argument was inductive -- here is the premise of 'Jesus' and so the 'proofs.' Nobody's 'lying'; what they doing is saying HOW you should perceive, given the already rendered 'judgment'... "

Michael Welch Read A Little Closer... wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:42 AM:

" Well we don't know 'who' these authors of the gospels are really; there are even different names given them from one gospel to the other and the assumptions about their histories post gospel are legendary. Thomas by the way was supposed to have traveled to India as far as Madras -- and I believe Harsch has even been to the site of the small church where he is reputedly buried? (I imagine if T could get there maybe 'Jesus' could too?) In John we have 'the beloved dsiciple' who is assumed to be John but it is actually not that clear -- 'he' could even be 'she,' i. e. 'Mary of Magdala,' whoever SHE was, for that matter... "

Dear Tess wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:35 AM:

" You are a liar. "

rick.harsch to suzie wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:28 AM:

" If your idea of worship is simple praise, then your god is going to be mighty pissed when he meets you--better read Dante to get an idea of your future room-mates. "

harsch to dj wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Brilliantly argued! "

Susie Q wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:26 AM:

" So Mr. Harsch worships at the feet of Mr. Welsh. Mr. Welsh apparently worships his own power of reasoning. For me and my family, we will worship God and study His Word, the Bible. "

Planet to Harsch wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Which brings us to the point of our disagreement....whether the Bible is the Word of God. There have been men mentioned in the past on these boards(McDowell, etc)who present compelling historical evidence for Christianity and evidence that the life, death, and bodily Resurrection of Christ as documented in the New Testament is historically accurate. This is the evidence upon which I base my faith in Christ and his claims. You have stated you disagree, and I respect your right to do so. I don't think you are a bigot or intolerant for disagreeing with me no more than I am a bigot or intolerant for disagreeing with you. "

simpleman wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:57 AM:

" Obama correctly asserts of differing paths to heaven; afterall what happens to all those God's people, the Jewish nation, who died before Christ arrived. There are those Jews who still believe that Jesus wasn't the Christ and are still looking for him. They believe they're to comply with the Old Testament ways until the "real" Christ comes, let alone comes again. But Obama would be in error if Jesus was the true Christ. But so would a number of the God's chosen people from the Jewish nation. I remember the last time we had an energy crisis, there were evanglists out preaching the end of the world was coming soon. So were the Jehovah's Witnesses, so Bible thumpers have a tendency to be careless in their observations. So I'm open to more truths than just those preached either here or from some pulpit. "

DJ wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:43 PM:

" RE: Harsch to Anyone; Now who's been hoodwinked? Sounds like a serious case of too many eggs in one basket. "

harsch to planet wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:08 PM:

" But you see, it can not but be a work of fiction, whatever its religious merit. Such is the way of the ancients. "

Planet to Harsch wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Prophecies being fulfilled within the same text would not be convincing evidence if the text did not span hundreds of years, or if it was a work of fiction. Because of the timeframe of the text, and because it purports to document actual historic events, I find the evidence very convincing. Also, I am not alarmed. I understand reasonable people can disagree. "

Starfish wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:51 PM:

" ALL scriptural stories and narratives will have precedents or parallels. The important thing for me to realize is that there was a time when we emerged into our human consciousness. This emergence encountered proto-crimes: was there really malice in Caan's murder of Abel? Does it matter to G-d whether it was the binding of Isaac or Ishmael or whether Hagar or Sarah was Abe's #1 wife? Each of these stories, probably in their umpteenth translation (variation) is trying to convey a Primal Fact--something a human has to deal with that an animal does not. Cal has The Answer. Good for him. I have only mine. "

Harsch to anyone wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:08 PM:

" I urge anyone really interested in this discussion as a compassionate person to read and reflect on what Michael Welch has to say, as he is the most knowledgeable religious person I know. Disagree in the end if you like, but his combination of experience and scholarship are unparalleled in this forum. "

Harsch to planet contd wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:06 PM:

" I thought everyone knew the Bible was edited extensively (how could it be otherwise?) (and what difference would it make?). Prophecies come to fruitiong? Well, within one text that is hardly convincing evidence. Besides, all religions, even the more placid and intuitive Hindus have prophecy fulfillment on their side. finally--trying to answer all your questions--people did not perpetuate a hoax; they began to believe something, and as it was 'not of this world' they, many of them, naturally would die for it becuase it is more important than this world--but that is true of people of all religions. No one doubts their sincerity, or no one should, as I do not doubt yours. I only ask for broader understanding and therefore tolerance. "

harsch to planet wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:00 PM:

" Planet, planet, planet: relax. No hoax, just the way things are, the way they accrete. There is no reasonable questioning about whether the Bible is 'legitimate' or not. It is the holy book of a large sector of humanity. The thing is that many of the Bible's stories are clearly derived from Hindu mythology (Krishnu=Jonah, for the most obvious example) and of course Hebrew mythology and Persian mythology, and other regional mythologies (see Mithra). This is all well known and means nothing to the Hindu, Moslem, Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, etc. Content analysis shows--with statistically validated accuracy--that much of the Bible's content is 'borrowed'. But make of that what you will. No need to be alarmed, for you still have Jesus, who, as historical figure or myth is a great figure. "

To Michael wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:08 PM:

" The alleged hoax would be, if as you allege, the prophecies which were fulfilled were either 1) not fulfilled or 2) never predicted in the first place.
I repeat, the early followers of Jesus-who would have been in a position to know the truth, know the score, know what's what, so to speak--all were willingly martyred. For what? A lie? A mythical attempt to explain a world gone wrong? Sorry, I just don't buy it. "

Michael Welch Religion Has A Time Of Its Own... wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:09 PM:

" Also religions are not 'hoaxes' per se; they are attempts to explain the world, especially a world gone 'wrong' somehow. The Greco-Roman world was a successful empire but exceedingly corrupt at its margins and at its core. The lives of ordinary folks were filled with business but the official state religion was hierarchal in the extreme, quite remote from that everyday person. Numerous 'eastern' cults had become popular, in particular Judaism which had large communities in 'Asia minor' (Turkey) and even Rome. Christianity became successful as an amalgam of Greco-Roman religious sensibility united with Judaism, which made it so accessible to those Greek communities of that 'east' that Paul preached in... "

Michael Welch Godspelled... wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Christianity is a 'religion about Jesus' and his actual origins and 'message' have been obscured; after all he is not even treated in any other first century CE accounts as 'significant,' other than in the four gospels. The Romanized historian of the Jews, Josephus, devotes much more space to John the baptist and his paragraph or so concerning Jesus has obviously been 'glossed,' or altered. I myself don't believe the gospels themselves were changed dramatically by the church of Constantine but the numerous 'gnostic gospels' show a Jesus more, well re: Harsch, 'Hinduistic' -- Jesus speaks like a guru or 'teacher,' not a demi-god. Now that's quite remarkable... "

To Michael wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:44 PM:

" The different authors emphasizing different points is not unusual. They are complementary as opposed to contradictory. Regarding the old "just because the authors say it happened doesn't mean it actually happened" raises a lot more questions than answers. The most obvious being, then WHY would they write what they did? For what purpose? There is no evidence that shows these authors have a history of lying or that they were untrustworthy. The early followers of Jesus had no reason to doubt these men--why should we? As another poster stated to Harsch, your belief is that a conspiracy theory--the likes of which has never been perpetrated before or since, took place in a time when organizing such a conspiracy would have been next to impossible. And for what payoff? Death for something you knew to be a lie? Sorry, you have more faith than me. "

Michael Welch Historical Jesus -- Problematic... wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:46 AM:

" Re: the gospels they were written from about 66 CE to 100 CE and NOT by 'eyewitnesses' but authored for particular early Christian 'communities.' The accounts of the events of Jesus' life and work vary in each -- in both Mark and John his early life has no especial importance and they both begin with his baptism by John and the start of his ministry. Matthew and Luke have very different renditions of his mythical birth -- one emphasizing his kingly importance and the other his lowly origins. That he would 'fulfill' prophecies (as interpreted of course by BELIEVERS) in these gospels would be hardly surprising but there is no way to affirm the historicity of such. Merely mentioning, say, figures like Herod and Pilate does NOT mean the proported events actually happened... "

Planet to Harsch wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Please expand with some evidence of your assertion that the Bible was edited extensively? Are you asserting The original prophecies of the Old Testament were "added in"? Are you asserting that the accounts of these prophecies coming to fruition were "made up"? Both? Neither? Finally, what was the purpose of perpetuating this great big elaborate hoax? Why would the people who presumably would have been in on the hoax been willing to die for something they knew to be false? "

Michael Welch The Old Religion In Politics... wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Religion in politics used to have a form; i. e. it was EXPECTED that the president for instance would attend a church some time AND be seen doing so. Also rather generic references to 'God' and 'His blessings' were considered fine -- if not TOO frequent. 'God bless you and God bless America!' was certainly okay at the END of a speech but one was to avoid any unseemly proselytizing. The public was occasionally urged to 'attend the church or synagogue of your choice' but vetting ANYBODY's 'faith' would be in extremely bad taste; religion was 'public' sure, yet also a 'private matter.' The rules -- you might say -- were based on a sensible societal balance apparently lost to 'US' today... "

Michael Welch Religion In Politics... wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:19 AM:

" I really don't know who is 'a true Christian' -- the religion has had two millennia to effect a better world and most of that time has been packed with much more horrors than in 'pagan' antiquity. When Eisenhower became president in 1953 some sort of religious renewal was posited -- the Truman administration being supposedly rife with 'atheistic communists' etc. Eisenhower -- raised by the way as a 'church of the Brethren,' a pacifist Mennonite sect (Ike's mother was initially terribly upset he became a soldier) -- instituted a prayer before cabinet meetings. One day the meeting had gone on for some time and suddenly Ike 'the soldier' injected 'We forgot the g--d--- prayer!' It was dropped altogether shortly after... "

Cagefighter to my dear brother Brian wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:17 AM:

" re 10:36am-Brian, you are also claiming absolutes. You made the claim below that if there was a God, He would reveal himself to all in a universally understandable language. In short, you claim there is no God because He hasn't chosen to reveal Himself as you think he should. Sounds pretty absolute to me. That must mean you are 5 sheets west of looneytown. "

Kenneth W KrauseTo BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Faith is not belief without evidence. There is plenty of evidence to support the Biblical account of history(Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell). You are confusing evidence with proof. It is possible for ones faith to be based on a reasoned examination of the available evidence, which is what McDowell does in his book. You have an anti-supernatural bias which won't allow you to believe, no matter the evidence. "

Planet to ten o three am wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Thats easy-I'll name a few of the 400+
1)Elijah would come just prior to Jesus
2)Jesus would be born in Bethlehem
3)Jesus would be born of a virgin
4)Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. "

Harsch...the first shall be last wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:52 AM:

" I think the Bible prophesied that Bob Dylan would write a certain line in 'The Times they are a-Changin'. "

harsch to planet wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Books have authors--in the case of the Bible many of them. You know very well that the Bible was edited extensively more than once, and one time severely excesed in Nicea. So in this way it is very much like my book in that my editor makes sure I am consistent--though my books are far more cohesive than the Bible for my editor had a light touch. And to the idiot who reads into my thoughts a suggestion of conspiracy, I just wish I did not have to explain that the process he thinks is conspiratorial is quite natural for such books. If myths are facts, then we must ask why your mother Medea failed. "

Dear Kevin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:36 AM:

" How do you know? Anyone claiming absolutes in a religion debate is five sheets west of looneytown. - BrianGSmith "

Dear Harsch wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:34 AM:

" You make a great point about believers questioning the beliefs of others. Faith is beleif without evidence.....and no one has any evidence their particular demniation is correct in their 'path' top god. Of course I reject organized religions and feel the creator or force is for all of us and we all contribute to its effectiveness and power. - BrianGSmith "

Dear Planet wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:03 AM:

" Try this...why not you tell us one or two OT prophecies that came true?....Pick good ones please. As far as I've read there are zero to none that have come to pass. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Obviously Cal Thomas didn't get the memo from evangelical author Stephen Mansfield (The Faith of George W. Bush) who is currently penning a book on Obama's faith cleverly titled "The Faith of Barack Obama". In the book Mansfield praises Obama endlessly as being a real Christain, one who uses Christain values when making political decisions. Quite stunning. So let the Thomas's fling the dung, it's boomerang dung anyways. The Thomas's and those of his ilk are so discredited these days it's a wonder the Trib still prints his garbage. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Christianity itself is a cult...a sect of the Jewish faith....a political development just as islam was and judaism was. Fear is what keeps most folks 'in the faith'. Their silly portrayal of 'god' is disturbing and insulting. The "christian" story is downright looney....i thought so as an altar boy and while sitting in the pews every Sunday for 18 years of my life. If there be a single 'god' that created everything including all the people on this planet it defies simple logic that this god wouldn't reveal himself to all in an universally understandable language instead of revealing himself to wandering tribes in isolated corners of the planet. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:49 AM:

" No one knows how many paths to 'god' there are, there is no data or empirical evidence to confirm any claim(s). The fact that some modern Americans still choose to view the edited ancient texts as the 'word of god' despite all of its contradictions and failed, failed prophecies is befuddling to say the least. CAl Thomas....yeah, when I think of Jesus I think of Cal Thomas......not!!! "

To Harsch wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:18 AM:

" You hint at some widespread, inexplicable conspiracy among the Biblical authors to perpetuate what would be the greatest, most elaborate hoax in the history of the World. I repeat--it takes a lot more faith to believe what you believe than to believe what I believe. "

Planet to Harsch wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at. The Old Testament made many predictions concerning events which were fulfilled, in some cases, hundreds of years later. Your books don't fall into that category. "

cagey wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Jimmy, I had the exact same thoughts that you did when I read that article. Reading these comments, however, has been interesting. There is obviously a lot of thought going into this question and a lot of strongly held beliefs. My interpretaton of Obama's statement is that his Christianity is inclusive, not exclusive. As someone who considers herself agnostic and somewhat suspicious towards organized religion, I find this type of inclusiveness very refreshing. "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:24 AM:

" For someone who are raised by a Muslim father, Muslim stepfather and schooled at a radical Madrasah, Barrack Hussein Obama would do best to proclaim his alledged Christianity and trumpet his spiritual shepherd(s). Oh that's right, he threw them under the bus.

My bad. "

DJ wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Dear God, spare us your worn out Deist propaganda. At least think up think up something new, perchance to entertain us again. "

Kevin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:31 AM:

" Cal Thomas is correct. The way to the father is through the son and salvation is obtained through faith and by the Grace of God and not good works. The qualifier is that one should not profess to have faith and provide not work output. That aside, if you practice Christianity then that is the the only way to be saved, faith and belief in Christ. That does not make the people who do 'good works' and are 'good people' bad in the eyes of humanity. They will just not find salvation in the eyes of God. If Barack Obama believes that people will find salvation some other way than through belief and faith in Christ, then he is not a Christian. "

Yo wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:37 PM:

" As a christian myself I have no problem with what Cal Thomas said. That being said, I would not try to convert anyone who does not wish to be or kill them for not converting to my way of thinking. The real threat, less we forget, are those religions whom we are fighting with now that believe there is only one path, their path. Convert or meet your maker. Cal is not spouting this kind of theology, hence he is not the threat people here will try to make him out to be. "

harsch to planet wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:39 PM:

" I repeat that all the prophecies in my own books come true. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:11 PM:

" Try this: Google "Old Testament Prophecies" for a list of some of the 400+ Old Testament Prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament. Sorry, folks, but it takes more faith to believe the Bible is NOT the Word of God than it does to believe it IS. I have talked to many non-believers, and their non-belief boils dopwn to one thing: an anti-supernatural bias. Any bias will hurt you in an honest search for the truth. "

To Harsch wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:48 PM:

" But if you believe something is true, you would believe that something that contradicts it is false. When discussing a question of fact, I don't accept your assertion that disagreement=bigotry. "

Is Cal Thomas right wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Let's not get our panties in a bunch over this. Instead, let us, as freethinking Christians, stop, and take the time to examine what Cal Thomas actually said. It is not unreasonable to think that some Christian branches of the divine faith may have strayed so far that these branches can no longer be considered to be truly Christian at all. Catholics, Mormons, 7th day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so-called English Lutherans are no longer true Christians in terms of their post-modernistic theology and doctrinal theory. That does not make these groups paganistic per se, but what it does means is that, epistemologically speaking, these sects can no longer be defined as Christian. These sects are best defined as cults. "

Kenneth W Krause to BGS wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Brian, I stated in my original post that I believe the Bible to be Gods Word. Therefore, I believe the authors of the Bible were trustworthy and were Divinely inspired when authoring the Bible. I believe the authors accurately recorded Jesus' words, and I believe Jesus was being truthful when He spoke. Does it take faith to believe the supernatural events of the Bible took place? Of course. But that is not to say faith and reason are mutually exclusive. "

Religon bigotry period wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:12 PM:

" The minute you start thinking that God you and God have the same opinion, you're just plain pretentious, and yes, a bigot to boot. Crack a history book. A history of Byzantium or the Cathar heresy would be a good start. You'll note very quickly that Christians have been willing to slaughter fellow Christians over the most academic points. Ditto any number of other religions. Bottom line is that any POTUS can't just represent people of her/his own faith (or subspecies of faith). Anything else puts this nation on the fast track to theocracy. "

Harsch wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:48 AM:

" KWK raises a troubling question, one that he should as an honest man be troubled by. To believe is not to know, and so to not know and yet dismiss the beliefs of others is not only 'bigoted', but self-serving, which is also at odds with Christianity. I'm not saying you can or can not have it 'both ways'; I'm saying you can't have it hundreds of ways. "

Michael Welch The Benefits Of Diversity... wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Inherent in the American founding is the idea of those 'many paths.' Many of the prominent founders like Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and Adams were 'deists' who did NOT interpret the Bible literally. Jefferson of course even re-wrote the gospels in order to eliminate the 'supernatural'; he regarded Jesus as the most sublime of philosophers but he rejected what he regarded as 'legend' in the scripture. Historically Christian belief has dominated in the US and was oft proclaimed through its civic institutions but many peoples of differing religions (especially Jews) found America 'accepting' (if not always enthusiastic) and eventually they have had profound influences on our society and culture... "

Froto wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:26 AM:

" The truth is that no one knows the way. The one thing that does stand out is that more and more people are awakening to this fact. More than ever before people are beginning to see the hypocriy of organized religions. "The kingdom of heaven is in each of us" and their it is we must search, and more of us are searching their. Yet even that is not known for sure. Yet it appears to be a better alternative than the path preached by the various religions. As we discover more and more of the ancient writings, a clearer picture is evolving regarding the manipulations of the writen word. "

Michael Welch Contradictions... wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:23 AM:

" For example Jesus is usually very paciifistic -- he proclaims that his disciples should NOT 'resist evil' but 'pray for them that persecute you.' One should not respond 'eye for eye' but 'turn the other cheek'; one ought even to 'LOVE your enemies.' However the letter of the Jewish Greek convert Paul to the 'Romans' seems to override Jesus, asserting the right of the state to employ violence in the name of order. But it was also assumed among the Christians of the first centuries (see the church fathers Tertullian and Origen) that Christians could NOT be soldiers. Today's Christians however are among the most violent people of the world... "

Dear Kenneth Krause wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Instead of asking "did Christ lie" you should ask "did the editors of the collective works known as the Bible lie". We have no proof Jesus said anything, no original texts....only FAITH that it is as the Niecene Council said it is. Not enough for me......obviously enough for you. - BrianGSmith "

BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:16 AM:

" Fast food Christians like Thomas and commenter's on these blogs believe one only has to recognize Jesus as the "way" and your ticket is punched to paradise. It involves much more work however, often called "bearing the cross". Part of bearing that cross involves following Jesus's teachings and living a life of selflessness like Christ did. This includes loving ones enemy and caring for the poor. There be few genuine Christians amongst us and Cal Thomas is so far removed from Jesus' teachings we may call him an anti-Christ. After reading Obama's Father's day speech there is no way any right winger is gonna claim more Christain 'props' than Obama. "

Michael Welch Interpretation Is Key... wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:16 AM:

" As many folks know I've written many times about the difficulties of religious literalism. The Bible MUST essentially be 'cherry-picked' -- 'interpreted' for modern life. In the Jewish tradition it is even thought important to have a more thorough knowledge of the talmudic commentary than of the scriptures themselves, as the Talmud explains how the rules and regulations of scripture are applied in practicality. If Obama or any other proclaimed Christian is only to express his belief in literalist terms then only the literalists can 'vet' who's a Christian? This invites a 'Pope Billy Graham' perhaps?... "

Re Obama wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:38 AM:

" Obama was NOT simply saying it is ok to be Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. He alleged a specific fact: that there are many paths to God. If he believes this, he certainly has every right to say it. But, many people do not agree with this(see KWK post). If he misspoke, fine. If he truly believes this, fine. But don't try to change the meaning of what he said just to make it more appealing to the masses. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:02 AM:

" The idea of whether there is one path to God or many paths to God has been an idea debated many times on these blogs. I believe the Bible is Gods word, and I believe that Jesus Christ was speaking the truth when He claimed to be the only way to God. I respect the right of anyone and everyone to disagree with me. But, because we disagree, I don't think it makes me a bigot anymore than it makes you a bigot. Cal Thomas does make a legitimate point. How can you believe two things which contradict one another? How can you believe that 1)Christ was Divine AND 2)Christ was either mistaken or lying? How can you believe 1)There is one path to God AND 2)There are many paths to God? This would also beg the question: If there are indeed many paths to God, why did Christ die? "

Sanford Koufax wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:56 AM:

" I'm glad Cal cleared that up for me. Is he taking questions? Is Richard Perle a real Jew? Is Woody Allen? Is Osama bin Laden a real Moslem? Is Salman Rushdie? Is the Pope a real Christian? Is Rev. Hagee?

This is going to backfire on these clowns, Jimmy. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »