When you make an ACCUSATION against somebody, it is expected that you SUBSTANTIATE that accusation. As you have accused me of lying, can you tell me ONE place that I lied?

A ‘hateful little snipe?’

It is quite obvious to me that you never read the FIRST post nor the reason the ‘debate’ was posted there.

I’d appreciate either a substantation or an apology – otherwise, you’re not exactly showing the biblical Jesus yourself, are you?

Dan, the “gods” of hinduism are more or less irrelevant as factual truths.When one speaks of the “one hindu god” it is usually in reference to the Brahman. Hinduism, in all practicality for scholars, is more of a henotheistic than pantheistic religious system. They didn’t “create” gods, they merely accepted the addition of tribal gods as their dharmic religion became part of the political landscape of the indian subcontinent.

His wife sent me an email a few days before their arrest and said that when her husband called somebody a ‘liar’ (his favorite term) who is lying that was not name-calling but the use of biblical language.

I wrote her back and told her that using biblical language, her husband is an ass.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/12/video-three-arrested-after-disrupting-hindu-prayer-in-senate/

A few choice nuggets pulled at random:

“this is the sort of multi-culti spectacle we get under democrat leadership. Expect wiccan high priestess chants at some point if Harry Reid remains the Senate Majority Leader.”

“A Muslim offered the opening prayer in 93. My main beef (there goes that word again) with a Hindu opening the session in prayer has to do with the idea that we were a nation founded under one God. That being the God who started with Abraham and then sent His Son to live among us to teach us first hand how to live.”

“As for tolerance, we Christians are as tolerant as they come. We had to tolerate separation of church and state being in the constitution when it is not.”

“As I see it, the issue really isn’t even about Hinduism, it’s about honoring false gods in the Senate chamber. Something that sets a very dangerous precedent for this nation”

etc.. etc.. etc…
but not to disparage them all – there are a few wise words in there:
“Perhaps they should stop formal prayers at the Senate? What is the problem for people if they want taking a moment of silence and do what they wish with it before the Senate starts?”

Also, Heather, by the Hindu god, which one do you mean? They’ve created like 3 million of them.

I believe my way to God is the only one, but if someone decides to worship false gods, what can I do? Pretty close to nothing.

“I’m sure the three individuals who protested the prayer delivered by Rajan Zed, a Hindu chaplain from Nevada, to open the Senate on July 12th thought they were “defending their faith” but in reality, they were simply letting their bigotry…

Ah, yes. The ol Satan argument. I must say, Satan is *really* busy then.

OH yes! He’s a busy, busy little fellow, continuously looking to do mischief, doncha know? The operative verse here was 1 Peter 5:8:

Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.

I think the flaw I would find in that argument is that under Christian standards, those who are under Satan’s “spell” display certain characteristics: like bad behavior, hurting others, lack of compassion and so on. But many devout Muslims and Hindus do in fact display many of the “fruits of the Spirit.” ANd yet the churches you attended said that was the result of Satan? Because the fruits of the Spirit are the the opposite of sinful behavior.

Yes, that was definitely a problem with that doctrine, and it was never really satisfactorily answered. The standard explanation was that these people might be doing good works – which was fine – but they weren’t “laying up their treasure in heaven” because they weren’t saved. So any mere nice behavior they displayed here on earth was all going to burn and didn’t count in the kingdom anyway.

It wasn’t so much an explanation as it was an arrogant dismissal and a sort of “neener-neener-you-don’t-count” response.

But then again, a whole lot of Christians weren’t displaying much in the way of fruit of the spirit, and that didn’t get talked about either. Very selective reasoning going on, there.