ahh,, because repentance has to be sincere, and obviously a pre meditated repentance would not be,,,


kind of like, an adultering spouse feeling like as long as they say sorry afterwords, all is well

if its just being used as a get out of consequences free card,, it doesnt work,,,,it has to be heartfelt and sincere, which cant be planned ahead

An old and incapable/incapacitated person -- with nothing to hope for -- is, usually, very sincere!!!

Of course I don't believe in making any decision based on rewards in the afterlife - but many religious recommendations for self-restraint give us rewards here and now.

a God that makes itself known disproves itself as a God

any entity that creates imperfection is not a God...
any entity that create perfection is no longer the only God
any entity that creates above perfection is no longer the God

this is why a true God would not create anything

You have to have faith that this same God, whilst frowning upon having pleasure on Earth, will actaully smile upon having pleasure in heaven.

In other words, you have to believe that God is schizophrenic when it comes to his ways in heaven as opposed to is attitude toward Earthly life.

If you're a woman you also need to have faith that in heaven God isn't a male chuavinist like he is portrayed to be in the Bible.

Well, when you refer to HE, to whom are you referring? Yahweh or Jesus?

When I read the Old Testamant I don't see a wise or loving God at all. On the contrary I see a god being depicted as being truly unwise and unloving. I see a god that I personally feel could use some lessons on how to better communicate and educate his children. The god being depicted in the Old Testament neither communicate well, nor does he solve problems intelligently or wisely IMHO.

So from my perspective the Old Testament portrays a God that isn't nearly as wise or compassionate as even me. So I see absolutely no reason to believe that these stories are anymore more than Zeus-like fables.

Now when we get to the Christian New Testament of Jesus, we've got a whole new ballgame.

First off, if I've already rejected the fables of Yahweh as being less wise and compassionate than a mere mortal man. (i.e. myself as one obvious example), then there is no reason for me to believe that Jesus would be the son of that ficticious god.

Moreover, I would agree that the moral teachings that have been attributed to Jesus are indeed highly wise and intelligent. However, do they match up with the moral teachings of Yahweh in the Old Testament? NO absolutely not. That's even further reason to reject the idea that Jesus would be the son of Yahweh. Jesus taught a compltely different value system. In fact, what Jesus taught wasn't even anything new! Buddha taught precisely the same values as Jesus 500 years earlier. Other wise mortal sages taught very similar things in many different cultures. So the teachings of Jesus not only differ from the teachings of Yahweh, but they aren't even any different than what many MORTAL men had taught.

So from my perspective I see absolutely no reason to believe the rumors that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh. THere's just nothing in that idea that even begins to make any sense to me whatsoever. The very idea of a god who needs to resort to blood sacrifices before he can "forgive" people their frailties (which he, as their creator. would ultimately be RESPONSIBLE for anyway), is an idea that I flatly reject as being neither wise, nor loving, nor even sensible.

Add to this the fact that the teachings of Jesus are so vastly different from the teachings of Yahweh, and so perfectly in line with the teachings of Buddha, and what motivation would I have left for believing that Jesus was the son of Yahweh?

My only conclusion must be that the whole Christian New Testament is nothing more than a false rumor. At least as it applies to wanting to make Jesus out to be the sacrifical lamb of Yahweh. That whole ideal is just totally out of character with what Jesus even stood for, IMHO.

Page 34 and still no concrete proof of a god? I'd have thought we could all agree on a deity or two by now.

Well according to the hearsay in the Bible even the gospels have Jesus saying, "Have I not said, ye are gods?"

So if we can trust the "word of Jesus" then clearly we're all gods. Why anyone would think that Jesus was the only incarnation of god after that is beyond me.

According to Steve Buscemi in Airheads- Lemmy is God

the HE I refer to is the Creator,,,the semantics of a name dont affect my faith of my love for HE who created me

and perspective is very personal,,,,I respect yours,,,,,mine is different,,,

forgive me for my snickering....

1st, you call the Bible hearsay...
2nd, you use said "hearsay" and misquote it...
3rd, you purpose that your misquoted words support the fact that "we're all gods"...
4th, if you really knew the Bible, then you would understand the implications of #3...

There can be only one, all others are false gods and I don't deny their existence. The question is... Do all the others deny the existence of the ONE TRUE GOD???

Well, I personally think it's pretty obvious that the creator of the universe is a SHE. Just look around. You can see every color imaginable in nature. If God was a Guy, he would have only created the basic colors and there wouldn't be any such thing as chartreuse, lavender, magenta, etc. Clearly God is a SHE.

No. I was referring to the Christisn NEW TESTAMENT in reference to the supposed teaching of Jesus. That is hearsay by its own proclamation. There is nothing in the NEW TESTAMENT that claims to be the actual written word of Jesus. Therefore it is all necessarily hearsay.

The Bible does not contain a single solitary word that came directly from Jesus. Everything that it has to say about Jesus is hearsay.

That's just the cold hard facts that even the aurhors themselves confess to. Nowhere does it claim to contain the written word of Jesus directly. It's all hearsay. All of it, without exception.

So if it's hearsay, why (mis)quote it?

Well first off I didn't "Mis" quote it.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, YE ARE GODS?

Secondly, just because it's hearsay is no reason not to quote it. After all, if it disagrees with the Christian propaganda that Jesus claimed to be the only begotten son of God then it's still incompatible with that conclusion, even if it IS hearsay.

There are many contradictions and conflicts even within the hearsay.

The point is that it's not even consistent hearsay.

One of the gospels has Judas taking the reward money back to the temple and casting it down on the floor then going off to hang himself. Another gospel has Judas keeping the reward money and buying land with it and then falling head long into a revene where his gut gush out.

Clearly these are not only eye-wittness accounts, but they aren't even consistent rumors.

But even taken as hearsay, the story is incompatible with it's own plot. Even the Gospels have Jesus teaching totally opposing morals from what had previously been taught in the Old Testament.

So my point is that even as a made up rumor it still doesn't make any sense. Most of the teachings that the gospels attribute to Jesus are far more in-line with what Buddha taught and not at all in-line with what had been taught in the Old Testament.

So my points are valid even when commenting on the story as being nothing more than rumors and exaggeration, which I personally believe is precisely what they are.

I believe that some man named Jesus (or whatever) did indeed teach many of the moral concepts that the gospels claim. I also believe that he was crucified for blaspheme. Mainly because what he taught didn't agree with the Old Religion. So I believe that a man named Jesus actually did live, teach, and was publically crucified for his teachings.

In that sense I believe that there was indeed a basis for the biblical rumors. But trying to make Jesus into the Son of Yahweh is a rumor that makes no sense even within the context of these very gospels. Too much of the Buddhist views that Jesus taught leaked through, Such as I and the Father are one. That's the Eastern Mystic view. And "Ye are Gods", that's the Eastern Mystic view.

All these things that were attributed to Jesus are precisely the same things one would expect to hear from a Buddhist Monk. Especially including the moral teachings which are in far greater alignment with the teachings of Buddha, and in completely contrast to the teachings of the Old Testament.

I'm trying to look at the whole picture rationally. Jesus was as much a victim of the mythology of Yahweh as anyone else. Trying to make out that he was the son of Yahweh only add insult to injury.

_______________ Dear Abra_______________
Thank you from the bottom of my heart!!!

Your quirky wisdom and sarcastic sense of humour make my time spent in this particular (worthless) thread quite worthwhile!!!

BRAVO!

I cannot answer why the command was made from Jesus

""Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). "


based on this gender related adjective, I also refer to him as HE

Yes, you did misquote it... (again)
We've been through this before. As someone who claims to have studied scripture, you very well know the difference between "god" and "God". You also know what "god" refers to. (priests, landowners, senator, ppl in high power and false gods).

For you to take said "hearsay" and try to use it to prove your point of view, which is totaly opposite of said "hearsay" (that we are all gods...), is a bit commical. I'm sorry, but you totaly support said "hearsay" in your attemtps to bastardise the Word.

Like was said in the "Highlander" movies... "There can be only ONE!"

Damn, that was deep...

You just blew my mind...

I've always agreed with that. I have no idea if there's a god, or not, but if there is, SHE is definitely a WOMAN.