coach wrote " for hell unless they discover God's plan of salvation through His Son Jesus."

though addressed to bushbasher I hope you dont mind if I make a comment...the above is the usual teaching of most churches, anglican, born-again, methodist etc...

be careful of what you believe...particularly when it comes to your soul for almost every religious text on earth says the same thing...your 'acts' on earth while your soul had a physical body is what god will judge you on in the afterlife...so the soul is responsible for its own acts and inactions...someone else told me so just does not seem to cut it...

now what you wrote is an 'escape clause' to usual...but the black book in your hand is not the original text and been revisions over time, and used by many authoritian powers for centuries for benefit...bit of reasoning should make you cautious...and most troubling of all is how 'book of thomas' was excluded from bible and suppressed in all current texts...and which unique in that its not third person writting as current bible new testament is but from the mouth of christ...hope you see the fundamental value of this to understanding teaching of jesus and keep in context the rest of the bible...

the book of thomas, or the 'twin of christ'...was written by thomas one of the desciples under instruction from jesus to write exactly what he said, not add or remove or single thing ie seems jesus oversaw this book...some 114 verses...and not one says what you wrote above...and when one reasons this in that the most important mission of jesus was to save your soul, so book of thomas should have had clear teaching about it...so possibility that its not what jesus meant and it was interpreted into this by church leaders over time to help add followers to their following should exist in your mind...so seek the truth...start by searching for the original translation of the book of thomas...unless you already dont believe what you wrote but just support the current religious power and authority who say this...

Sam

ah, coach, isn't life easy with god on your side? no doubts, no need to reason, no need to provide argument or evidence. you can simply wallow in your smug, sanctimonious swamp.

coach, there's nothing to gain by arguing with a religious bigot. and i won't. i'll just suggest that you read "memorial service" by h. l. mencken. it won't make any difference, i know, but you should read it nonetheless.

I have visited this forum just a few times and noted that some writers condemn Columbia University’s President Lee Bollinger for being “impolite” and “rude” to a guest, Iran’s President Ahmedinejhad.

The issue that Bollinger raised about Iranian students was completely justified; as was his entire speech.

Bollinger could have made an extremely emotive and damning speech, which would have indeed painted Ahmedinejhad in his rightful hues, but Bollinger didn’t. His speech was in accordance with scholarly debate.

The imperatives of modern scholarship:

Unrestricted freedom and autonomy.

Secular ideals of intellectual inquiry

Scholasticism preserving freedom of debate.

The scholarly community calling individuals, whoever they may be, to account.

Bollinger did this well. He ensured that Ahmedinejhad had right of reply. I believe Ahmedinejhad responded that in Iran such forthright language would cause a person to be gaoled; by his own words confirming that freedom of thought and speech is not permitted in his country. Ahmedinejhad failed to mention that such actions would not only attract gaol, but also torture and possible execution.

Others OLO tried to divert the argument to Bush, the US, and Israel. This is unintelligent. I have no time for Bush, and certainly consider him one of the bluntest knives in the drawer - indeed one of several ... But neither the US nor Israel's actions can be compared with Ahmedinejhad’s regime and aims. Anyone who tries to draw parallels between Iran, the US and Israel, is either parlously uninformed, or has a profound problem with comprehension, or is unquestionably “dotty”.

There are many online sites by Iranian intellectuals and dissidents - so there is no excuse for lack of information about the current Iranian regime. Here is just one site.

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinehad by Amil Imani
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/who_is_mahmoud_ahmadinejad.htm

Bushbasher,

Thanks for the ride, I love you all the same.

Is life easy with God on my side? Yes and no. On the one hand I feel so privileged to know who I am in God’s terms; and when I die that incomparable assurance of “salvation” gives me peace.

On the other hand it is a daily grind to be human. Contrary to what you imagine a Christian's mind is continuously questioning and dealing with doubts. Faith is based on evidence.

If believing in the one true faith makes me a bigot so be it. There is nothing to gain in being hypocritically tolerant of falsehoods.

Sam,

There is nothing in the Gospel of Thomas that add or take away from what is already mentioned in the canonical Gospels.

Jesus’ Gospel is about the Kingdom of heaven. The entire bible is a manual or a passport to that place.

The only entry visa we need is the stamp of Jesus on our life. We cannot enter unless we are brought back to our initial state of citizentry – that is how Adam and Eve were before their fall.

Sin entered the world. We all live in a fallen world separated from God. The only way back is not how good we learn to live or how clever or religious we become to try to please God – but what God has DONE for us on the cross.

Christianity is not a religion per se; it is a restored relationship with The Father.

God is Holy – he hates Sin. We are all helpless sinners that cannot cleanse ourselves however we may try. That is why all religions fail.

Thank God for His intervention to rescuing us. Without a loving God we will all still be condemned and without hope.

coach, i like jesus. i like him because i never hear from him the kind of hate speech in which you indulge.

danielle, i agree with almost everything you say. certainly, the attacks on bollinger's speech are absurd, for the reasons you cite. Ahmadinehad is disgusting, and no one should pretend otherwise.

what concerns me, however, is the selective focus upon Ahmadinehad. as i wrote before, the american government has a long history of ignoring and supporting tyrants, and continues to do so today. so, why Ahmadinehad?

It seems that the Bush government is on a very big propaganda drive, to prepare us for another war, this time with iran. why? perhaps their reasons are honorable, but there is good reason to doubt this. but even if honorable, it would be naive to expect bush and his backers to be any more honest about this war than the iraq one, and it would be naive to expect it to be any more successful. it is simply not a given that the best way to deal with tyrants is to start a war.

one of the difficulties is getting reliable information. of course, expecting either Ahmadinehad or Bush to tell the truth is sheer lunacy. but relying upon newspapers is little better: their role in disseminating propaganda before the iraq war was disgraceful. i honestly don't know a good source of information. i do trust seymour hersh's reports as reflecting american government thinking, but that is not the whole story. but danielle, i'm sorry, but the website you linked to is useless in this regard.

Bushbasher,

I do not know if Columbia University has given a platform to any other person of Ahmadinehad’s ilk... if they had, I am sure that confronting issues would have been raised. We know of this particular debate because of the publicity surrounding it.

Many have condemned Bollinger for giving Ahmadinejhad a public forum.

His response:

"It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."

Undoubtedly, whilst Ahmedinejhad may not have had a copy of the Bollinger’s speech beforehand, he would have been aware that it was a debate. It is the measure of the man that Ahmadinejad responded in the way he did.

Bollinger’s thesis was basic freedoms and integrity of research must be the be the benchmark in academia - for academics and students alike ... not arrested for stating truths, or disputing actions of their regime. He further denounces any prohibition of freedom of speech for public intellectuals et al.

He condemns gross intellectual dishonesty: we must learn from the past.

“The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. ... your absurd comments ... both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defence. Will you cease this outrage?“

Columbia University has never shied away from contentious issues within the US.

“We, at this university, have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values.”

Some protest the language used by Bollinger. Those who have witnessed academic debate, or have experienced university, know that debate, indeed disputation of any kind, can be very “rough” ... Academe is not the place for the faint hearted.

Bushbasher, a good site for Iranian issues, including worldwide reports, commentary by scientists and intellectuals (such as the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy), open discussion/question/debate pages, petitions, more sites.
FREE IRAN
http://www.activistchat.com/