100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Belief or Betrayal | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Designer Christianity 
That's rich..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. It is a problem of the mentally weak that they do not control their own feelings so they blame others for their weakness. Grow a pair. You CAN have control of your feelings. You don't need mommy to wash your underwear anymore. Time to be a man.  Yew con do eet.
Don't you have this totally backwards? Religious people are the ones who need a daddy and can't face life on their own. Eljay brought up the "Sin Problem" Seriously, who do you think a genuine God would appreciate more,... An atheist who does everything right simply because it's who they truly are,... Or a religious person who is only curbing their desire to be nasty because of fear of punishment or lust of a reward? Religious people are the one's who have no self-responsibility. They are the one's who can't keep their own underware clean and feel they need to wear a savior as a diaper. And even then they appear to be constantly falling down because they can't seem to walk on their own. Always praying for strength because they have none of their own. 
Religion is nothing more than a crutch for people who can't deal with life directly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote:
They are the one's who can't keep their own underwear clean and feel they need to wear a savior as a diaper. I feel bad that I wrote this because I know that many people will find it highly offensive. It truly wasn't written with the heartless malice it appears to imply. I was merely responding in kind to a comment that non-religious people need a mommy to wash their underwear. I was just reflecting the same metaphor. I’m truly a non emotional person. I don’t get upset with what anyone says. But I often use their own imagery as a mirror. It’s not my intent to purposefully upset people. For me it’s a totally non-emotional subject. Even when I say that I ‘hate’ the religion I say that in the same way that I would say that I ‘hate’ cancer. It’s not the same kind of hate that you would have toward a sentient being. It’s not that kind of ‘hate’. I don’t hate Christians. I ‘hate’ the mythology they believe in and the terrible influence it has had on humanity over the millennia. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 06/15/08 01:15 PM
|
|
I forgive you, and the goddess forgives you, now go wash your underwear.
(or poo-poo undies, ~as they were called in the movie "Young Frankenstein" JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgive you, and the goddess forgives you, now go wash your underwear.
(or poo-poo undies, ~as they were called in the movie "Young Frankenstein" JB It's funny this came up, because that's exactly what I'm off to do right now. No joke! I just came back from the spring with a load of water specifically to do my laundry and the first first load is going to be my underwear. I'm off to put it in the machine right this very minute. Seriously! It's true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm don't you get it? it's not just the christian religion thats a sham - its "ALL" organized religions that are shams.man made farces.If man has had a hand in it it is not to be trusted. there is no organized religion i will ever accept as "the truth" there are no words in books or spoken that if man has put them forth as ultimate truths that are worth my or anyones time. The only truths that exsist are self evident, they need no defense, they need no one to believe them - they could give a crap less if anyone even cares about them - "they just are" - "natural truth's" are all i can or will believe "ever". Everything else is a spiritual and mental meatmarket of proverbial canard's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your original post assumes an unacceptable premise - that being ... a believer praise a God that would have to torture others for an eternity and the believer not speak against this for that eternity... God doing the torturing? Where does that information come from? The fact of the matter (biblically, since that is where your inference has been established) is there is Heaven - where God is located, and (for lack of a better word) Hell - where he is not. Both locations are described in enough detail to render a response of "I never knew it would be like this" just idiotic. Now - the choice remains with the individual. If I have love ones who chose not to spend eternity with God in heaven and therefore have chosen to suffer the consequences thereof - you want me to now abandon God because He allowed them their choice? Though I grieve for those who have been near and dear to me for the choices they made to reject God, I'm a reasonable enough individual to know the folly of blaming God for their eternity. That's man blaming on his boots the faults of his feet. What he said. Amen 
squawked Rapunzel..as she dreamed of her love ones being tortured in Hell's fire |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm don't you get it? it's not just the christian religion thats a sham - its "ALL" organized religions that are shams.
That’s true. But some religions are less harmful than others. Take Buddhism as an example. It doesn’t really matter whether the religion is true or false. It’s not demanding that everyone believe in it or be shunned by the religion because they have rejected its God. I see nothing harmful with spiritualities that make no demands upon people to believe in them. It’s the religions that claim that their gods are the ultimately authoritarian and if you reject their religion you are being rebellious and rejecting their God. Those are the harmful hateful religions. All the religions that are based on the biblical picture of God are necessarily of this type because the biblical picture of God is a picture of an ultimate authoritarian who gets angry and hateful when people disobey his wishes. This would include all of the religions that are based on the Mediterranean folklores. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They are ultimately all the same religion that just fell into three major parts. But their premise of an authoritarian jealous God who hates non-believers is the same. I think that religions that are based on spirituality aren’t harmful. People can take them or leave them with no ill effects. However, when a person rejects any of the religions that are based on a jealous authoritarian godhead all hell breaks. They are shunned by the believers of that religion. They are told that they are rejecting God, siding with demonic forces, possessed by the devil and all sorts of terrible things. It’s ultimately the notion of a single authoritarian godhead who shuns anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship him that is the problem. How can those religions not help but become the focus of political and social unrest. They ultimately spread brother hate and intolerance, under the façade of pretending to worship an authoritarian godhead. Those kinds of religions create hate, and call it love. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... So, I see Christianity has been reduced to a religion that stones it's unruly children. Therefore, it can't be valid, and should be abandoned.
I wish I could say I admire this logical and critical thinking. Really, you think you've got a grasp of Christianity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... So, I see Christianity has been reduced to a religion that stones it's unruly children. Therefore, it can't be valid, and should be abandoned. I wish I could say I admire this logical and critical thinking. Really, you think you've got a grasp of Christianity?
Reduced? You're funny Eljay. Over the past year I have given literally hundreds of reasons why Christianity can't possibly be true and now you're trying to pretend that my rejection of Christianity is based on a single absurdity. Do you really want me to list the myriad reasons why it can't possibly be true? I think I will write up a summary post. Then every time someone tries to make it appear that I've reduced Christianity to just one stupidity I'll post an extremely long list of reasons why it can't be true. The fact that God commanded us to stone children certainly being one of them. I should have thought of this a long time ago. I'll go make that post up right now, and I'll be back to post it, and then I'll start posting it over and over and over again just for fun.
Thanks for the idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm don't you get it? it's not just the christian religion thats a sham - its "ALL" organized religions that are shams.
That’s true. But some religions are less harmful than others. Take Buddhism as an example. It doesn’t really matter whether the religion is true or false. It’s not demanding that everyone believe in it or be shunned by the religion because they have rejected its God. I see nothing harmful with spiritualities that make no demands upon people to believe in them. It’s the religions that claim that their gods are the ultimately authoritarian and if you reject their religion you are being rebellious and rejecting their God. Those are the harmful hateful religions. All the religions that are based on the biblical picture of God are necessarily of this type because the biblical picture of God is a picture of an ultimate authoritarian who gets angry and hateful when people disobey his wishes. This would include all of the religions that are based on the Mediterranean folklores. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They are ultimately all the same religion that just fell into three major parts. But their premise of an authoritarian jealous God who hates non-believers is the same. I think that religions that are based on spirituality aren’t harmful. People can take them or leave them with no ill effects. However, when a person rejects any of the religions that are based on a jealous authoritarian godhead all hell breaks. They are shunned by the believers of that religion. They are told that they are rejecting God, siding with demonic forces, possessed by the devil and all sorts of terrible things. It’s ultimately the notion of a single authoritarian godhead who shuns anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship him that is the problem. How can those religions not help but become the focus of political and social unrest. They ultimately spread brother hate and intolerance, under the façade of pretending to worship an authoritarian godhead. Those kinds of religions create hate, and call it love.
i stand by what i say abra, i've had a few more years to look at it all - it's not a hard conclusion to come to - man;s religion's / spirituality is no good what ever type it is or whether you can walk away from it or not - but you my friend as other's have the freedom to do as you will. but what you follow as i and JB is only your truth - not "the truth"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sun 06/15/08 04:05 PM
|
|
but what you follow as i and JB is only your truth - not "the truth"
Who ever claimed it is? I don't claim to know the truth of our spiritual essence. For all I know atheists are correct. I can't deny atheism. I have never claimed to know truth. The only thing I claim is that the biblical picture of God can't be true for two reason,.. 1. A genuinely all-wise supreme being couldn't possibly be as stupid as the bible makes it out to be. 2. The book is full of self-contraditions. We may not be able to know what is true, but we can clearly see what must be false. That's where I'm coming from Tribo.
~~~ I should add here that I often suggest pantheism as a spiritual alternative for those people who see that the biblical picture can't be true but still seek a spiritual picture. They can turn to pantheism instead of atheism if they so choose. Pantheism actually makes much more sense then the bible and it hasn't been contradicted yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but what you follow as i and JB is only your truth - not "the truth"
Who ever claimed it is? I don't claim to know the truth of our spiritual essence. For all I know atheists are correct. I can't deny atheism. I have never claimed to know truth. The only thing I claim is that the biblical picture of God can't be true for two reason,.. 1. A genuinely all-wise supreme being couldn't possibly be as stupid as the bible makes it out to be. 2. The book is full of self-contraditions. We may not be able to know what is true, but we can clearly see what must be false. That's where I'm coming from Tribo.
~~~ I should add here that I often suggest pantheism as a spiritual alternative for those people who see that the biblical picture can't be true but still seek a spiritual picture. They can turn to pantheism instead of atheism if they so choose. Pantheism actually makes much more sense then the bible and it hasn't been contradicted yet. thnx for clearing up the last part stated for that was what i was refferingto 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... So, I see Christianity has been reduced to a religion that stones it's unruly children. Therefore, it can't be valid, and should be abandoned. I wish I could say I admire this logical and critical thinking. Really, you think you've got a grasp of Christianity?
well "Eljay" it's apparent that you don't have a grasp of Christianity either as you try to be deceptive by presenting your illusions of denial... your first illusion of denial was when you tried to give the illusion that the purpose of Hell was not to torture non-believers and then your second illusion of denial was when you try to create the illusion that God is not the CEO in charge of who get's tortured all you need is one more illusion of denial and you'll be tied with St. Peter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote:
This thread has nothing to do with people who don't believe the bible. Read Funches post again. For that matter - read mine again, I qualified my response so I wouldn't have to deal with your strawman arguments. That's silly. The whole idea behind Christianity is that the Bible is the correct description of God. It doesn't even make and sense to talk about things such as heaven or hell outside of the biblical context. Eljay wrote:
God is in Heaven. For those who do not wish to enter there - God does not admit them. Period. He doesn't "send them anywhere". You have made this assumption. Had you read the book, you'd know otherwise. Again, you say, "Had you read the book!". It's all about what the bible says. You believe in a book. Not in a God. You claim that the book is the word of God. You worship a book! And they you try to claim that it's not about the Bible. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Spider wrote:
Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da Well that makes a lot more sense that what you posted before you edited your post.
You and Eljay are both trying to pull the same stunt. I tell you guys what the bible says, and then you guys try to say, "But God isn't like that!" But the Bible is what you people claim to believe in. You can't say that God doesn't threaten people who don't believe in him because the Bible most certainly does this. Whatever the Bible says is what the biblical God says, because the whole idea behind it. It's supposed to be the word of God. You can't say, "But God isn't like that!". If say that all you are saying is that you don't believe that the Bible correctly portrays what God is like (i.e. you renounce the very idea that the Bible is the word of God). Oxymoron. As always! For Christians the Bible has to be the word of God. Therefore whatever the Bible says that God is like then that's what God must be like. The Bible clearly threatens non-believers that bad things will happen to them. The Christian God clearly threatens non-believers with violence, and clearly uses tactics of intimidation and fear to try to get people to love him. This must be the case because Christians are claiming that the Bible is the WORD of God. Therefore the Christian God threatens to reject people, and intimidates with fear tactics because this is what the Bible does, and Christians claim that the Bible is the words of God. There's no way out. Christians have no choice but to confess that their God (the Bible) uses methods of intimidation, fear, and threatens to reject people if they don't believe him. Because the Bible tells us so! You guys are hopeless. You'll defend that the book is the word of God until you're blue in the face, whilst simultaneously trying to claim that God isn't like what the Bible says.
It's utterly ridiculous. The biblical doctrine trips over its own proclamations and falls flat on its face in the mud. And you guys stand there trying to defend it. For what reason? You've either fallen for the intimidation and you are afraid to renounce it. Or you're lusting for the gift of eternal life it offers and you don't want to miss out on the chance in case it might somehow be miraculously true. Good luck.
Abra; Get out your logic book and look up "shifting middle". You may equate God to the bible, I do not. I do not "worship" the bible - it is a book of words. It has limits. It does not contain all that there is to know about God. It's merely a "road map". A tool for guidance. It's not a recipe book. AJ, do you really believe that if you had never read the bible you would think and believe as you now do? and once you did reach the point your at - if it is just a road map then why continue reading it? do you look at road maps of the usa or world every day? if you know where your going - what good does it do you or other's who say it's not really necessary or even some saying they would be just as christian about it? I've heard from MS, and feral and others cherub included that the book is not what saves them but jesus or belief in him - yet would anyone know of jesus and or how to accept him without the word's? the question has to be answered once and for all- is the"BOOK" necessary to become or "be" a christian? is the book necessary for being a christian at all? yes - or - no? can you become a christian and follow jesus as he intended or as the writers intended and live accordingly without the words in your book or without you or others repeating the words in your book or any other books spouting the same things? can i or anyone be saved by one saying no more than ""if you believe on his name ye shall be saved"" without knowing what it is that i'm to believe? and if your answer is "yes" - why then would god have bothered to have it written to begin with? saying its a road map is not acceptable as an answer - if the book is absolutely not important, has no real value to becoming christian whatsoever, as to accepting god,son,and spirit, then get rid of it, stop the contraversy and confusion of the useless book. Tribo; Actually - I had not read the bible before I believed as I did. But admittedly, having heard about Jesus and who he was as a youngster (grew up Catholic), I would assume that somewhere along the way the bible was read by someone. But my faith in God came not through reading the bible, but through the events of my life. They were the great teachers in my life. To put it simplistically - when I "broke a commandmant", which I spent most of my adolescence doing - there were consequences. Some minor, some life altering. Then - having completely abandoning Christianity, I searched for enlightenent through everything from the occult, to buddism, to New Age, a Cult or 3, and eventually came back around to Christianity. Having done that, I then read the bible. I continue to read the bible for the same reason that I continue to read the "Backstage Manuel". I learn every time I read it. One I read because I need it in my job, the other because it helps me in life. As to the question "can I be saved without the bible" - I would say "Yes - why not?" It isn't the bible that saves you - or being a Christian that saves you. It is only Jesus who saves. And why is that? Because we mess up. We do what we do, and once done, we own it. There's no magic erasure to undo it, and there's no "redo's". For me - it is not difficult to see that there is just too much within the bible that rings true to me, and makes sense. I'm not going to say I haven't grappled with some of it over the past 50 years, give or take a few. But I've yet to read proverbs and find a whole lot of it "just plain wrong". On the contrary - I CAN'T find an issue in proverbs. I don't see a need to rewrite the 10 commandments. I've broken enough of them and suffered the consequences thereof to know that it's futile to think otherwise. I think - in the long run - the question of necessity for a believer in Jesus is moot. There is a desire to read it. It, as I'm sure you are well aware, is not a book that can be totally absorbed, or understood - in a single reading. But the essence of it is understood when one does. For some, reading it once is enough. For others - there's never enough times for it to be read. So, is it "necessary"? Tough to say. we have a lot in common AJ. i to was raised catholic til the 8th grade. so i know where your coming from. I understand that from the first grade you are "taught" about god and what "roman carholocism" teaches about the bible through the use of the catechism book in school. and also religious classes every day. you say you found out about jesus? of course you did - but not on your own - no one i've wever talked to has "found out about jesus" - on their own. It "requires" someone telling you about him for you to know of him. From the time i left catholocism my life sonds much like yours - i never read the bible either as a catholic, there are few catholics i knew or know that do on a daily weekly or even yearly basis, most have one, but its just an ornament to take with you, especially true of the older ones who like me did not speak the language of latin, so it was no more than pompous ceremony.i studied all religions over a long time also and found "no" religion worth my time, effort, support, or belief in. When i finally returned to "christianity" i was 26, and it was through a friend of mine - a jewish carpenter by trade - no it was not jesus hahaha. his name was willy bogen, a jewish kid who had come upon a book called late great planet earth - that was my entrance into it because i saw what i believed an incredible change in willy that shocked me - so i looked into it - i started out looking into the prophetic ends of things and went on from there but it was a few years before i actually picked up the bible as a whole book to read and upon doing so i saw way to much contradiction in ti and that was when my questioning began of it's "infallability". I'm skeptical by nature and a doubting thomas by nature as a result.but besides that i believe in core logic and using the power of reason and common sense that i have, and sense told me that this was the work of men not an all knowing all powerful god or if it was - he was acting to much like a man and not enough like the god he wants to portray himself to be - , you may not think you need the book AJ, but you do, you may think that you found out of jesus on your own without the book, but you did not, you as i have been duped by the going's on of organized religion - and i say all religion not just christianity. i hope you find your way through it, but if not good luck. by the way willy and the rest of us are no longer christians, or believers. Tribo; Actually - it's LJ. Yes, we did travel a similar path - up until the "contradictions" phase. I too wondered about that, but I did not rely on my own sense of logic to justify it, or dismiss it. I continued my research on it, and discovered the term "exegesis". I realized that conclusions needed to come from total examination of scripture, rather than matching one up against the other. (Case in point - the two different genieologies in Matthew and Luke) Suddenly, apparent contradictions just weren't so, but were merely two different ways of saying the same thing. But the most important thing I discovered was that I did not blindly accept others perceptions. I don't disagree with you on what organized religion has become. Too many self centered, egotistical pseudo-Christians leading others astray from the pulpet. But that's the way it is with "man". Be it religion, politics, education... I do disagree with you on the "needing the book". Unless your reference is that one needs the book to understand Christianity. It would be difficult not to have anything but a subjective understanding of the God who claims to be the creator, and the plans for his creation without it. Else you have "organized religion". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo; Actually - it's LJ. Yes, we did travel a similar path - up until the "contradictions" phase. I too wondered about that, but I did not rely on my own sense of logic to justify it, or dismiss it. I continued my research on it, and discovered the term "exegesis". I realized that conclusions needed to come from total examination of scripture, rather than matching one up against the other. (Case in point - the two different genieologies in Matthew and Luke) Suddenly, apparent contradictions just weren't so, but were merely two different ways of saying the same thing. But the most important thing I discovered was that I did not blindly accept others perceptions. I don't disagree with you on what organized religion has become. Too many self centered, egotistical pseudo-Christians leading others astray from the pulpit. But that's the way it is with "man". Be it religion, politics, education... I do disagree with you on the "needing the book". Unless your reference is that one needs the book to understand Christianity. It would be difficult not to have anything but a subjective understanding of the God who claims to be the creator, and the plans for his creation without it. Else you have "organized religion". tribo: sorry "LJ" my apologies, LJ: I do disagree with you on the "needing the book". Unless your reference is that one needs the book to understand Christianity. TRIBO: One "needs" the "book" to KNOW of god or jesus, yes - but iwas reffering more to your statement that you had found him on your own? LJ: It would be difficult not to have anything but a subjective understanding of the God who claims to be the creator, and the plans for his creation without it. Else you have "organized religion". tribo- yet that is all they had in the bible before the book? and according to it they believed - even without the new testament -correct? to me that proves that all that was necessary was the first 2 chapters of gensis. LJ: and discovered the term "exegesis". I realized that conclusions needed to come from total examination of scripture, rather than matching one up against the other. (Case in point - the two different genieologies in Matthew and Luke) Suddenly, apparent contradictions just weren't so, but were merely two different ways of saying the same thing. But the most important thing I discovered was that I did not blindly accept others perceptions. tribo: I'm well aware of "exegisis" i had spent over 8 yrs with the use of hebrew and greek interlinear text and and scores of of exspensive lexicons, dictionary's of ancient languages,concordences,histories, and other related gems of "wisdom and knowledge" it was not just a mere comparison of verses it was an obsession to get to the truth! Since no two pastors or teacher's could agree on answers to question's i put to them. it always ended up that i was to "Pray" and "just have faith" and the holy spirit would reveal all to me??? well - he / it - did not! I have the same unanswered question's now that i had then. nothing has changed- when i stopped believing i got rid of all my books thinking i would never need or use them again - which was true till i started posting here - hahaha - but i would never spend another dime on anything to do with any religious books what so ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... I could have sworn you said GOD was the torcherer. Who's going off question here? And please don't backtrack and tell me that you meant Jesus was God in your original statement. That would just make you look the fool. Just leave it be and admit you got it wrong. sorry Eljay but non-believers burning in the fires of Hell is all part of "God's Divine Plan" ...it was God's will to designed a way to torture those that didn't obey him and he created the "Fires of Hell" to get the job done ...therefore God is the torturer also if Jesus and the angels will be the ones that will actually throw the non-believers into the fires of Hell...then why is that type of behavior by Jesus acceptable to believers if Jesus's message is supposely one of "Peace".... doesn't that makes Jesus a hypocrite since he is aiding and abeting in the torture of the love ones of his followers as he preach love peace and forgiveness to those same followers so again what would be a rational explanation as to why believers would praise such a person as Jesus that is clearly not a man of peace and could even be considered as being evil and what does that state about the mental state of the believers that do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... So, I see Christianity has been reduced to a religion that stones it's unruly children. Therefore, it can't be valid, and should be abandoned. I wish I could say I admire this logical and critical thinking. Really, you think you've got a grasp of Christianity?
Reduced? You're funny Eljay. Over the past year I have given literally hundreds of reasons why Christianity can't possibly be true and now you're trying to pretend that my rejection of Christianity is based on a single absurdity. Do you really want me to list the myriad reasons why it can't possibly be true? I think I will write up a summary post. Then every time someone tries to make it appear that I've reduced Christianity to just one stupidity I'll post an extremely long list of reasons why it can't be true. The fact that God commanded us to stone children certainly being one of them. I should have thought of this a long time ago. I'll go make that post up right now, and I'll be back to post it, and then I'll start posting it over and over and over again just for fun.
Thanks for the idea. Had you been the only one to post that Abra - I wouldn't have said what I did. But you did not originate that thought, you only parrot-ed it. I give you more credit than merely rejecting Christianity for this absurd notion. I'm actually suprised you threw your hat in the ring on this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... So, I see Christianity has been reduced to a religion that stones it's unruly children. Therefore, it can't be valid, and should be abandoned. I wish I could say I admire this logical and critical thinking. Really, you think you've got a grasp of Christianity?
well "Eljay" it's apparent that you don't have a grasp of Christianity either as you try to be deceptive by presenting your illusions of denial... your first illusion of denial was when you tried to give the illusion that the purpose of Hell was not to torture non-believers and then your second illusion of denial was when you try to create the illusion that God is not the CEO in charge of who get's tortured all you need is one more illusion of denial and you'll be tied with St. Peter Funches; The purpose of hell is for what? To torture non-believers you say. What does the bible say the purpose of hell is for? (Since the concept of hell is a biblical one) Also, when you say "God" - who are you refering to? The CEO in charge of "who gets tortured" as you put it - is Jesus. If you are going to discuss biblical topics leaving the impresion that you understand them - at least get the facts right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<< ElJay >>>
|
|
|
|
|
