.: bio


About Jimmy's Blog
Jimmy's Past Picks

 
 .: our blogs
Autumn Grooms
Chris Hardie
Cops & Courts
Criminal Complaints
Jimmy Gillman
From Tribune Files
Jerome Christenson
It has to be said
Joel Badzinski
Samantha Marcus: City Hall
Letters from the editor
Loggers
Mark Sommerhauser
Nolan Rosenkrans
On the run

 
 .: links

lacrossetribune.com
winonadailynews.com
rivervalleynewspapers.com
 Jimmy Gillman

Published - Tuesday, June 24, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (212 comment(s))

Survey finds most Christians accept theirs may not be the only path to salvation

.
American Christian attitudes continue to liberalize according to the results of The Religious Landscape Survey, which found that 70% of Christians believe “many religions can lead to eternal life.”

Even among Evangelicals, a remarkable 57% are “willing to accept that theirs may not be the only path to salvation.” This increase in religious tolerance is music to the ears of those who believe in pluralism, and the data has practical value as well. As the study indicates, higher levels of tolerance reduce religious tensions among Americans, resulting in a less divided and more harmonious society.

Christianity is a magnificent and glorious religion filled with untold truths and wisdom, as is the case with other faiths. And we’re all better off living in a world able to embrace that idea.

Click here for more.
.
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Re Michael wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:58 PM:

" And I agree with him totally. "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 29, 2008 3:43 PM:

" Michael-you did explain why you believe. You stated you believe because you believe. We get it. "

Michael Welch Im Always Available To Splain Lucy -- NO PROBLEM... wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Why yes -- I do believe what I believe! (And also with you I assume.) AND further: I have MANY MANY 'reasons' WHY -- some of which you might read over (below) and remember -- you can always ask about whenever. And so: no doubt I'll 'see you NEXT time!'... "

To three fifty two pm poster wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:14 PM:

" I guess he told you. Great post Michael! "

To Michael wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Okay, I get it. You believe because you believe because you believe. Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion. "

Michael Welch THIS I BELIEVE... wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:51 AM:

" If you look below and re-read especially my comments on Hinduism (going back more than a few) you will find I have explained what the roles of 'gods' are in religious experience and how they are defined, especially within polytheisms. The gods are REPRESENTATIVES of realities, 'spirits' of corporeal nature and of the human psyche. I do not 'believe' in a god as you do -- i. e. as the superegocentric arbitrary arbiter of everything, for whom you are really a mere slave, a pawn in His game -- but I believe in the 'sacred' in the 'profane' so to speak, in the every day. See the film 'Equus' sometime for a fine explication in a very gripping movie... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Not trying to nitpick, but I sincerely see a difference between saying "obviously, such and such is true" and "I believe I am obviously right about such and such." I suspected when you stated the former, you meant the latter, and I was just seeking clarification, which you provided. I do see an inherent contradiction in an agnostic(I thought this is what you once identified yourself as...perhaps I am mistaken?) claiming they have no doubt there are many ways to God. This view would seem to be more in line with Polytheism. "

Michael Welch Believe What You Wish But I Believe --... wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Don't those scholars you mention believe they are 'obviously' right -- or do THEY have doubts? (If they do indeed doubt I commend them!) I however have NO doubts whatsoever that there are 'MANY ways to God' (whatever your definition of 'God' may be) and that Jesus can help you find A way, especially if you actually seek to emulate him -- seek (with a proper attitude) and you shall find! Hinduism and Buddhism both agree that 'Jesus' or whatever god you want is fine; the gods can be your guides, both 'positive' and 'negative' by the way, and sincere study with the desire for enlightenment can, eventually, get you 'there.' Yeah I believe THAT is 'obvious' -- so how many times do you want me to repeat it?... "

Planet to Michael wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:49 PM:

" You can't be serious? You are "obviously" right about there being many ways to God because you have studied religions that claim this to be the case? Dare I ask, what about those who have ALSO studied other religions extensively, and still come to the conclusion that the historical and other evidence supports Christs claim? "

To Michael wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:12 PM:

" You just don't get it. I know that these other faiths claim there are ways to God other than Jesus. I reject these claims because I believe Jesus was being truthful when he claimed to be the only way. However much Michael Welch has studied or however much Michael Welch has not studied these other religions is irrelevant. My studies lead me to believe the evidence supports Christs claim. "

Michael Welch It IS Obvious Yes... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:29 PM:

" It IS 'obvious' because I have studied these religions -- and I have NO 'evidence' that you understand ANY other religion than yours or even want to. You have said NOTHING, asked NOTHING, about ANY other religion EXCEPT to repeat and repeat that you 'reject' all of them because you like yours the best. Now IF you are indeed the guy below who has 'returned' from 'vacation,' the paltry FEW observations about those other religions that were made by this 'mysterious' person were just superficial stereotypes from, I suspect, Christian apologist web sites. As I have written MANY MANY MANY MANY TIMES -- 'believe' what you like but I have NO 'proof' at all that you KNOW ANYTHING about other faiths... "

Planet to Michael wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:02 PM:

" You are each alleging different truths...there is one way to God versus there are many ways to God. Both of you can't be right. My opinion on the matter is no secret, so I won't reiterate it here. I just wish to say I don't see this as a matter of intolerance, but rather simply a matter of two people disagreeing regarding what the truth is. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:09 PM:

" I didn't really say that I don't need to know about other religions because I am satisfied with mine. What I said was that if I take Christ at His word that He is indeed the only way to God, that I would naturally reject any other religion that claims this is not the case. You state that other religions are viable paths to the understanding of what "might' be called God..., and I know the people who practice these religions believe that. But, it is not "obvious" as I reject that belief because I take Christ at His word that He is the only way... "

Michael Welch Many Ways To God -- Whatever God Is To You... wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:36 PM:

" In Hinduism for example ALL gods are available; actually you have the gods that you 'need'; and all gods are representations of natural forces and human psychologies; in fact this is the view of all polytheisms. It has proved a meaningful and sensible religious 'way' -- again obvious to me. You contend that you needn't 'know' anything about other religions because you're satisfied with yours; fine for you but it's clear to me that other religions are indeed viable paths to the understanding that might be called 'God' (for reasons I stated above) and I think emulating Jesus can be one way to 'get there' but hardly the only way. Bothering to study other religions does indeed make that 'obvious' but some can never (or won't) see 'the obvious' eh... "

Michael Welch Your Belief Is Culturally Confirmed... wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:26 PM:

" My point is that your view is based upon the culture you've been raised in, in which Christianity is generally accepted as a religious 'norm.' You indicate that you have read the Bible and apologetic texts that confirm your Bible reading and all these things come from others. Others wrote the Bible; others interpreted it; your upbringing in the US (primarily a 'Christian' country religiously) confirms what you have been told -- so you 'believe.' But ALL religions are the products of cultures, all have sacred scriptures and all have those who explain them and believers who believe as devoutly as you... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:18 PM:

" But I have repeatedly stated that I can't prove it....I stated that I find the evidence compelling, and the "space" between compelling evidence and concrete proof is where faith comes in. It is you who stated your view was "obvious", not me. As for the evidence, that is no mystery...it has been discussed on these boards many times over. Fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, reliable eyewitness accounts of miracles, the empty tomb,etc. As I have stated many times before, I find that Josh McDowells book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" does a good job of analyzing and expounding on this and other evidence, for and against. We disagree on how compelling this evidence is-I draw a different conclusion than you..I get that. I would find the evidence compelling whether no one believed it or whether everyone believed it. I am simply wondering what makes your view "obvious"? "

Michael Welch You Are AVOIDING Your Answer... wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:04 PM:

" What is your 'evidence'? I challenged you below and you have pointedly avoided providing it? You cannot say, by your own argument, that because others believed (Peter, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke) that that is 'proof' -- they could be wrong too. By the box you've put yourself in, you are to 'prove' to me that your God is the only God but NOT with the argument that someone else (no matter who) also 'believes.' And just as many can be mistaken so can a few -- numbers large and small don't matter, according to you. So you ought to answer me hmm. If you can't answer, just say so; THEN I will reply to your question... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:13 PM:

" If each of us is only asserting that we believe what we do because others share our beliefs, yes, we would be at loggerheads. I think the available evidence supports my belief in there being only one God. I understand you disagree...I just wondered if you have any evidence to support your belief, other than the fact that many people agree with you? "

Michael Welch One More Round The Clock Then Okay... wrote on Jul 22, 2008 11:55 AM:

" The Christians could then be just as 'incorrect' right? It matters not HOW MANY people believe but WHAT they believe? So millions of Christians could be as 'wrong' as any millions of others by your standard and indeed they are if they insist that theirs is the ONLY 'way'; it is only 'one way' -- but is that my 'opinion'? Sure, mine and many others -- just as folks share your view. That still leaves us at 'stasis' because you CANNOT 'prove' your God is the only God. Gods re: Hinduism (and the ancient Greeks and Romans for that matter) are expressions of the natural and psychological aspects of our world. This is 'all' they are which is quite enough thank you and the 'best' God is the one you try hardest to emulate; he/she is your 'guru'... "

To Michael...just one more observation wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:44 AM:

" I thought it was atypical of you to assert that the reason it is obvious there are many ways to God is because many people throughout history have believed that to be the case. I am assuming you didn't mean for it to come out that way...? Many people throughout history could, after all, be incorrect.... "

Michael Welch We Are At Loggerheads Then... wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Unless you have any more questions or observations for me I suppose we may as well leave it at that?... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Yes, I did take a little time off. No, neither of us has concrete proof....I was confused by your statement that there are "obviously" many ways to God. I don't accept your declaration of what is obvious. If I stated it is "obvious" there is only one way to God, I wouldn't expect you to necessarily accept that. But, I didn't state that. I simply stated that I personally find the evidence for this compelling.... "

Michael Welch Last Word Here -- Or Hiatus... wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:40 AM:

" Well it must be someone's 'day off' the Jim blog which is a good idea -- all of us perhaps become too wrapped in these ongoing arguments. I'll just say that of course I understand there is no 'conclusive' PROOF for anyone's God and that religions are largely a matter of cultural heritage; it is very difficult really for a 'westerner' to comprehend Hinduism, a religion in which all gods are available and you have in effect the god you 'need' at the moment. Christ, to a Hindu, may be seen as an avatar of Vishnu who 'pervades' the world with light and truth while Siva or Shiva represents destruction but BOTH are necessary and nothing can be created that is not destroyed and vice versa. And the 'devils' are merely those that keep you from REALLY 'seeing'... "

Michael Welch So Now Its YOUR Turn... wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:58 AM:

" There are MANY religions in this world and have been since it seems 'the beginning' of recorded time; therefore it's clear that there MUST be 'many paths to God' simply because those paths have been followed by so many different believers who've discovered the gods of their choice or need. In Hinduism the 'Ultimate Immensity' of 'Being,' or 'Brahman,' is so incomprehensible to us that the multiplicities, the diversities, of this wide world need be expressed in many gods who represent all those diversities. 'One' is not only 'the loneliest number' (or the saddest by the way) but an inadequate 'one.' My 'proof' is the plethora of religious diversity gone back thousands if not millions of years. That's what I call 'obvious.' Now PROVE to me YOUR god is the ONLY god -- or is that just your opinion?... "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:01 PM:

" Michael, you lost me with your first couple sentences. You state "there have been and obviously are many ways to God." How is this obvious? Are you simply emphatically stating your opinion? Or are you pretending to know for a fact that there are many ways? Please clarify. "

Michael Welch The Ones I Like Best -- By The Way --... wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:13 PM:

" Re: Joseph Campbell the noted mythologist I myself find the 'eastern' religion of Hinduism and its 'agnostic' off shoot Buddhism (which was never MEANT to be a religion per se but a 'practice') much more attractive and convincing because they ARE all inclusive. In Hinduism there certainly ARE 'MANY paths to God' and moreover eventually EVERYONE achieves his/her goal (union with the Ultimate) though it takes some quite longer than others to get there. Even time spent in heavens or in hells is not 'permanent' but actually part of one's education re: salvation. For 'all is impermanent; all is without a self' is your VERY basic lesson and when you REALLY understand it you ARE 'free' -- at last!... "

Michael Welch Back To The Future... wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Well if that is your ONLY contention then of course Jesus is NOT 'the only way to God' because there have been and obviously are MANY 'ways' -- the world is full of them. But there is usually no 'way' to change an insistent literalist view that is based upon religious faith -- which is really more an emotional and psychological proposition than it is a 'rational' one, albeit one indeed 'rationalizes' what one wants to believe. So I 'believe' -- as I wrote below -- that we have completed the circle (again) and fine I've learned just what I knew before -- that you believe in a literalist Christianity that denies the validity of all other religions. Okay I understand that -- but then I did so a long long LONG time ago... "

Cagefighter to Michael wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:58 PM:

" Well, Michael, it depends on what you consider to be a contradiction. I believe it is possible for God to both love and judge the world, so I don't see your example as a contradiction. But, I do see the two statements ("Jesus is the only way to God" and "Jesus is not the only way to God")as contradictory. I would go so far as to state it would be impossible to believe both of these things. One MUST believe one or the other. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:17 PM:

" I think we are "missing" each other here. It seems to me it is you who claim to have found a supposed loophole. I am only pointing out what I perceive as a flaw in the logic of people who claim to believe 2 things that directly contradict one another. "

Michael Welch Loopholes Salve Contradictions... wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:35 PM:

" As I've noted before -- 'God so loved the world He' drownded it (men, women, children, plants and animals) a la the Noah story eh. That seems 'contradictory' I'd say but there is ALWAYS a 'loophole' WHEN you WANT to believe... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Good points, but I was referring specifically to the irrationality of believing 2 different things regarding Christ's claims(That He is the only way to God, and that He isn't the only way to God). I am submitting that you can't truly believe both of these things. "

Michael Welch What Is Rational To You Is Faith Also... wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:40 AM:

" I don't know that it is 'irrational' that people often believe in say a God Who is omniscient and omnipotent and yet is One Who still 'permits' (or even causes) the devastation and horrible suffering of the innocent along with the 'guilty' -- that 'rain on the just and the unjust alike.' God is after all under no obligation to satisfy YOUR sense of 'rationalism' is He? Re: the book of Job, He can do any g--d--- thing He wants, when He wants, to whomever He wants -- that's what He makes clear to Job, who He acknowledges doesn't 'deserve' the suffering inflicted on him. ALL religions have their own standards of the 'rational' and Christianity stretches rationality as much as any other... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:47 AM:

" But, it is irrational to believe in two things that directly contradict one another, isn't it? That was my point. Of course I agree that evidence is not proof. I base my belief in Christ and his claims on what I feel is compelling evidence. I understand I do not have concrete proof. The area between "compelling evidence" and "proof" is where my faith comes in. "

Michael Welch It Is STILL Faith... wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Evidence is not 'proof' of course and evidence is ALWAYS (must be) open to interpretation. I recognize that one may indeed 'believe' for the usual reasons presented here, although it is even written in the NT that one believes BECAUSE it is 'absurd'; and the BELIEF is the MOST important, not the 'proof' -- blessed be he who HAS NOT seen and BELIEVES eh? MY contention is that it is no more 'irrational' (OR it is JUST as irrational) to believe in any other religion (once you have actually STUDIED that religion) than it is to have faith in Christian doctrine. No one has convinced me otherwise and by the way no one has manifested much actual 'understanding' of other religions, no matter what they say... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:32 PM:

" The problem isn't that he "believes because he believes because he believes". He believes because he finds the evidence in support of that belief compelling. And one cannot believe two things that contradict one another. "

Cagefighter to mystery poster wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Fair enough. Let me know(I'll be hanging out on these blogs from time to time)when you read these books and what you think of the evidence. Admittedly, these blogs only allow for snippets of evidence here and there. It's interesting you use the example of a case going to trial, as that is pretty much the framework of McDowells and Strobels books. I forget which book, but one has some quotes from non-Christian attorneys who do admit the evidence for Christianity is compelling. Good luck and enjoy. "

Michael Welch Round Round Round We Go Around... wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Congratulations! You've gone around in a complete circle and we are at the same point we always arrive at -- stasis! You believe because you believe because you believe because you believe etc. etc. -- okay I understand but it changes nothing, not my views nor yours. Next time just refer to that comment below and we will save us all a lot of time and space eh... "

To Cagefighter wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:30 PM:

" Ok, I'll try to answer honestly... As far as I can tell from what I have read, and again, honestly, the only evidence you have presented was the Bible and two authors books. (Strobel and McDowell). I never said I didn't "accept" it but if this were a case going to trial, for example, do you think that's enough "evidence" in support of Christianity? I'll be honest again and tell you I haven't read their books but I will when I get a chance. Again, I'm not a Troll and I am on here daily but that doesn't mean I read everything word for word much less remember everything. I think you can understand that if your being honest. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:20 PM:

" See 7/10 2:10pm post "

Michael Welch Dont Confuse You With The Facts... wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:18 PM:

" And look: I understand your literalist stance re: your Christian faith; I still say that other religions are quite as meaningful and fulfilling to their believers as yours is for you and they are only easily dismissed if 'ignorance is bliss' -- and as Joseph Campbell once advised 'Follow your bliss!' You've arrived at yours apparently so fine -- but I don't accept the comic cliched stereotypes of other religions offered by that now 'on vacation' commenter below -- they are facile, biased, incomplete and obviously the person who wrote them does NOT really 'understand.' If he doesn't WANT to understand well okay but then why even bother to comment on what you don't want to know?... "

Michael Welch No Its In Acts Of The Apostles -- Check It Out... wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Jesus says that 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.' When a wealthy youth explains to J all the 'good' things he's done and wants a further guarantee of salvation Jesus tells him to 'sell everything you have, give it to the poor and follow me!' Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus the beggar is also very pointed eh; no, J is hardly enamoured with wealth or wealthy folks but that's in part because he too believed the 'end' was near. (See Matt's 'little apocalypse.) However in order for the Christian religion to be successful, 'loopholes' for realistic living HAD to be found -- JUST as in ALL the enduring religions... "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Sorry, the below question was meant for the 722am poster. "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:11 AM:

" Re 726am: You said you are here everyday. Let me ask a question, and see if you can honestly answer: Even if you don't accept the evidence discussed and have different beliefs, are you honestly saying you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the evidence in support of Christianity is, as discussed on these blogs or the books referenced? "

To am poster wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Your response wasn't the same as your response to BGS on the Pledge blog was it? Just who isn't being open minded here? "

To Cagefighter and eight forty five am poster wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:22 AM:

" Nope, I'm not a Troll at all. And what difference does it make WHO I am? By the way, I'm on here everyday. Why does it matter if it's the Fourth of July? If you don't "have the time", fine. I asked you politely for some proof to back up your comments and you accused me of being a Troll and knowing everything that's been said by you on here? If your that confident it what your trying to say you don't have to be cavalier nor condescending. I asked for proof and you said all you require is evidence. I then asked you for your evidence and I get comments like this? If you want to help anyone at all in becoming more enlightened to your way of thinking, this is not the way... "

to michael wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:39 PM:

" There is discussion about some pooling of resources in a Christian community (I thought it was in Corinthians), but it wasn't a command or an effort to prepare for the end. It was simply a telling of how one group of people decided to take care of each other. As for Jesus's teachings on treasure, He says to lay up treasure in Heaven, meaning do things that have eternal value. He also says that the love of money (could be read physical material things) is the root of all evil. However, there is no command or call to "detach from all material things" like you presume. "

Re Michael Welchs larger point... wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:10 PM:

" I think I have a "working knowledge" of other world religions. But, let me pose a hypothetical: say, through historical and archaeological and whatever other research one undertakes, that person comes to the conclusion that Christ was being truthful when He claimed to be the only way to God. That person would not necessarily have to know all the intricacies of every other religion to assert that those religions are in error, would they? Because if Jesus is indeed the only way to God, any religion that claims otherwise would, BY DEFINITION, be incorrect. "

Michael Welch You STILL Dont KNOW... wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Again one asserts the LITERALISM of the Bible which MUST BE accepted 'on faith.' However: the initial Jewish scriptures date from about 600-500 BCE though there was certainly an oral tradition that went back several centuries. Hinduism was practiced long before as were many other religions and the Buddhist tradition is 500 years before Jesus and before ANYONE called him/herself 'Christian.' No one disputes my contention that the literalists commenting know LITTLE about other religions. Further, Jesus taught detachment from material things too yes? So Christians shouldn't 'work' and in fact early Christians DID expect the imminent end of the world and sold their goods, pooling the proceeds in common -- see the book of Acts eh... "

to the person who wrote to the person who wrote to michael wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:34 AM:

" Dude, relax. You should reread the post. It gives credit to Judaism being the oldest religion. It is saying that Christianity is a branch off of Judaism, so it too can claim relationship to being the oldest. It's actually pretty simple. Jesus is God, the same God that was at the beginning who created man in "their image". Adam worshiped God. Abraham worshiped God. First century Christians worshiped God. Christians today worship the same God. Since the beginning of mankind, those that have worshiped God are related to those Christians who worship Him today. You can't get any older than that. "

To the person below who wrote To Michael wrote on Jul 9, 2008 7:53 PM:

" To state that Christianity is the "oldest practicing religion" is completely untrue and a monumental afront to Judaism. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 9, 2008 6:08 PM:

" So you say that practicing Buddhists "detaches one from the material aspects of the world." So wouldn't ovoiding labor be a major way to detach yourself from the material aspects of the world? I think you just proved the other persons point. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 9, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Worshiping the Creator of the Universe makes Christianity the oldest practicing religion. Of course Christianity is born out of Judaism which technically began with Adam, the first Human.

When a person accepts Jesus as their savior, the Holy Spirit of God enters into their life and they know the truth. They don't need to study other religions to know that those religions are paths to ultimate destruction. "

Michael Welch The LARGER Point Ignored... wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:39 PM:

" But you're evading my main point which is that those making these critical observations of other people's religions don't (as you admit) actually KNOW very much about them. I contend that one cannot be convincingly dismissive or disparaging of something he or she has little knowledge of. What exactly YOU BELIEVE re: YOUR religious faith is your affair but to generalize in ignorance about religions older than yours or with long histories and intricacies makes statements such as below about three major world religious systems sound just 'silly.' ALL one's info should not come only from Christian literalist web sites... "

Michael Welch Parallels... wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:32 PM:

" I think a comment re: Buddhism that I made was 'lost in cyberspace' so I'll reiterate: ALL Buddhists are not 'required' to become celibate monks and nuns any more than ALL Catholics are. Buddhism is mainly a 'practice' in its purest sense that teaches one detachment from the materialism of the world -- certainly in parallel with Jesus' teachings hmm (500 years AFTER the Buddha by the way) and moreover Jesus (we're told) did not marry either and Paul even advised against marriage though he said if you can't bear celibacy 'better to marry than to burn.' Paul believed the end of the world was at hand though like Jesus in the gospels he was wrong... "

Michael Welch Similarities... wrote on Jul 9, 2008 12:30 PM:

" You DON'T know much about Buddhism you admit -- ALL Buddhists are NOT 'monks' or 'nuns' any more than are ALL Catholics. There are orders that don't marry yes but Buddhists are never forbidden to marry or to be employed or to live lives as most people do; Buddhism is a PRACTICE, mainly, which detaches one from the material aspects of the world -- also a Christ-like admonition eh? Jesus did not (apparently) marry either; nor did he work as a carpenter much eh -- after he began his ministry. See the similarity?... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:36 AM:

" The summary on Buddhism didn't say that Buddhists DIDN'T do work or ever get married. It said "-against marriage, manual labor" Personally, I don't know much about Buddhists but If Buddhist monks are the best examples of what Buddhists are to become, then I would say that the marriage part is probably right on. "

Michael Welch Time Spent... wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:48 PM:

" NOW 'who' is talking! Harlot's ghost? Look, IF you re-read my comments I DO NOT assert that religions other than Christianity are 'perfect' any more than I say Christianity is. But I find over and over that people state some ridiculous things about other religions that make it OBVIOUS they have NOT studied them but picked up their info from some Christian web site for apologists. ALL religions have pluses and minuses; ALL have their absurdities as well as sublimities. Jesus as an exemplar of generosity and empathy is a rightly revered figure and a Christianity following his noble deeds would be time well spent... "

Michael Welch Scroll Below Please... wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:47 AM:

" Look below -- I already wrote about C. S. Lewis and I specifically answered that question. While you're scrolling down notice those slim characterizations of 'rival' religions -- there's barely more than one observation about each and the assertions that Buddhists 'don't marry' or do manual labor expresses a near total ignorance of Asia from the Himalayas to the sea of Japan. The Japanese don't 'work' or marry? WHO told this person that? Does he/she REALLY believe this? Is it merely from some Christian apologetic web site? Do literalists ever actually STUDY other religions they dismiss here? So far the answer to that appears to be No they don't... "

To Michael on other religions wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:46 AM:

" The poster that was asking questions of you went on vacation. Whether they answer your posts on this blog or another is unknown at this time. The one thing that that poster noticed was your apparent effort to sugar coat other religions while taking the dimmist of views of Christianity. That person wasn't trying to change your mind, but trying to see why you look at the world through those type of glasses. That poster has seen many other religions up close and they aren't as rosey as you like to paint them. While there are nice people in all groups, only Christianity allows for salvation through something other then works. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 7, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Fair enough. Going back to a previous discussion, I am interested in your thoughts on C.S. Lewis. Would you consider him a literalist? "

Michael Welch MY POINT Is --... wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:28 PM:

" I was not writing specifically about the comment below; I was only noting that I had responded to a critic by making a series of comments about religions and there was no return. Now granted there is an unmerry-go-round aspect to all this and I don't object to taking a 'breather' but I do find that knowledge about religions dismissed is usually very shallow and while those critics don't discover 'loopholes' for the religions they disbelieve in they discover MANY for the one they do. Not especially surprising sure but then not really very convincing either. As you know I'm always ready to discuss these points so any time --... "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:19 PM:

" Oddly, I think the poster here is indeed the same poster attempting to engage on the aforementioned "Pledge" blog. Of course, rather than weigh in on the evidence over there, he seems to prefer to "start all over" here. I am guessing a bored troll, as when I made a point, and inquired as an aside who I was conversing with....he seemed to disappear. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:03 PM:

" You are not being fair here. I and others are always willing to engage you(and I might say, welcome you to engage us) in honest, forthright discussion. But, you must admit that the 4th of July poster is being willfully ignorant and obtuse, pretending that no evidence(for and against) has already been discussed(as nauseum, some may say) on these blogs. That poster has no interest in honest dialogue. In fairness, you do-most of the time (: "

Michael Welch Once More Nothing To Say... wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Well I can see that any 'discussion' of other religions re: Christianity has ended in the evocation of the ever comforting nostrums of Josh McDowell. What, well it hardly surprises me but it is startling nevertheless is how ignorant some folks are about the religions they disdain. The only information they gather apparently is expressly constructed to emphasize the unhappiest elements of the 'rival' while ignoring those questionable and equally unhappy aspects of Christianity. When someone writes about other religions who actually knows something about them, there is the silence of the uh lambs. Okay we'll wait for the next unmerry-go-round ride... "

To five fourty six pm on the fourth of July wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Come on, your life can't be that boring, can it? That you have nothing to do on our nations birthday? How sad. Anyway, the evidence has already been discussed on these blogs, and you know it. Check out the "Pledge" blog for a few nuggets. Evidence supporting the Resurrection was discussed. Alternative theories of the empty tomb were proposed, but pretty much debunked. If you want real specifics, check out Josh McDowells book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". Unlike you-I don't have time to go into the detail you want here, hence the sources I provide. But don't act like you have no idea that the evidence has been debated on these blogs. The 4th of July!! Really, now. "

To ten twenty seven am poster wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:46 PM:

" Tell us all about your evidence then please. Please be real specific. Thank You. "

Michael Welch A Summation... wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:17 PM:

" As for 'folk tales' etc., I can't 'make' people take the religions that have now passed into 'folklore' seriously if they absolutely refuse to. But these 'stories' ARE religious stories and you find their parallels in the American Indian country and in Africa, in the south Pacific and all over the world in more 'tribal' cultures. A religion is first and foremost culturally based and most people remain in the cultural-societal context that is most familiar and consequently meaningful to them. They 'convert' often when that culture is so radically disrupted that the 'old' religion no longer applies and then they call the new one 'the truth'... "

Michael Welch Judaism... wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:09 PM:

" I've commented so much about Judaism that I didn't think I needed to say much more but -- Judaism as I say below is predicated on a mutual loyalty of God and His folks who are examples to the rest of humankind of God's propriety. What you DO matters -- in keeping the sabbath, following the commandments, observing the holy days etc. Moreover for millennia now Jews have been 'challenged' by various religious cultures to 'give up' their version for a 'new improved one.' Jews haven't especially seen 'improvement' and so No thanks but they have then been savagely persecuted (more by Christians than Muslims by the way) and they are as is said 'a stiff necked people' who won't be beaten or bullied away from their problematic God so there!... "

Michael Welch Islam Is Submission To God... wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:02 PM:

" As for Islam it is VERY MUCH like Judaism and Christianity; i. e. it is a 'religion of the book,' a revelation which is, in its case, God's 'final' one that 'corrects' the 'mistakes' of the two come before. Islam is primarily, like Judaism, a religion of 'deeds' -- specifically there are sets of rules and regulations having to do with all aspects of every day life but over them are some very basic ones. The Muslim has some obligations -- to pray, to practice charity, to make pilgrimages if financially doable, for example -- and Islam is really very fatalistic: all things remain in the Hands of God, 'if God wills,' and everything that happens is His doing for whatever undiscernible purpose; in other words the world is GOD's 'oyster,' not OURS... "

Michael Welch Then Hinduism... wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Hinduism has SO many levels but there is 'dharma,' which is 'duty' and this is where the RELIGIOUS idea of caste comes in; one is born into a role in society (medieval Christianity believed this also hmm) and ought to 'play' one's part as ably as possible, whatever it is. After living up to one's societal obligations one may choose to 'opt out,' e. g., to become a 'forest sage,' a mendicant, remove a la Buddhism oneself from the rat race so to speak. The gods are the innumerable representations of the huge diversity in and immensity of life; over all however is a basic unity which is beyond 'gods' and is really the only Ultimate Anything... "

Michael Welch First Buddhism... wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:44 AM:

" The characterizations below about the nature of certain religions seem much too prejudiced. How can Buddhism be 'against' marriage and manual labor after 2500 years? No Buddhists marry?! None labor?! Who uh told you that uh 'fairy tale'? Essentially Buddhism says 'all life is suffering'; however there is a WAY out and that the Buddha can teach you -- his eight fold path. It 'works' (more or less, as all religions work -- more or less) for millions of folks and has the virtue of not caring about 'gods' at all. The great objective is NOT to become overly attached to the 'things of this world,' which also coincides with many of Jesus' admonitions eh... "

To nine fourty four pm wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:27 AM:

" You are the one talking about proof. I don't require proof. If there was proof one way or the other, we would not be having this discussion. I require evidence. "

To three fifty four pm poster wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:44 PM:

" So drawing my own conclusion is proof? "

To seven o two am wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:54 PM:

" I recommend "The Case For Easter" by Lee Strobel. He lays out the evidence for and against, leaving you to draw your own conclusions. "

To pm poster wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:02 AM:

" Prove that the man named Jesus conquered man's greatest enemy - death. "

all religions do not lead to the same place wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:26 PM:

" Is Christianity's claim of uniqueness and exclusivity misleading and baseless? No. Actually, many different religions make very different truth claims on a number of even basic issues. And they do so in a definitive manner. In other words, as any knowledgeable student of comparative religions will tell you, every religionnot just Christianityclaims exclusivity. Christianity's unique claims are: we can't save ourselves, Christianity alone is centered in the historical events associated with a Person - the birth, death, resurrection, and imminent, glorious return of Jesus Christ. (Other religions are invariably based on the teachings, rather than the acts, of their founders.)Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy - death. All other religions of the world are fundamentally just one religion one of salvation by works. "

to three twenty two pm wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:43 PM:

" Judaism-the first carrier of God's Word(s) to mankind, the vine which sprouted the branch of Christianity. Without Judaism you don't have Christianity. Without Christ there would be no salvation for mankind. "

for Michael wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:36 PM:

" You say folk tales, but really, isn't that just soft peddling it? If they are not all accurate, then they must have falsehoods or "fairytales" that are throughly believed as truth by their followers. Wouldn't that make the most sincere followers dupes for believing falsehoods. So since you admire all religions, even though littered with what you would call falsehoods, do you also admire the most sincere followers of these falsehoods?

So how do you see Hindus, who say there are many ways to God verses Christians who see only one way to God? Or how Muslims say Jesus was just a prophet and Christians say he was God? If all religions are loaded with falsehoods, then wouldn't it be better to admire those who abandon the falsehoods as opposed to those who cling to those falsehoods? "

To for Michael wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:22 PM:

" I noticed below that you left out Judaism. What's your take on it? "

for Michael wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:36 PM:

" So if this statement "I no longer think that ONE religion is somehow better or even more plausible than another; I see them all as representing historical cultures and, as I've reiterated below, revealing deep PSYCHOLOGICAL aspects in our common human perception." is an accurate discription of what you think of Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. How come each religion produces such drastically different results?
Christianity-everyone can be saved/individual importance, value work towards others
Buddhism-against marriage, manual labor
Hinduism-caste system with little incentive to help others out of their low state
Islam-convert or be killed "

Michael Welch You Like It You Got It... wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:58 PM:

" May I just repeat -- I have no 'objection' to Christian belief per se; I have BEEN a Christian most of my life but I no longer think that ONE religion is somehow better or even more plausible than another; I see them all as representing historical cultures and, as I've reiterated below, revealing deep PSYCHOLOGICAL aspects in our common human perception. Those things are what intrigue me about religions. I am not 'afraid' of that huge billboard (just as you enter Redgranite by way of Wautoma); it doesn't express, to me, the real profundity of the Jesus story; it's too narrow and too cruel -- for me. It suggests not 'peace' but fear as the basis of a religious belief and I reject that. It distracts and repels me rather than attracts or confirms. But YOU want this sort of religion? Well it's your choice... "

Michael Welch God Is Everywhere... wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:02 PM:

" The God of the Bible rather regularly practices infanticide by the way; doesn't seem to bother the believers here one wit -- very interesting eh? It interests me at least though I guess there MUST be a 'loophole,' an excuse, a rationale? (I'll give you a minute or so to think of one.) And look: you've GOT to read more carefully -- I've SAID that mythologies and so-called 'fairy,' or better folk, tales are PROFOUND, full of psychological meaning, and you ought to know 'profound' is a word of weight hmm, not disparagement. In that sense I 'believe' in ALL religions, which allows me empathy with very diverse cultures and yeah since I do think that is a 'good' and useful approach, in that sense I am very much 'at peace' with my perceptions... "

Barack Hussien Obama wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:02 PM:

" I am for the hope of infanticide. I wouldn't want my daughters punished with children like I was. Think of the horror my daughters would have to go through if they were punished with a child and chose to abort it in the third trimester and the child accidentally popped out alive!!!! We need to change this horrible situation from happening to anyones daughters, so that's why I supported killing children who were chosen to be aborted, but slipped through the crack and lived. Vote for me and your children can be blessed with the infanticide blessing. "

for Michael wrote on Jun 30, 2008 4:18 PM:

" So because your experience in various Christian worship services and studying different religions, you have come to the conclusion that God is just a fairy tale or useful mythology? And is it to be understood that because of your quest for knowledge or truth has led you to that conclusion, therefore any other conclusion (such as Jesus is the only way to Heaven) is wrong? Could it be that you are determined that the only way God could be real is if He meets your knowledge guidelines, but God only reveals His existance to those who exercise their FAITH in Jesus? Has your decision that God is a fairytale given you peace? "

Michael Welch Thomas A Kempis Vs Lewis... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:08 PM:

" I do think Lewis believed 'literally' but I see his 'Screwtape Letters' as very well written with an imaginative appeal. I don't say a literalist CANNOT be an intellectual or must be a bad writer; Lewis is obviously the first and not the second. I only think CSL's 'liar, lunatic, lord' triangle is a set up -- cleverly constructed sure but a set up nonetheless. One can MAKE arguments for all three really -- they are even in the scriptures -- but Lewis basically appeals to sentiment re: that generous Jesus and who WANTS to knock the guy when in the story he gives his all? 'Imitation of Christ' however is MUCH MORE convincing than cleverness... "

Michael Welch Imagine Theres No -- You Know... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:56 PM:

" What seems to solidify a certain sort of 'faith' is not the Jesus of generosity but 'The Threat.' Somewhere on the way to Green Bay there's a big perpetual billboard with a freaked out forlorn figure before a Giant Jesus and the words 'He rejected God's only Son!' And oh s---! Is he f-bombed! That is sort of the ultimate clink -- not the wonderful spectacular experience of religious ecstasy but the confidence of Twain's 'Christian with four aces' -- you have taken out the final insurance policy and if 'there is NO heaven' re: John Lennon, why you've 'lost' literally nothing BUT IF THERE IS: whoops see above cuz you've had it Sugar; you're on a one way ticket to Palookaville. Still 'The Threat' is off putting I think; like Harsch I say the h--- with the bully God but the literalists say Sure, He'll meet ya there!... "

To Michael wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Wouldn't you categaorize C.S. Lewis as a literalist? "

Harsch...Instructor Phil talk about infanticide wrote on Jun 30, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Arguably, arguing with Phil is a form of infanticide. Even when Smith is trying to be nice he is just opening the curtains enough for Phil to make an asse of himself. He just does not get irony. Worse, he finds his justifications on the internet, that notorious source of accurate historical and Biblical information. What a buffoon. "

Michael Welch Serious Bible Serious Fairy Tale... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:21 PM:

" I think 'literalism' is ultimately destructive to religion as per 'militant Islam' which has damaged that religion world wide; but so do I deplore the equally violent and equally 'militant' responses from some rightist Christians. Also I don't like the disparagement of religion by the what I call 'militant atheist' movement; I don't believe a religious sensibility per se is detrimental to humane behavior but I think a 'literalist' one can be, whether the practitioner means to be or not. 'Gods' are mythologies yes but mythologies are profound 'folk tales,' like Grimm brothers' material and not 'just' fanciful stories at bedtime but they contain deep psychological meanings. (Oddly, it often strikes me that literalists don't take their Bible SERIOUSLY ENOUGH...) "

Michael Welch Religion As Thoughtful... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:11 PM:

" I also enjoy reading interesting examinations of the Jesus myth by especially Robert Graves in a very satisfying book, 'King Jesus,' and I liked John Dominic Crossan's examinations of J as a 'peasant revolutionary' legend. My approach is probably more intellectual than most so I liked C. S. Lewis' 'Screwtape Letters,' an imaginative proselytizing work, but I find his 'Mere Christianity' too simplistic. Joseph Campbell the mythologist has influenced me a lot but probably Freud has had the most effect; for per Herr Professor I see it all the time: people create their 'God' in the images they require and every religion allows multiple choices really or the religion does not, cannot, endure... "

Michael Welch Jesus From The Movies... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:03 PM:

" I find the 'Jesus story' as per Harsch very attractive in its shall we say most basic aspects -- Jesus as a pacifistic model, a noble self-sacrificing teacher and 'hidden prince' -- it's a great theme that has best been realized by (Jewish) Hollywood ironically in films like 'King of Kings' (silent and sound versions), 'Ben-Hur,' 'The Greatest Story Ever Told,' the wonderful 1970s tv series 'Jesus of Nazareth' etc., in which Jesus is presented as humane and tolerant, courageous, generous, and struggling to infuse people with his same uncommon generosity toward their fellows... "

Michael Welch Welchs Religious History Part One... wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:54 AM:

" I like the questions posed to me below because they essentially ask about my own religious experience which isn't shallow really. I was raised to 'believe' but my parents never especially enjoyed churches though I've attended the Presbyterian, the Lutheran, the Methodist and for some years (post-childhood) was a practicing Catholic. I've studied Buddhism and Hinduism and I'm quite fond of Jewish culture, particularly as it has affected the US (huge really -- Hollywood is a largely Jewish product for example) as one can tell though they got one crazy 'God' there -- OY!... "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:58 AM:

" It is too bad that none of the 70% of Christians whose beliefs are supposedly represented in this survey weighed in. Could have been an interesting discussion. "

Phil to Brian wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:18 AM:

" Well your study was either limited or misguided. There have been plenty of studies then and now which talk about the relationship of salvation and works. I just did a quick word check on the words 'saved' and 'works'. There are only two verses with both of those words in them (2 Tim 1:9 and Titus 3:5) and both of those say you aren't saved by works. There are also many on-line studies (http://www.carm.org/questions/faith_works.htm)
that talk about the role of works and faith. To say that a Christian must not do any good works is wrong, but to say that a Christian must do good works to be saved is just as wrong. Salvation is through faith. Sanctification or growth is through works.

BTW, Jesus says nothing about sheep and sharks. The choice is sheep and goats. So by not being a sheep, your designation is known. "

Dear Phil from Brian wrote on Jun 30, 2008 5:36 AM:

" So you consider yourself a "sheep" for the "Lord" and ask what animal am I. I like that type of question, Thanks. I may be a Lion or an Orca for the "Lord".

RE: Matthew 25 ... It's funny how we both can read the same passages but arrive at differing conclusions.

I've read Matt 25 in its entirety and still come away with the message to do good to get to heavan. But what of the other quotes ... but a few ... that put out the same message?

That is the Christianity I came away with after 19 years of 100% church attendance, some years in religious schools and week end Bible study classes and continuous "SEARCHING". "

Hmmmm wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:16 PM:

" Mr. Welsh, maybe your observation might be telling you something. One, if a large number of people don't move off of the 'dime' of Christian faith in Jesus then there is probably something pretty substantial about it. Two, if the Bible says that faith in Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it stands to reason that Bible following Christians won't accept faith in any other. Have you ever considered that they have had an experience so amazingly spectacular, they no matter what you say, they aren't moving off of the 'dime' of faith in Jesus alone?
Why do you stay on your 'dime' of relative good works and faith in anything? Is it out of rebellion toward a specific church, or do you just feel more comfortable in thinking that no one can possibly know for sure that Jesus is the only way to heaven? "

harsch wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:06 PM:

" Careful, Welchy, we are ruining Jimmy's blog. The vast majority of words in the last two week were written by you and me. The more than vast quantity of content as well. We are driving the lunatics underground and 'boring' our Kenneth, the one reasonable 'opponent' (not the Planet does not occasionally try without zest). And not that BGS does not try without eliciting intelligent respoonse. We are alone on more blogs than one. "

Michael Welch I STILL Say Homer Is A Yarovidy... wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:45 AM:

" This here forever argument about Christianity I've compared to a hyperactive children's continuous tricycle race 'round 'n' 'round the same block; it ALWAYS turns out this way. That is, the literalists won't or can't talk about certain aspects of the Bible and Christianity and so those eager to discuss these matters as well as the precepts and concepts and implications of other religions poke and prod and TRY to get off the dime but it never works. The 'discussion' dies in the same turgid waters of 'faith' -- CHRISTIAN faith that is; Hindu faith doesn't matter for instance. Now Homer Simpson is presented as ABSOLUTE 'PROOF' that ONLY dolts think 'God' doesn't exist -- especially the biblical version. I doubt if Matt Groening would agree but literalists grasp what they can... "

harsch to Krause wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I apologize for my unfairness as well. Planet is probably quite right, for instance, that you have indeed shown flexibility in the past (for one thing). "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:50 PM:

" I see what you are getting at, and I appreciate the explanation you addressed to Planet. Although I am responding as opposed to Planet, I do see a difference between me responding now and your initial response to my post to other Christians. That is, I was truly interested in feedback from Christians who disagreed with me on these points, as I saw them as fundamental to Christianity. I didn't want to get bogged down in the same Christian vs Non-Christian discussions that take place almost every single day. I was searching for something different, and I saw your first post as sort of an attack, and I responded in kind. After reading your latest posts, it appears you didn't mean for your post to come off as an attack or to badger me. Therefore, I do apologize for my harsch(yes, I know-I couldn't resist) words. Have a nice weekend. "

Harsch...finally planet wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:59 PM:

" Nothing is wrong with Krause's original question unless like me you believe that 1)the literal clinging to 'Christ's claim' is fundamentally inhumane, or you believe that Krause is determined that even fellow Christians think like he does. However, obviously, these are two subjective points (or arguments or intuitions) and need not mean a thing. What I find objectionable is the distortion of what I write and the pretense that an a post on this blog is open to the questioning of any who wish to join the discussion--IN WHATEVER WAY. "

Harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:53 PM:

" So, following the posts as suggested, I see that Krause responded to my response with a legalistic refusal to respond (by the way, Planet, who asked you? Well, to be honest, by posting here I am asking ANYONE who chooses to resond to what I type). I pressed on via the strategy, so why not answer anyway; meanwhile Krause is not answering also because he knows what 'these' other faiths believe, which is far from the point of my questions, as you can see; Krause pulls the 'hurt feelings' and 'sorry you feel left out' childishness. June 25, 506 and 509 I elaborate and explain, and refute the (again) childish 'any 5 year old', still eliciting no substantive post from Krause. Maybe I shouldn't be the only one to go over the posts. "

harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Having re-read my first response to Krause (knowing that he was not asking me, but also knowing he was posting where I post), I find it strange that it was called badgering. My point, my question, never addressed in a substantive way that is not transparently self-serving, is that the 'Christ's claim' business excludes most of humanity. In that context, and I do believe both Krause and Planet DO understand context, I used silly god, etc., in an ironic way: why did the all powerful make so many heathen? Why did he make them so adamantly resistant to Christ's claim? So the sillies were deliberately taken out of context, which is quite dishonest, as is the pose that a blog questioning non-Harsches is surprisingly responded to by Harsch. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Rick, I just want to add that I was not sure if some Christians agreed with me or not, which is why I asked them. I was unclear exactly what their views were. I was aware of yours and others views from past discussions. Your very first post to me asked questions we already discussed, and also used the phrases "silly god". "silly son". I don't see where I took anything out of context. "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:11 PM:

" The "not posting to please you" line is not inapplicable. You gave every indication in your response to me that you think I should do so when you started badgering me about why I only addressed the question to who I did instead of to a buddhist, a muslim, an animist, etc. Oddly, you also asked me if I would not rest until everyone agrees with me. Well, I did not address these people because I knew they did not agree with me. "

To Michael wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:04 PM:

" Oddly enough, I saw a repeat of a Simpsons episode in which Homer stated God is his favorite fictional character. The character of Homer on the Simpsons is a buffoon. What does that tell you? "

Harsch...further Michael wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:00 PM:

" It is striking that with all we have posted regarding Hinduism, a religion neither of us adhere to as far as I know, no curious Christian, no combatant Christian, no Christian at all, has come forth to 'discuss'. I guess they just don't want to blast us out of the water, kind souls. "

Planet to Harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Thats not true-I have read apologies from Krause in the past. Besides, we are are talking about his post on this blog. Do what another poster suggested-read the blog, read Krauses post, and tell us what the matter was with his post. In fact, read all the posts in this blog, and tell us how your name calling and intolerance(your tenet #10) of the Christian religion was taken out of context. Krause made a very good point-he knew what non-Christians thoughts were regarding Christ(due to numerous discussions regarding such). He was interested in what the Christians views were. Please enlighten us-what is wrong with that? "

Harsch...the sorry trial of communication wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:56 PM:

" I did not chastise Krause for asking the wrong people, rather for not responding when he was directly asked. Any attack on a Hindu god would mean nothing to me--my attack is against a god who as a person raised Christian I was never taught existed. My attack is against the intolerance of the literal Christians who are 'so right' that they believe it incumbent upon themselves to disturb the religions of others. My contention that Krause is dishonest rests not on the fact of whether or not he writes to please me, rather that he stoops to writing that as if it is a relevant point. I asked questions for discussion, found it unsurprising yet still disappointing that he dodged my questions, and immature that he would resort to semi-clever pettines instead. Any other misinterpretations? "

Phil to Lee wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:46 PM:

" If you take one verse out of context, you can come to the conclusion you have about James and Paul. If you read the whole book(s) and see the context, you see very clearly that they don't contradict. Here is one place that explains it pretty well (http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm) "

Phil on tolerance wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:42 PM:

" If I was worshiping at the church of harsch, then I suppose I would tolerate everything except Bible believing Christians. However, I worship Jesus who does not tolerate evil. Now I know that people like you have flexible definitions of words so I'll spell out tolerate for you. I tolerate my neighbors living their lives whether or not it is in accordance with God's Word. If my neighbors, where doing something that was against the law, I wouldn't tolerate that. Preaching against what God calls sin, does nothing to stop people from engaging in sin, therefore I can preach and still tolerate peoples sin. If I didn't tolerate it, I would be doing something to stop it. Capise. "

Phil to harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:35 PM:

" I don't condemn anybody. If Carlin is condemned then it is because he chose to reject Jesus as savior. It's your choice, not mine. Jesus will carry out the judgement on those who reject him. As for laughing at myself....you obviously don't know me. I laugh at myself quite a bit. What I don't laugh at is sacreligious jokes toward God. For you to confuse mocking God with respect toward God is a good example of calling evil, good. (Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!) "

Michael Welch God Apologizes -- I Wont Do It Again... wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Kenneth Krause has in effect semi-retired from here because from him we questioners will not receive answers much different than from say 'PO'B.' Okay I say Let Krause be Krause as Reagan was Reagan (there's a 'holy fool' for you!) yet I think Harsch's 'ten tenets' are apt if one wants to maintain his Christianity against the Cal Thomas brigade. I've written my comment on 'God' as MY favorite fictional character in the Bible but that's based not on 'nice' but on His doing rather mad and totally unexpected things like trying to kill Moses right after He assigns him to 'let My people go!' WOW! (It's in early Exodus.) And I've written about the Noah episode which no one finds at all scarifying or odd I guess -- just Yahweh blowing off steam; He'll be sorry in the morning, which of course He is... "

Michael Welch The Ignorant Angry City Of God... wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:39 AM:

" After nearly two millennia literalists and to be fair other less rigid Christians have rationalized the contradictions of the Bible so that no dialogue can occur that's as honest as in Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, both 'believers' but 'smarter than the average (Russian or American it seems) bear' -- both Rick and I expect, no we HOPE for too much HERE. Martin Luther (all protestants ought to bow or at least nod to the name for if not for him they wouldn't be here) wanted badly to junk James because everything J says Luther found to be stinking crap, to use a truly 'Lutheran' term. 'PO'B' -- sigh! Harsch is correct; he's a 'mook' -- has resorted (again!) to the thinly veiled threat of You'll get yours wise arsed athies! Just you wait and see! Pitchforks stuck in us; are we 'done' yet?! Oh no! Only started!... "

To Mr. Harsch from Jimmy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:31 AM:

" The posts to which you refer are now up. "

Harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Further, both Krause and O'Bates resort to legal speech to defend their faith. As I said in one of my lost blogs, all I ask is that you be tolerant. "

harsch wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:52 AM:

" A number of my posts have been lost lately, but to summarize here--Krause, your main problem is you never see anything wrong no matter the response. In my case you fail to recognized context and so miss content and stoop to cheap, dishonest comments such as that you do not post to please me (of course you don't, but saying it is as if you really think i think you do). And O'Bates: Carlin may or may not have been Christian, but he had a sense of humor, he made Christians laugh at themselves--and laughing at yourself is one of the finer human capacities. "

The GuruWill the real Rick Harsch please stand up wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:58 AM:

" So, Rick Harsch now knows the real Ken Krause? Krause asked a respectful question, and harsch starts badgering him for not asking the right people, accuses him of condemning all of humanity, etc?! The irony is, Krause STILL didn't stoop to Ricks level by calling the Hindu God names and threatening to spit and everything else....his response was firm but still polite. It was sure minor compared to what my response would have been. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Harsch previously bemoaned the lack of tolerance for other religions. Here is a suggestion: Everyone read the blog, then read the post by KWK. Please tell me: What was wrong with the post? There is some hilarity in that Harsch seems to sincerely believe someone could not POSSIBLY be honest if claiming to not post to please him. "

Lee Bowers to Phil wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:46 AM:

" Nice try, Phil. But James and Paul contradict each other on the issue of faith. "

Wrong Again Phil wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:52 AM:

" George Carlin did not have an irreverance towards God. He had an irreverance towards religion and religious people - and rightfully so. He had no time for self-righteous, pompous proselytizers who spewed hypocritical nonsense. He preferred to live in the here and now, without genuflecting before some make-believe Bronze Age sky god. George Carlin, like all of us, had his share of faults, but he did not waste his life genuflecting before some imaginary Bronze Age sky-god. He was too educated and enlightened to do that. "

Harsch...six through ten wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:54 AM:

" 6. I believe that faith and good works are Godly and if we engage in both God will like us.
7. I believe that the majority of humanity is not Christian but that does not refute Christianity, though it may suggest some common human intuiton that basically sees the same god.
8. I believe that the fact that Christianity is divided into many sects because humans are apt to interpret in flawed ways, so it is only natural and does not refute any particular Christian viewpoint unless it leads to harmful behavior.
9. I believe that love thy enemy is a flawed concept for the Christian views no human as an enemy.
10. I believe Rick Harsch preaches tolerance, not conversion. "

Harsch Ten Tenets of Christianity wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:49 AM:

" I suggest the following uncommandments to help the modern Christian prevent looking or sounding foolish:

1. I believe in God, Jesus, and whatever else it is that makes me a Christian.
2. I believe all the obviously nice things in the Bible.
3. I believe that the Bible seems contradictory at times, but that is not so strange as it does not add up to a pack of lies.
4. I believe that strange and apparently historically impossible passages in the Bible are metaphorical.
5. I believe in Rashomon, so the gospels should not be consistent. "

Harsch on Torture wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:44 AM:

" It sounds to me that Phil is saved by the tortured reasoning of lawyers. "

Harsch...Phils god is PHIL wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:43 AM:

" Phil condemns Carlin, WHO COULD NOT DEFEAT DEATH! Well, neither could Max von Sydow, but death cheated a little. Carlin was hilarious when he ridiculed god, but even after I watched such performances I could not really tell whether Carlin was a believer or not. What he had was the capacity to laugh, and make others laugh, even Christians. The ability to laugh at yourself is natural; the inability to do so is freakish. Phil, you are no longer as god made you: will he fix you or send you off to a room to listen to Carlin mocking him? "

harsch to krause wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:38 AM:

" The not posting to please me was a lie in that it was stated with known inapplicability, but then you know that, for that is the level of your dishonesty. And 'I see nothing wrong with that' is your motto on these blogs--you never see anything wrong with what you write or don't write here. "

Phil on works wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:54 PM:

" James does not contradict Paul, who insisted that we are saved not of works (Ephesians 2:9). James merely clarifies for us the kind of faith that saves. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works; but saving faith will have works that accompany it. As the saying goes: faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone - it has good works with it.
Works will show to others a faith that is alive, but a person who simply says they have faith but don't demonstate that with works, demonstrates that they don't have faith that is alive. We are saved through faith, we grow through works. "

To Phil wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:06 PM:

" "Supposed Contradictions"? No, these ARE contradictions. Just because some people have come up with BS to try to explain them away, doesn't mean they have been adequately addressed. Heck, there's an entire branch of studies, apologetics, to try to explain away problems with the bible (I love that term- people have to apologize for how blaringly idiotic the Bible is). You can put a horse in a cheap suit and call it a waiter, but he still can't take your order- if you know what I mean. PS- why does your god love foreskins so much? (see David's dowry, Moses' son, etc) "

Phil on Carlin wrote on Jun 26, 2008 5:01 PM:

" George had some funny stuff, but his irreverance toward God was sad, not funny. I'm sure there are people here hoping that George was right about the afterlife. George right now is sure of it. To those who place their faith in the mortal man, Mr. Carlin, who couldn't even defeat death, I will pray for you. For George, it's too late.

Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:59 PM:

" The real me has always been here. I never made a special "effort" to be polite. I tend to respond to people how they respond to me. When people are polite to me, my responses are usually polite. When they aren't, I tend to respond in kind. Although that is human nature, I know Welch would say I should "turn the other cheek", and perhaps he would be correct. But, I am not perfect. Having said that, I was being completely honest when I stated I don't post to please you. My first post was because I was looking for a response specifically from Christians. I see nothing wrong with that. "

Dear Brian from Phil wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Matthew 25 is a great chapter and should be read all the way through. Jesus isn't saying that works will save you, he's telling his own sheep (his followers, those who have prepared their 'lamps' with the oil of the Holy Spirit, those who have used their talents for God, those who have accepted Jesus as Lord) that they have served God by serving others. It isn't saying that they are SAVED by serving others. Read the whole chapter next time, so you can get some of the context. By the way, the goats are those who haven't accepted Jesus as Lord. I know I am a sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ. What are you? "

Harsch to OBates wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:48 PM:

" I suppose it would be lost on you to suggest that no new revelations prove any aspect of Christianity either, unless you believe in sightings. If you do, then you will have to question why your religion's sightings are true and those of other religions are not. All religions have had their divine revelations throughout history (excepting animism, in which they are constant). In India, which as you know I have a special knowledge of, temples are often built to acknowledge Brahmanic revelations in various forms. To me the question has never been whether Christianity is a 'valid' religion, rather the Christian view towards other religions. I find absolutism repellent. Even if your god is an 'absolute' I believe it inhumane not to grant the same type of belief to others. "

Phil to harsch wrote on Jun 26, 2008 3:22 PM:

" No, I didn't say anything like historical proof, that was your misdirection. My point on 'historocity' was that all of the supposed contradictions that get brought up have been looked at, studied, and answered over the last 2000 years. In other words, there are no 'new' revelations which supposedly prove Christianity to be false. If people are truely confused about certain topics, there are plenty of websites which discuss these supposed contradictions or go and talk to a pastor for guidance. As for what Smith was implying, it was unclear by his simple question about Jesus being the way, so I posted Biblical backing for that statement. "

Harsch re quotes wrote on Jun 26, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Surelly the following justifies the quotes: "With soap, baptism is a good thing." "

harsch to krause wrote on Jun 26, 2008 2:28 PM:

" I knew I detected the real you and now I find it too easily elicited. You find my questions boring (you say, though in essence asked for them--who is lying?); yet you rarely respond to any of my posts that discuss Hinduism. If those comments, just recently so you don't have to go researching you will find many points that should not be boring to an honest man interested in religious questions. Regarding my 'objectionable' comments, why not grasp the context and respond? I won't argue further about who is at what level, but I sure would like to see an honest 'literalist' show some flexibility AND honesty. Surely you don't assert that the following is honest: ' I don't post to please you. Sorry.' "

To Re Quotes wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:20 PM:

" But, everyone knows people disagree on this, so I still don't see the point. That was never in dispute. As someone stated previously, you don't want people to question if they come to a different conclusion than you. You only accept questioning if the conclusion is the same as yours. McDowell, Strobel, Newton, Habermas ALL questioned, did they not? "

RE Quotes wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:51 AM:

" I submit the quotes from famous Founders and Geat Americans to demonstrate that his silly dialogue has been going on since our Founding. What makes our Nation far superior to others is that we and our leaders can openly question or even mock the Biblical 'god' without fear of retribution (like a burning at the stake or a disembowling and quartering). Science has laid to rest so many "phenomena" once associated with "god"....like lightning (electricity), rainbows and the movement of heavenly bodies. Jefferson, our greatest Founding Father, considered himself 'Christian" but did not beleive in the supernatural episodes or the miracles. I follow Jefferson's lead. - BrianGSmith "

Michael Welch Summing Up... wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:41 AM:

" Personally I agree with the comment -- 'back to square one'; in fact we've been whizzing those trikes around the block as fast as our chubby little legs can pump. For Christians, OF COURSE 'Christ is God'; for Jews that contradicts the primary construct that their 'Lord thy God,' their 'Lord is One!' Megadittos from Muhammed -- on THAT point at least! The Hindus just sigh and say Lots of gods but no 'ultimate' among THEM; and the Buddhists only contend Cut the crap -- the trick is to LEAVE THIS WORLD at last! (And God is only a 'vehicle' baby.) Confucius say -- honor those gods but your country and society are your true concerns. Artists say that truth is where you find it; atheists say That's in science. Good summation?... "

Kay Fabien wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:24 AM:

" No, Eddie, religious faith does not require suspension of all reason and logic. It never has nor ever will. One can examine the available evidence(discussed repeatedly on these boards) and determine if the evidence justifies putting your faith in Christ. God gives us enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but not so much evidence as to make faith unnecessary. "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:25 AM:

" My honest answer as to why I didn't answer your questions is, frankly, I find them boring. Not because they may not have been valid questions from a non-believer if phrased without the "silly god", "silly son" jabs. But rather because these points have been repeatedly debated on these blogs day after day, and I simply wanted some fresh dialogue. Your petulance continued with the "spit in your gods eye" comments, etc. No, Rick, nothing is beneath your level. Don't kid yourself. Because I personally never condemned anyone, I still consider your statement regarding such a lie. Sorry. "

Re quotes by BGS wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:15 AM:

" Not sure what these quotes are supposed to accomplish....I accept the fact that some people are not believers, as does everyone else. That was never in dispute. I suppose I could provide quotes by Dr David Menton, Gary Habermas, Isaac Newton, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc., but what would that prove? We would be back to square one. "

Lee Bowers to Phil wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:35 AM:

" So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.-James 2: verse 17 "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:15 AM:

" Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man... living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. BUT HE LOVES YOU... and he needs your money! -- George Carlin, who didn't get ANY soldiers killed. "

Frederick Nietzche wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:38 AM:

" "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad." "

Mark Twain pt. wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:36 AM:

" If he was seeking after political Truth he found it in one or another of the hundred political gospels which govern men in the earth; if he was seeking after the Only True Religion he found it in one or another of the three thousand that are on the market. In any case, when he found the Truth he sought no further; but from that day forth, with his soldering-iron in one hand and his bludgeon in the other he tinkered its leaks and reasoned with objectors." (BGS) "

Mark Twain pt. wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:36 AM:

" "I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were Seekers after Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather. "

Robert Ingersoll wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:32 AM:

" "With soap, baptism is a good thing."

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

"The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know."

"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith'." (submitted by BGS) "

Abraham Lincoln wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:29 AM:

" "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." (submitted by BGS) "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:26 AM:

" "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." [from Letters -- "Calvin And Cosmology" -- To John Adams](submitted by BGS) "

Thomas Paine wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:24 AM:

" "My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." [from The Age Of Reason](submitted by BGS) "

Thomas Paine wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:23 AM:

" "The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God." -[from The Age Of Reason] (submitted by BGS) "

Dear Phil O Bates wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:43 AM:

" Indeed...I've read the same quotes you have. In the Book of John and all the post Gospel books there is the big idea that Jesus is the "way".....HOWEVER Jesus himself said the "way" was through ones ACTIONS. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." IN this quote Jeus was answering a question on how to get to heaven....Jesus didn't say "only beleive in me"...Jesus said....it depends how you treat the lowly, sick and imprisoned. By these markers I'd say most of America has punched the one-way to hell. - BrianGSmith "

Harsch...I am one humble mf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:10 AM:

" In real life I am quite humble, but only witnesses can verify this. I do not bow before the unworthy, however, and your god is one nasty fellow into whose eye I metaphorically spit and if we meet literally spit. The extraordinary works and thought of the Hindus does not make me bow, but it does enliven me--the concepts of Maya and Dharma seem to me to explain most of the absurdities of life as a humble human perceives it and then suggest a way of behaving. I indwellingly intuit and thence believe that Christianity resulted from Maya, a failure to understand reality and hence a need, rather unhumble, to bail out of the dark, sinking boat. "

harsch to unfair target po wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:03 AM:

" O'Bates, YOU brought up historical proof. Second, eyewitness accounts of your doings constitutes historical proof (history diverges from law). Third, just say what you believe and leave the arguing to people who think more clearly. Right now you've got yourself in a quote-fest that will only suggest (not quite prove) that you are entirely wrong, for engaging in it is an implicit admission that Smith's rather simple point that there are too many contradictions in the Bible for a literal interpretation is obviously correct. "

To Phil wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:02 PM:

" In your opinion maybe... I'm not much for supernatural either. "

Eddie wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:45 PM:

" Religious faith requires a willingness to reject logic and reason, to surrender to one's emotions, and to deceive one's self. Religious faith requires one to blindly believe in ancient myths and superstitions in spite of the extreme lack of evidence that supports them. Religious faith requires one to reject the near certainty that the "Holy Spirit" is nothing more than one's emotions and practiced rhetoric. "

Phil OBates to Harsch wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Historical proof isn't needed for something to be true. You will find no historical proof of many things I have said or done, but those whom I did them in front of or spoke to, know them to be true. With Christianity, belief in Jesus brings supernatural proof...the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. If there was 'proof' before hand, then it wouldn't be faith, but knowledge. This opens the door of salvation to those who may not be privileged with higher education. You refuse to accept Jesus because He doesn't fit your definition of God. I suspect this is because faith requires humility before God and some people refuse to bow in this life. Someday, all will bow though. "

Phil to Brian part wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:26 PM:

" 1Timothy 2:3-6 "For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

This is just a small sampling showing that salvation for all men is only through Jesus. It is not of works or deeds.

Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast." "

Phil O wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:25 PM:

" 1Timothy 2:3-6 "For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

This is just a small sampling showing that salvation for all men is only through Jesus. It is not of works or deeds.

Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast." "

Phil OBates to Brian Smith part wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:24 PM:

" John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Galatians 3:14 "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." "

harsch again wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:14 PM:

" You always think your posts are 'apropos'--I consider that a fault. Regarding your defender, no terrific heat came from his first post, rather from his lack of response to other posts. "

harsch continuing to krause and anonymous wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:09 PM:

" I also believe that the post you refer to suggests that a literal interpretation of the Bible is a condemnation of all non believers. That may or may not be arguable. But I did not lie. There you stoop again. And if the questions are not to hard for you why not answer them, or make the attempt. On another post I stated that Christ is not God. That was in direct response to OBates who said Christ IS God. This is a rhetorical device to expose a simplistic fallacy. State a subjective 'truth' as if it is not and reason from there. Also there was a great deal more to my post--treating it as if there was only one line is dishonest or chickenshite, as the Irish say. "

harsch to krause wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:06 PM:

" No, any five year old can not answer that question without indoctrination. Five year olds find death strange and abhorrent. But let Dostoevsky be your guide to the difficulty of the question. In Brother Karamazov, one character said quite powerfully that given the death of even one innocent he would reject the existence of god EVEN IF GOD EXISTS. As for your recent case of the stoops: 'I don't post to please you, sorry.' That is below my level. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:33 PM:

" So, you are accusing me of stooping to your level? Allow me to refer you to your post 6/24 at 3:14pm, then at 7:23pm.("too hard for me"? "Why did this divinity die?"-any 5 year old first year Sunday school student can answer that!) On another blog you accused me of condemning anyone who doesn't agree with me, which is a lie. I think my response was very apropos. I should have a right to ask fellow Christians their views concerning Christ, particularly since this blog concerns the disparity of views among Christians. I don't post to please you. Sorry. "

To Harsch wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Are you serious?! That is your contribution? That "Christ was not, nor is, God."? Well, allow me a rebuttal: "Christ was, and is, God." Now what? We are back to square one. "

Planet to Brian wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:18 PM:

" I didn't realize you considered yourself a Christian. I always considered you(and thought you considered yourself) a non-Christian who practices select Christian teachings. I consider the belief of the Deity of Christ and his Resurrection as essential to Christianity, hence my post. "

Harsch to Phillip O wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Actually, Phil, Christ was not, nor is, God. See, you're wrong. As for 2000 years of scrutiny, nothing is out to bring Christianity crashing down, nor is any other religion going to come crashing down. But they do fragment on their own, and they all withstand scrutiny since they are based on faith (though Buddhism and Hinduism have strong bases in philosphical thought). As a litery man, I have to say that Jesus is not good enough at explaining himself to be a god. Good fellow, lots of compassion and great ideas, but a martyr, not a god. I hope you really don't believe there is historical proof of the accuracy of Christ's quotes. "

harsch to krause wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:05 PM:

" I figured that under pressure you would reveal the adamantine essence underlying the saccharine skin. Feeling left out? Hurt feelings? You were the one 'literalist' who tended to avoid this kind of absurd, dishonest palaver. And of course whoever you addressed the questions to, you did it here, and I addressed questions to you that you refuse to answer, stooping to an unsavory level instead. "

Michael Welch Proof Is In The Reading... wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:50 PM:

" There is of course no 'resolving' issues of religious belief but personally -- one can say why one does or does not 'believe' and that is that really. We've been around this block oh dozens of times with the same tricycles and I suspect we'll turn a dozen more and more following that, to the same avail. Religious belief historically has proven very dangerous and deadly to, well, millions by the end of the last century and we practically began this one within the context of a quasi-religious war. Interestingly the 'war of words' here is as vituperative as any; Christians seem no 'gentler,' 'kinder' etc., than anyone else... "

To Dear Phil O Bates wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:41 PM:

" You're kidding, right? It means He is the only way. Did you nod off? "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:30 PM:

" To Jun 24, 2008 4:58 PM-

See the other blog for my response to your accusation of me "running away" "

Dear Planet wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:11 PM:

" I do not deny that there are certain beliefs special to Christians. However my personal Christian beliefs focus on Jesus' teachings, doings and parables, His concern for the poor and afflicted and His rants against the powerful, the wealthy, the hypocrites. I always thought these were the bulk of his universal messages. It is amazing and disappointing to me personally that of all the amazing parables and sermons from Jesus in the Gospels the most "vocal" self proclaimin' Christians are focused on two or three tangential and completely unrelated issues. I also do not believe one has to believe in Jesus' 'godliness' to be a Christian if one adheres to his teachings. If there be a "God" why would he mind that we question His existence. - BrianGSmith "

gimme some truth wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:36 AM:

" path to salvation???

there is no such thing as salvation, gods, devils, easter bunny, psychics, zeus, astrology, allah, vishnu, yadda, yadda, yadda........

wake up, people!

you're all delusional, you're all dysfunctional!

gimme some truth! "

Michael Welch How Paul Fixed Jesus... wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:27 AM:

" Kenneth Krause misunderstood my term 'loopholes' I think; he perhaps thought I was referring to biblical inconsistencies (of which there are plenty!) but what I meant was, per below, that Christians continue a life very much similar to oh say that of the 'pagans' of Rome and Greece but they substitute 'Jesus' for 'Jupiter' and just go on a la Constantine, wielding the sword albeit for THEIR purposes. A Muslim I knew told me he thought Christianity was 'too difficult' a religion because Jesus, a god for Christians after all, expected too much of his human followers. I would agree BUT: Paul 'fixed' that by negating action, 'deeds,' for mere belief, making Christianity actually one of the EASIEST of religions... "

Cagefighter to my dear brother Brian wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:23 AM:

" I threw up a little in my mouth when I read your post. Because of a belief regarding the truth of Christs claims, people are now part of the Taliban? This even surpasses the outrageousness(yes, outrageousness) of your other "claims". You should just make like a tree and go away(yes, go away or maybe leave), and let the adults talk. "

Michael Welch Reply To Two Critics... wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:16 AM:

" 1) Well of course I 'pick and choose' re: Jesus -- yes 'LIKE EVERYONE ELSE'! Precisely the point I was making! I know you mean to be sarcastic but actually I'm pleased that 'someone' indeed has understood though I doubt you even agree with your own implications eh? 2) Am I a 'Marxist communist'? Well no; the communists would not 'accept' me as I would not be sufficiently adhered to the party line, whatever it is these days -- Mugabe is fully justified blah blah? But I am a 'Marxist' in the same way I am a Freudian, a Darwinist and an Einstein -- 'ist' (hmmm); i. e. I think Marx has given as good an analysis of the REAL dynamics of industrial corporated capitalism as any; his 'solution' however has proven uh somewhat overly romantic... "

Why all the heat on Krause wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:05 AM:

" I entered a comment that wasn't posted, so I will give it another whirl. Why are all the non-Christians so upset with Krause for asking a couple questions of fellow Christians regarding Christ? Isn't that what this blog is about? I thought it strange yesterday when Krause forshadowed he would get blasted....he must be a lot more familiar with the mindset of the people who blog here than I am.... "

Dear Brian wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:59 AM:

" This refers back to Kenneth Krauses first post....if the stats are correct, what are the views of these Christians regarding Christ's claims and why He died? "

Froto wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:51 AM:

" BrianGSmith; You hit the nail on the head. "

Dear Kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:10 AM:

" You are wrong...Christians don't all believe there is only one path......look at the stats from Jimmy's original blog entry. Arguably only the Taliban wing of American Christians beleive in one single absolute way. If you aren't living a life in complete sync with the way Jesus lived His life then you obviously don't believe. Prime examples of these type of Christians are found all throughout the Bush administration including the Shrub himself. - BrianGSmith "

Dear Phil OBates wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:04 AM:

" You said Christ said "He" is the only "way". Just what, pray tell, does that mean? - BGS "

Kenneth W Krause to Harsch wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:57 AM:

" No, Harsch, your questions are not too hard for me. I know what these other faiths believe regarding Jesus, so it is not necessary for me to ask them. I was interested in the perceived discrepancies regarding Jesus among fellow Christians. Sorry you feel left out and your feelings are hurt, but like my momma always used to say: "Sometimes it just beeeeez that way!" "

Planet Stasiak to Harsch and Brian wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:37 AM:

" I was simply asking a question related to what I see as a perceived contradiction in terms. Surely you don't deny that there are certain beliefs that Christians hold? I was simply trying to clarify what those beliefs are. I see nothing wrong with my question. "

Kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:32 AM:

" A Christian believes there is only one path to salvation and that is through Christ. It is backed by biblical scripture and very plain. This does not mean that a Christian cannot be tolerant of others belief sytems, and must I explain that tolerance does not support nor condone these systems? It just means we can live in and around folks with other beliefs systems. That being said a Christian will also work to bring other people to salvation: e.g., fellowship outreach. Does human behaviour get in the way of Christian behaviour? I think the phrase 'Free Will' explains that. Some of you folks have got to stop with the trivial arguments and grow up a bit! You profess to read, you rant alot and acknowledge nothing but the worst behaviours of the systems you want to slam. So much for liberal progressive mindsets. "

What Jesus said......not Dobson wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:28 AM:

" Matthew 25:41-46 "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." - (submitted by BrianGSmith, the righteous) "

Dear Planet wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:19 AM:

" What was your point at 10:23 AM? Show me the defintive definition of "True Christian" in the Bible. Surely God laid that out. I've just dropped some LUKE on this blog (see below) where Jesus responds to a lawyer, of all things, that the correct way to heaven is loving god, loving your neighbor and treating them as you want to be treated. If Jesus is the "Way" and belief in "Him" is the key to salvation I have to believe, and so do many others, that a true belief in Christ is demonstrated by living the life of Christ, not by simply proclaiming you believe. Capisce? - BrianGSmith "

Dear Ken W Krause wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:03 AM:

" LUKE 10:25-28 "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (submitted by BrianGSmith) "

BrianGSmith wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:38 AM:

" The TRUTH is that NO ONE on this Earth knows what "God's" intentions are and folks are silly when they claim absolutes when discussing the topic. Christianity is one of many sects or ways in which humans attempt to understand and explain their existences. Jesus' words in the Bible, if we are to believe they are his, are quite contradictory when he explains how one should live ones life and how to get to heaven. Only in the Gospel of John does Jesus get into the "I am God, only thru me" dialogue. In all other cases Jesus implores his followers to care for the poor and unfortunate, to avoid judging others, to love as he loves, etc...No one knows what "True Christian" means if, indeed, it means anything at all. "

Alderpax wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:08 PM:

" "...higher levels of tolerance reduce religious tensions among Americans, resulting in a less divided and more harmonious society."

Hm... Based on this page's comments, it looks like all the "reduced tensions" and "harmonious society" stuff must have totally missed the Internet community, lol... But then again, Website comment sections always seem to degenerate into pissy, nasty insult-fests, so I guess religion doesn't have much to do with it in the end. It's just humanity. "

to Harsch from Phil OBates wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:51 PM:

" No. Time in existance doesn't make one correct. What makes Jesus correct is that He is God. My point on the time of existance is that the supposed 'discoveries' of 'contradictions' by todays atheists, are things that have been seen, studied, and explained more than once in the last 2000 years. Atheists and non-believers hear something they think is some unknown clue that will bring Christianity crashing down, then base their belief on that bad piece of information, without finding out the full explanation. "

Gee Phil harsch speaking wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:25 PM:

" So Hinduismhas been around over 3000 years without refutation, does that trump your 2000? It's still a matter of the convenience of your belief, isn't it? "

harsch to kenneth wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:23 PM:

" So you weren't addressing me--are my questions too hard for you? must you turn into a lawyer to defend your faith? "

Phil OBates wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Yep, that's what I was saying (to the 3:30 pm post). That whole discussion was brought up because Midwestatheist thought that his disenting views would not be accepted at any church. The best Bible studies I've been involved with were ones with people who brought up hard questions which made you question and dig for answers and reasons. Christianity has been around for over 2000 years and all of these supposed 'contradictions' have been looked at and have explanations.
On the topic of many ways to heaven, people who call themselves followers of Christ, don't determine who Christ calls saved. Christ said he was the only way, so I believe Him. "

harsch on o bates wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Bravo to the defender of O'Bates, for he is unable to hold his own here. "

Michael you fool wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:15 PM:

" When love your enemies becomes a matter of dispute you are no longer speaking with Christians. I am the way, the truth, and the blood on the sword... "

Kenneth W Krause to three fourteen pm wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:12 PM:

" I understand what these other religions beliefs are regarding Christ and His claims. I have had many discussions with people of these faiths. I was interested in what the beliefs are of the Christians who believe there are many paths to heaven. This is why I addressed the post to them. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Hey, man, I would like to invite you to hop over to the other blog where we were discussing evidence and proofs. Whenever these discussions get into anything of substance regarding possible evidence of Biblical truth, you take a powder only to reappear on another blog starting all over again. Why not actually finish a discussion? What are you afraid of? "

Re Phil OBates wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:30 PM:

" There is sort of a "crossover" discussion here and on the faith blog. Michael, I think if you re-read the post by POB over there, he wasn't saying that atheists would benefit from a theist meeting, but not vice-versa. Not at all. I think he was merely stating that the Bible study as a whole would benefit from someone who holds a sincerely-felt dissenting opinion. The idea being that theists can be challenged(in a good way) by atheists. My point has always been, why do atheists not feel the same way regarding a theist in their discussion groups? What are they afraid of? This ties into what POB stated regarding his reluctance to attend a "freethinkers" meeting...not because he wouldn't be willing, but because they would see it as an "attack". At least that is how I took the post... "

PHIL OSIFER wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:24 PM:

" MICHAEL WELCH; Spoken like a true Marxist Communist. "

Harsch to Welch wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:18 PM:

" Clearly you are living in Hell on Earth. The god of Krause and Planet and etc. would NOT TOLERATE that PLURALISTIC NONSENSE. SO PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT IT OR THEY WILL HAVE TO SEND GOOD CHRISTIANS TO KILL THEM (you know, the OTHERS)! "

harsch to planet wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:15 PM:

" I would never presume to judge, but here is my judgment... "

hey.zeus Krause aros con pollo...from Harsch wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Will you not rest until everyone on Earth agrees with you? Why the compassionate Christian pose? Christ's claim? Well, ask a Hindu, not an open-minded Christian. Ask a Muslim. Ask a Buddhist. Ask an Animist. Why did your silly god create these people? Why did his silly son deny them a la Peter? Why in fact did this divinity die? "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:20 PM:

" The only ones who get to live forever are those who telepathically tell the sky-god that they are pleased with his selfless act of sacrificing himself, to himself, so that he won't be mad at us anymore because 2 fictitious people ate a fruit that he specifically told them not to 6,000 years ago. God really loves us more than we can imagine, however if we don't love him back, then he's going to send us to a lake of fire (that he created) so that we can suffer unimaginable agony forever. How fortunate we all are that he found a loophole to the rules he created so we can escape this fate. He just had to let us beat him up and kill him before he could forgive us for our ancestors' (imaginary) eating that fruit. He really has a hard time letting things go. "

To Michael wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:00 PM:

" You seem to pick and choose like everyone else. Why should "Love your enemies" be looked at as any more(or for that matter any less) profound than "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me."? "

Michael Welch Saved By Gracie Allen A Catholic And George Burns A Jew... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Christians have to live in the 'real world'; they are -- ALL of them -- per Bill Fields 'lookin' fer loopholes' AND they find them! James Dobson has just attacked Obama for being too 'literal' about the sermon on the mount (a socialist manifesto, for those Christians who have uh never read it). I've been pilloried for a repetitive phrase 'You pays yer money' etc., but then people here SO LOVE repetition that I know you'll 'turn the other cheek' when I repeat: folks pick the Jesus they are the MOST comfortable with -- the 'believe in me' but don't do as I do Jesus -- and uh the hell with the Gandhian one. Happens ALL the time... "

SavedByGrace wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:23 PM:

" The problem here is that many people call themselves Christians who aren't really Christians. Many people think they are Christians because they live in the USA and they aren't Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Many people say they are Christians and have never read one verse in the Bible. I believe this is also the reason for the difference in divorce statistics. Generally, people who report that they are Muslim, Jewish, etc. actually follow the religion. :) "

Michael Welch What Is Counted As Serious And What Is Not... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Why did Jesus say 'Love your enemies' etc., and so many literalist Christians support war after war and even participate in them? Why such antagonism when Jesus is clearly a pacifist -- shouldn't HE be YOUR example? Why when Jesus continually exalts the poor and condemns the rich ('easier for a camel' etc.) do so many Christians want tax cuts for the wealthy but no national health care? Why are so many teachings and commands against violence ignored by SO MANY Christians? Why indeed is a Hindu, Gandhi, so obviously more 'like Jesus' than either Pat Robertson or Pope Benedict? Are these questions TOO 'literal' -- or too 'boring'?... "

PHIL OSIFER wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:27 AM:

" You mean to tell me that the Pope and Bishop Burke and Listecki are wrong and that people can get to heaven even if they are not Roman Catholics, WOW I would never have thought that would be true "

Michael Welch Before My Very Eyes EVERY Day... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:16 AM:

" In the Phoenix valley and perhaps especially in Tempe (where I live now, home of Arizona State University) 'pluralism' is right before one's eyes. EVERY DAY I see women in veils and/or a hijab or a man with a yarmulka or two young guys in dark suits, white shirts and thin black ties -- Mormon seminary students -- not to mention folks wearing pentagrams and sure 'even' crosses of all sizes and types. Grocery stores have magazines about yoga and 'the road to Shambala' etc. That the US is a racially and ethnically diverse society is evident (and Obama is its current representative) but along with that is the religious range, which is just as broad AND deep... "

Froto wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:29 AM:

" You are right on the money for posting this one Jimmy!. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:23 AM:

" I question whether the people who participated in this survey are truly Christian or Christian in name only.

I would never presume to judge someone's personal religious views, but speaking in general terms, some of the views appear to completely contradict what Jesus taught(many ways to heaven). "

Eddie wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Oh joy.....just can't wait for all the Fundies to dive into this one.....LOL. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:02 AM:

" I know I am going to get blasted here, but I would like to throw out a question or two to some of the 70% of Christians who believe many religions can lead to eternal life:

1) What do you make of Christ's claim that no one comes to the Father but through Him?

2) Why did Christ die? "


The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of theRiver Valley Blogs.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »
We will not post reader comments containing racial, religious or personal attacks, slander, profanity, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers or Web site addresses that are for personal or promotional gain.
(optional)
   
Thank you for your comments! Once your comments are approved, they will appear on the site.

 

 
Copyright © RVNG Publications | RVNG is a division of Lee Enterprises