I think you need to clarify exactly why you have come on this blog and made statements claiming that non-Christians will “go to Hell”. Was it just a politely-stated point of view as per your interpretation of Christianity, or do you genuinely want to argue this issue out with everyone here ?

If it’s the former, then I think you are entitled to your opinion as long as you don’t force it on anyone else or don’t keep hitting non-Christians over the head with it (especially if they obviously find this view offensive). If it’s the latter, then you need to clarify whether you really want to initiate a dialogue with other SM participants on this subject, and are ready to hear opposing arguments.

You really need to make your intentions clear before we go any further and in order to prevent anyone unnecessarily wasting any time on this debate.

Why does your god need help from humans (such as GWB, in getting rid of Saddam)?? Doesnt sound very strong God. So if your God is weak, then how can I believe in the promise of Heaven given thru’ him? Or your entire thesis is flawed. One of two has to right. )

Razib has also stated this, but there’s a line you have to draw. You can’t continue saying, ohhh don’t challenge someone on the way they think, because it’s not them, their RELIGION makes them do it.

I think this is insulting to Daycruz. He has a mind (and a damn fine one, as evidenced by his civil responses) of his own and is making an informed decision to repeat what the bible says.

It only seems like he voiced his concern over something that he thought would be the probable state of your future.

Right and that’s between me and God thank you

You did rightly call him a fallible being. So given the fact that he does commit mistakes and sins, he was showing something wrong on your side too. What Jesus meant was “Do not go around correcting and admonishing people for their wrongdoings when you yourself commit equally punishable sins”.

Precisely. I know what it means but thank you for clarifying that for me. By the way you contradict yourself by saying that “he was showing something wrong on your side” and then saying that Jesus said you shouldn’t do that. And also note that because I don’t believe the Bible to be infallible, you can’t hold me to that…

I was simply stating that before judging me and saying I will go to hell and he won’t

Just means that I believe your afterlife will be different from mine

he should consider whether he really will have a different afterlife, bacause again only God has the right to admit you (according to the Bible)

Who in this world can then go about correcting another one, as there is no one in this world who can say that he has never sinned!

Again exactly, so why do evangelists want to “correct” me from my “wrong” religious path?

still can’t debate, eh? nice squirrel tactics.

do you have any of your own thoughts or are they all stolen from cyborgs?

You passed a judgement on his actions based on the information you had at hand AND picked out what you thought would be the consequence (prison) even before his trial. Now in this there was a chance you would be wrong, (and you were, according to those chosen to pass judgement on him) and he went home.

Now, since you believe I will go to hell (given what you know: I will not convert, and your bible tells you those who do not believe will go to hell), is there a chance I could still slip into heaven?

And if you believe that there is NO chance for me to slip in, then you are saying that I WILL go to hell. Which in my books is passing a judgement on my future and what you where you think I should spend eternity before my trial before your God.

That’s what I don’t get about Christian evangelists. If you spoke of Jesus’ love rather than threaten the world with fire and brimstone they might get less flak.

I have read the bible, and on a basic level, agree with the fact that people should not lie, cheat, steal, should love their neighbours and do unto others. I just don’t agree that it’s the only way to salvation.

Convenient for you.

While it can be verbal attacks. Expressing my beliefs in full simply means I tell you about God.

But you believe that Hindus are going to hell. Its is with us or against us. Aren’t you fighting the evil but fine folks from hell.

We are arguing from two completely different viewpoints.

It is possible.

You don’t have to accept my viewpoint simple as that, and I don’t have to accept yours. But I don’t think any less of you as a person because of that.

You are my brother.

So are you saying that because I would not worship Ganpathi that I would be considered a bigot? Now isn’t that bigotry? You can worship Ganpathi all you want.. I choose not to. I simply believe there is only one God

If it was just that simple. You believe , and you share that with me that Ganpathi will lead me straight to eternal damnation. I call that bigotry.

Look… I’d hate to lower the intensity of this debate so can you for the sake of this debate firmly assume that I believe that you are a bigot. Lets not get too nice with each other.

About west-coast, “been there”, north-west actually. Nice.

frankly, i think you are talking past each. i give daycruz slack in regards to telling us we are going to hell because it didn’t come out of the blue, it was prompted by blanket condemnations of missionaries. i also think you are doing a little apples and oranges here. i have alluded to the fact before that being a christian and non-christian as a brown person in america is qualitatively different (hey, i was an atheist of muslim origin in a 99.5% white town in oregon during my teenage years, i “been there” too). that being said, ultimately this thread and story in indocentric. it is simply a fact that daycruz will be respected throughout great swaths of the south because he has a “fire for christ,” while people would make fun of you as an idolator. on the other hand, i can point you to towns in california and oregon where hindus would be much more accepted than an evangelical christian like daycruz. they might even think that daycruz is a “sellout” to his “real culture.” overall obviously evangelical christian browns have the long end of the stick here, but, it isn’t an either or.

in regards to india, that’s a different culture and country. i have watched how evangelical christians have been known to missionize and spread the gospel, and some of the attitudes and behaviors are pretty unseemly. i don’t need to go into it. the question though is should they be tolerated? these are complicated issues, because unlike some here i don’t think that many poor, illiterate people have that much agency. that being said, questions i would ask are, 1) are those poor illiterate people better or worse off after eating a hot meal and converting to christianity because the missionaries have told them everyone else in the country is christian (this is a tactic i have seen attested to in nepal and indonesia on isolated people), 2) what the ramifications for the rest of society if you intervene and pass laws by fiat to block the poor illiterate people from being abused? when the gov. starts regulating speech and communication wholesale, i think that is problematic. as an american, in this nation my opinions are pretty straightforward, we have the 1st ammendment. in nations like india, well, they have different legal traditions (though still skewed toward liberty from what i can tell). then there is the issue that there are many missionaries who do far more material good than harvesting of souls. and so on.

do i find daycruz to be a “bigot”? well, i think that term is overused a lot, and i’m not much into sensitivity. i’m the person who will ask people if they believe in god, and if they say yes, i’ll tell them “ah, so you’re gullible, i have a bridge to sell you….” being as offensive as i am, i am obviously cautious about casting aspersions at others he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all. in any case, let me be frank in that there are all sorts of bigotry, south asians from all backgrounds know the importance of skin color, good background, caste, north vs. south, amongst us all. hindus are certainly broad minded people when it comes to religious tolerance, and i wish the hindu religion well vis-a-vi christianity and islam, if it were not for caste. a lot of color will leave the world if hinduism disappears. but that being said, with all the bigotries of south asia, i’m not going to put a special spotlight on daycruz’s exclusivist religious views (which aren’t that different from many muslims). he thinks i don’t believe in jesus, so i’m going to hell, and i don’t think either of these things are anything more than ideas in the heads of him and his friends. so why should i care?

I do not believe Daycruz condemned you to hell by saying “If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, I believe you are going to hell” … When did it become so easy to condemn someone to hell just by uttering the right combination of words?!?

To me that sounded more like the product of his faith and belief. It only seems like he voiced his concern over something that he thought would be the probable state of your future.

You did rightly call him a fallible being. So given the fact that he does commit mistakes and sins, he was showing something wrong on your side too. What Jesus meant was “Do not go around correcting and admonishing people for their wrongdoings when you yourself commit equally punishable sins”. Who in this world can then go about correcting another one, as there is no one in this world who can say that he has never sinned!!