100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If you break Gods Commandment did you sin? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Man and woman were not created together in the image of "God" When doing something, steps are needed to be taken. See this is a prime example of people just trying to cause problems, for if God would have made eve first then adam from eve's rib it would then be a female-chauvinistic thing. And yes we are both created in the image of God. If you take a picture of you, then make a copy of that image the copy is nevertheless in the image of you. Same concept with women. ------------------------------------ Yes, if done in the opposite direction it would have been a female-chauvinistic thing. But evolution reveals God's true wisdom, he allowed male and female to co-evolve side-by-side thus avoiding the whole issues. 
Eve was created as an afterthought by God from a rib of Adam to be Adam's "helpmate". No Eve was made to be Adam's PARTNER. Not a "helpmate" Even in businesses partners are just as important as the other and no one is greater then one another, but are equally needed. -------------------------------------- Well, I'll grant you that this could also be a valid interpretation if you like. Woman is credited with convincing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. Therefore woman is ultimately responsible for the fall from grace of mankind, or at least inciting it. Only if you wish to put the blame on women, Christians don't. Cause with that mentality alot of murderers should be set free for they didn't do it, their gun was whom killed the person. No, it was THAT person's actions that did it. Same as with Adam, it was HIS action to eat of the tree. He didn't have to, but chose to any ways. Both people are equally responsible for getting us kicked out of the garden. BOTH ate of the fruit. -------------------------------------- Again, personal interpretation. I see it as the woman inciting the man. The Bible says that a female slave is only worth half as many sheckles as a male slave. Try using a little common sense will you please. In that day and age most the work slaves were doing was physical labour. Yes there are strong women out there, but for the majority males are stronger then women. So therefore men would be more worthy in the physical labour area. No discrimination or anything, just a simple rule of nature. Well, I personally don't think much of a God who condones slavery anyway and the buying and selling of slaves anyway. The Bible says that women are not to speak out in public on important matters, especially not on religious matters. The old testament does yes. But again there HAS to be ONE leader in matters in life. Again if the shoe would have been on the other foot people would then again say "The bible says that women are not to speak out in public on important matters, blah blah blah" -------------------------------------- I disagree that there needs to be just one leader. Where do you come up with that idea? Is that why you favor the idea of a single dictating Godhead? Are you thinking that if there was more than one God they would disagree and argue with each other? I personally believe that a marriage and family should always do everything via full consensus. In fact, this idea that only a dictatorship can work is one of the principal problems I have with the overall philosophy of this religion. If our creator wanted to teach us something of real value the creator would have us always form a consensus in everything we do. Quit trying to SHOVE your views down the throats of others, and you won't need to hear their views. I'm shoving no views down anyone's throats. It is you my friend that is shoving your views down other people's throats. We are in a "General Religion Chat Forum" therefore we come to discuss religious matters. It is you that come in and try to shove your views down our throats with professing there is no God. Again we don't shove our beliefs down anyone's throats, if you do not wish to believe in the father then so be it. Go on your marry little way and ignore us. Bull crap. When did I ever tell you that there is no God? On the contrary Cowboy, you know that's a lie. I just got finished telling you that I don't even restrict God to a finite gender. This is again YOU attempting to shove your beliefs down the throats of others. YOU are demanding that IF we aren't discussing the BIBLICAL GOD then we can't be discussing "God" at all! 
So now you're trying to claim that I don't believe in God at all because I don't agree with YOUR PICTURE of God. Who's SHOVING again???
I allow for you to believe in your Biblical God. Just don't SHOVE him onto me as "My Father". That's all I ask. Talk about "Your Father", all you want. But don't speak of him to me as being "Our Father" in the General Religion forum. If you want to do that go over to the Christian Forum where everyone will agree with you! You're the one who's trying to SHOVE the Biblical God down everyone's throat here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Man and woman were not created together in the image of "God" When doing something, steps are needed to be taken. See this is a prime example of people just trying to cause problems, for if God would have made eve first then adam from eve's rib it would then be a female-chauvinistic thing. And yes we are both created in the image of God. If you take a picture of you, then make a copy of that image the copy is nevertheless in the image of you. Same concept with women. ------------------------------------ Yes, if done in the opposite direction it would have been a female-chauvinistic thing. But evolution reveals God's true wisdom, he allowed male and female to co-evolve side-by-side thus avoiding the whole issues.
Eve was created as an afterthought by God from a rib of Adam to be Adam's "helpmate". No Eve was made to be Adam's PARTNER. Not a "helpmate" Even in businesses partners are just as important as the other and no one is greater then one another, but are equally needed. -------------------------------------- Well, I'll grant you that this could also be a valid interpretation if you like. Woman is credited with convincing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. Therefore woman is ultimately responsible for the fall from grace of mankind, or at least inciting it. Only if you wish to put the blame on women, Christians don't. Cause with that mentality alot of murderers should be set free for they didn't do it, their gun was whom killed the person. No, it was THAT person's actions that did it. Same as with Adam, it was HIS action to eat of the tree. He didn't have to, but chose to any ways. Both people are equally responsible for getting us kicked out of the garden. BOTH ate of the fruit. -------------------------------------- Again, personal interpretation. I see it as the woman inciting the man. The Bible says that a female slave is only worth half as many sheckles as a male slave. Try using a little common sense will you please. In that day and age most the work slaves were doing was physical labour. Yes there are strong women out there, but for the majority males are stronger then women. So therefore men would be more worthy in the physical labour area. No discrimination or anything, just a simple rule of nature. Well, I personally don't think much of a God who condones slavery anyway and the buying and selling of slaves anyway. The Bible says that women are not to speak out in public on important matters, especially not on religious matters. The old testament does yes. But again there HAS to be ONE leader in matters in life. Again if the shoe would have been on the other foot people would then again say "The bible says that women are not to speak out in public on important matters, blah blah blah" -------------------------------------- I disagree that there needs to be just one leader. Where do you come up with that idea? Is that why you favor the idea of a single dictating Godhead? Are you thinking that if there was more than one God they would disagree and argue with each other? I personally believe that a marriage and family should always do everything via full consensus. In fact, this idea that only a dictatorship can work is one of the principal problems I have with the overall philosophy of this religion. If our creator wanted to teach us something of real value the creator would have us always form a consensus in everything we do. Quit trying to SHOVE your views down the throats of others, and you won't need to hear their views. I'm shoving no views down anyone's throats. It is you my friend that is shoving your views down other people's throats. We are in a "General Religion Chat Forum" therefore we come to discuss religious matters. It is you that come in and try to shove your views down our throats with professing there is no God. Again we don't shove our beliefs down anyone's throats, if you do not wish to believe in the father then so be it. Go on your marry little way and ignore us. Bull crap. When did I ever tell you that there is no God? On the contrary Cowboy, you know that's a lie. I just got finished telling you that I don't even restrict God to a finite gender. This is again YOU attempting to shove your beliefs down the throats of others. YOU are demanding that IF we aren't discussing the BIBLICAL GOD then we can't be discussing "God" at all!
So now you're trying to claim that I don't believe in God at all because I don't agree with YOUR PICTURE of God. Who's SHOVING again???
I allow for you to believe in your Biblical God. Just don't SHOVE him onto me as "My Father". That's all I ask. Talk about "Your Father", all you want. But don't speak of him to me as being "Our Father" in the General Religion forum. If you want to do that go over to the Christian Forum where everyone will agree with you! You're the one who's trying to SHOVE the Biblical God down everyone's throat here. Well, I personally don't think much of a God who condones slavery anyway and the buying and selling of slaves anyway. The slaves you speak of where not treated or done in the same essence of slavery that has been practiced around the world in the past. They weren't an "object". Slavery was an occupation, it wasn't forced. Slavery was in the same essence of a butler, maid, or jobs as such. The masters were to treat their slaves with great respect and pay them for their services, again it wasn't a forced form of thing, it was moreso an occupation. --------------------------- I disagree that there needs to be just one leader. Where do you come up with that idea? Is that why you favor the idea of a single dictating Godhead? Are you thinking that if there was more than one God they would disagree and argue with each other? Do countries not have ONE ruler when all said and done. There is ONE head. But the head must do things to satisfy the other parts. Even this country example, the ruler does have the power, but he must do things to keep the country satisfied, he must provide for them, he must keep them safe. So in essence in a relationship they are both the leaders. The male has to run the family, but he has to run it to where it is efficient and all the parties are happy. He can not run it as a dictator, more so democracy if you may. The male is to support the family financially and the woman is to support the family emotionally. Thus they both have their responsibilities and jobs in the family, thus making not one of them greater then the other. Again both equally important. --------------------------------------- Bull crap. When did I ever tell you that there is no God? On the contrary Cowboy, you know that's a lie. I'm sorry I was mistaken. But yet my point still remains, this is a RELIGION DISCUSSION forum. That means we come to discuss religion. No one is shoving their beliefs down anyone's throats, just merely discussing the matter. And outside of THIS forum in real life, we don't shove anything down anyone's throats. We can NOT FORCE anyone to believe or not believe, we do not try. For if it's forced it's in vein and isn't true heartedly searched for. If you do not wish to believe in our father, that is your choice. There is NOTHING we could do to force you to believe as such. So I do not know where you get this we're shoving anything down anyone's throats. --------------------------------- So now you're trying to claim that I don't believe in God at all because I don't agree with YOUR PICTURE of God. I'm shoving nothing on anything. Again, we're in a RELIGION DISCUSSION forum. Therefore i'm here to DISCUSS religion, and of course in a discussion there will be opposing sides. So again, it's not shoving anything down anyone's throats, it is merely discussing a different faith then what you believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still can't believe you said the following:
Cowboy wrote:
It is you that come in and try to shove your views down our throats with professing there is no God. I have never once professed that there is no God. I'm an not an atheist. I do confess to being a mortal human though, and thus I'm necessarily agnostic as we all necessarily must be. But that's just being honest. Not shoving agnosticism onto anyone other than the obvious fact that unless they actually possess divine knowledge they must necessarily be "without knowledge" which is what agnostic means. In the meantime, I would be glad to offer my views of what God might be like. But every time I do you come into those threads making a case for the Biblical God and renouncing my views. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still can't believe you said the following: Cowboy wrote:
It is you that come in and try to shove your views down our throats with professing there is no God. I have never once professed that there is no God. I'm an not an atheist. I do confess to being a mortal human though, and thus I'm necessarily agnostic as we all necessarily must be. But that's just being honest. Not shoving agnosticism onto anyone other than the obvious fact that unless they actually possess divine knowledge they must necessarily be "without knowledge" which is what agnostic means. In the meantime, I would be glad to offer my views of what God might be like. But every time I do you come into those threads making a case for the Biblical God and renouncing my views.
That is what this forum is for, sharing your views of what God might be like. Nothing being shoved on anyone, just merely discussing your beliefs. That is what has blown me away and put in my mind that you did not believe in a god, for you do not share your beliefs and or not often. You merely try to put Christianity down, but you do not share the opposite and or your belief on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
I'm shoving nothing on anything. Again, we're in a RELIGION DISCUSSION forum. Therefore i'm here to DISCUSS religion, and of course in a discussion there will be opposing sides. So again, it's not shoving anything down anyone's throats, it is merely discussing a different faith then what you believe. I beg to differ. When you claim that your views represent "Our Father", and that my views represent a refusal to acknowledge and obey the commandments of "Our Father", you are Blatantly Proselytizing Christianity as the Only True Word of God Plus, you've confess this yourself on many occasions. You have clearly stated that you are "Serving your Lord" on a mission to "Spread His Word" You're clearly attempting to use the General Religion Forums as a podium to Evangelize Christianity to "non-believers". This is why it would do you absolutely no good to stick to the Christian Forums because you aren't interested in merely discussing religion. All you are interested in is Evangelism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
I'm shoving nothing on anything. Again, we're in a RELIGION DISCUSSION forum. Therefore i'm here to DISCUSS religion, and of course in a discussion there will be opposing sides. So again, it's not shoving anything down anyone's throats, it is merely discussing a different faith then what you believe. I beg to differ. When you claim that your views represent "Our Father", and that my views represent a refusal to acknowledge and obey the commandments of "Our Father", you are Blatantly Proselytizing Christianity as the Only True Word of God Plus, you've confess this yourself on many occasions. You have clearly stated that you are "Serving your Lord" on a mission to "Spread His Word" You're clearly attempting to use the General Religion Forums as a podium to Evangelize Christianity to "non-believers". This is why it would do you absolutely no good to stick to the Christian Forums because you aren't interested in merely discussing religion. All you are interested in is Evangelism. Yes that is usually how discussions are done. I say so and so is right and this is why, if you have an opposing view you'll say this and this is not right and this is why ect. Of course in a discussion forum we're bound to have apposing beliefs in things. That's why we come to discuss them to possibly show the other's our side of the coin. And again that is generally what a discussion forum is for, a place to discuss that of which the forum is for. In this case it's religion, so of course we will come to discuss our religion with others just as they come to discuss there's with us. Nothing being pushed on anyone or anything. Just merely discussion. And no i'm not interested in evangelist or anything of such, again just merely discussing my religious beliefs since this forum is indeed the place to do as such. Cause the same could be said for you, you're an evangelist of whatever belief you hold. It's just you that wishes to give it "titles" and or call people a certain name for certain actions. Just gotta remember there's two sides to this coin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
And no i'm not interested in evangelist or anything of such, Then why have you said in the past that you are just doing the work of your Father in spreading his Word? Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or did you simply change your mind and quit doing the work of your Father? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
And no i'm not interested in evangelist or anything of such, Then why have you said in the past that you are just doing the work of your Father in spreading his Word? Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or did you simply change your mind and quit doing the work of your Father? If you would include everything that goes with what you're quoting you wouldn't have these kinds of questions. I'm merely discussing religion and keeping people like you from spreading insults to the Christian faith. Discussing the religion and keeping people like you from spreading false pretences about Christianity. To show people the truth of your twisted delusional accusation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Same with God our father. I say our father for weather you wish to accept him or not he is still nevertheless your father as well. You can worship whom ever you wish or not worship anyone at all, that is your choice. But still nevertheless you do still have but one father just as you still have but one real mom and dad on this earth. No Cowboy. That doesn't play. First off, there is no reason for me to put gender onto spirit by referring to "Our Creator" as "Our Father". That's your male-chauvinistic biblical bigotry already. It reeks of Zeus. You're already putting a personified egotistical image onto "God" when you do that. I'm a Pantheist (Panentheist to be more precise). I don't view God as a jealous egotistical male Zeus-like Godhead. Your very term "Our Father" is already a devious unhanded attempt by you to try to slip your view of a male-chauvinistic bigoted godhead into the door-jam of my beliefs. I will have none of it. You may refer to your belief in a male-chauvinistic bigoted godhead as "Your Father", and leave me out of it. 
Moreover, you also equate the Biblical ignorance as the "Laws" of "Your Father". I don't accept that the Bible has anything at all to do with God. So as far as I'm concerned Cowboy, you're already acting like a purposeful brain-washer using extremely cheap and dirty tricks to try to shove your male-chauvinistic bigoted Godhead onto me. So no, every time you refer to your male-chauvinistic bigoted godhead as "Our Father" it makes me puke. 
Speak of YOUR BELIEFS, not mine! I'll speak for myself, thank you. Christianity is not male-chauvinistic. Let me break it down for you. Your body - Would NOT function without a head, would not function as sufficient with two heads for one would want to do this and the other would want to do that. - Your left arm is just as important as the right - Your left leg is just as important as the right - Your head would not fuction without the heart Left arm - Man Right arm - Woman Left leg - Man Right leg - Woman Head - Man Heart - Woman No one is more important then the other. Both are just as needed as one another. Each person has his/her job but nevertheless BOTH are equally needed to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. If you wish to get a carriage somewhere you need ONE driver, ONE head to move the OTHER parts in harmony with one another to get where you're going or accomplish what you wish to get done. So just because in the family the man is the "head" of the family, that DOES NOT mean that he is more important, greater, or anything of such in the family. EVERYONE is equally needed in everything, male or female. So please if you wish to spread your lies go else where for I will be here always to show people your lies. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know that they have successfully completed a HEAD Transplant yet,,, just saying
lol, being precocious ( I do think the head has a pretty singularly COMPLEX function) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
And no i'm not interested in evangelist or anything of such, Then why have you said in the past that you are just doing the work of your Father in spreading his Word? Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or did you simply change your mind and quit doing the work of your Father? If you would include everything that goes with what you're quoting you wouldn't have these kinds of questions. I'm merely discussing religion and keeping people like you from spreading insults to the Christian faith. Discussing the religion and keeping people like you from spreading false pretences about Christianity. To show people the truth of your twisted delusional accusation. Well, you haven't done a very good job of that, IMHO. I've shown ample reasons why the religion can't possible be the words and actions of any supposedly all-wise God. I've shown why it makes far more sense to view Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who's views were grossly distorted by the biblical rumors. And that's a valid view. Moreover it does not "insult" Christianity in the least. 
Not in the least. On the contrary it's an extremely respectable view. Far more respectable, IMHO, that to believe the biblical rumors that Jesus was a sacrificial lamb of God. Personally I find that notion to be quite demented and sick. So I'm offering a far more healthy scenario to what may have actually happened historically. No way could you suggest that my views are anything but purely healthy and sane. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
And no i'm not interested in evangelist or anything of such, Then why have you said in the past that you are just doing the work of your Father in spreading his Word? Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or did you simply change your mind and quit doing the work of your Father? If you would include everything that goes with what you're quoting you wouldn't have these kinds of questions. I'm merely discussing religion and keeping people like you from spreading insults to the Christian faith. Discussing the religion and keeping people like you from spreading false pretences about Christianity. To show people the truth of your twisted delusional accusation. Well, you haven't done a very good job of that, IMHO. I've shown ample reasons why the religion can't possible be the words and actions of any supposedly all-wise God. I've shown why it makes far more sense to view Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who's views were grossly distorted by the biblical rumors. And that's a valid view. Moreover it does not "insult" Christianity in the least.
Not in the least. On the contrary it's an extremely respectable view. Far more respectable, IMHO, that to believe the biblical rumors that Jesus was a sacrificial lamb of God. Personally I find that notion to be quite demented and sick. So I'm offering a far more healthy scenario to what may have actually happened historically. No way could you suggest that my views are anything but purely healthy and sane. I've done a very good job at it thank you very much me and the select few other people in this forum. You've not shown any contradictions or anything that held grounds. Yes after we showed you they were not actually contradictions you would say something along the lines "well that's your interpretation". And saying we're taking verses out of context which we weren't. And outside of the contradictions, you've shown no such thing as problems or reasons why it's not or anything of such about Christianity. All you've accomplished is helping me in giving me something to do in my extra time and I thank you for this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
And no i'm not interested in evangelist or anything of such, Then why have you said in the past that you are just doing the work of your Father in spreading his Word? Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or did you simply change your mind and quit doing the work of your Father? If you would include everything that goes with what you're quoting you wouldn't have these kinds of questions. I'm merely discussing religion and keeping people like you from spreading insults to the Christian faith. Discussing the religion and keeping people like you from spreading false pretences about Christianity. To show people the truth of your twisted delusional accusation. Well, you haven't done a very good job of that, IMHO. I've shown ample reasons why the religion can't possible be the words and actions of any supposedly all-wise God. I've shown why it makes far more sense to view Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who's views were grossly distorted by the biblical rumors. And that's a valid view. Moreover it does not "insult" Christianity in the least.
Not in the least. On the contrary it's an extremely respectable view. Far more respectable, IMHO, that to believe the biblical rumors that Jesus was a sacrificial lamb of God. Personally I find that notion to be quite demented and sick. So I'm offering a far more healthy scenario to what may have actually happened historically. No way could you suggest that my views are anything but purely healthy and sane. I've done a very good job at it thank you very much me and the select few other people in this forum. You've not shown any contradictions or anything that held grounds. Yes after we showed you they were not actually contradictions you would say something along the lines "well that's your interpretation". And saying we're taking verses out of context which we weren't. And outside of the contradictions, you've shown no such thing as problems or reasons why it's not or anything of such about Christianity. All you've accomplished is helping me in giving me something to do in my extra time and I thank you for this. pst....... got a secret for you as well I didn't mention in my previous post. Your insults aren't insulting at all, they are quite comical, you should try to join a comedy club. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Thu 11/18/10 07:37 PM
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
've done a very good job at it thank you very much me and the select few other people in this forum. You've not shown any contradictions or anything that held grounds. Yes after we showed you they were not actually contradictions you would say something along the lines "well that's your interpretation". And saying we're taking verses out of context which we weren't. And outside of the contradictions, you've shown no such thing as problems or reasons why it's not or anything of such about Christianity. All you've accomplished is helping me in giving me something to do in my extra time and I thank you for this. Denial of the truth doesn't change it. Besides, look at what you're bending over backwards to support via your twisted interpretations: A fable that demands that all of mankind is at odds with his creator. And has purposefully chosen to be. A fable that requires that the only way mankind can get back into 'grace' with his creator, is for his creator to have to sacrifice his son to a horrible death to "pay" for the sins of man?
I mean, give me a break, if that wasn't so utterly despicable that would be comical right there! pst....... got a secret for you as well I didn't mention in my previous post. Your insults aren't insulting at all, they are quite comical, you should try to join a comedy club. I don't give out any insults. That's your delusion. All I do is point out that the Old Testament is far too violent and ignorant to be the words and actions of any "God". How can that be seen as an 'insult'? Even theologians recognize the violence in the Old Testament. At one point God commands his people to murder every man, woman, and child of another culture and show no mercy just so his people can move onto "promised land'.
To suggest that such a horrifying scenario is ungodly surely cannot be taken as an 'insult' to anyone. To suggest that the entire Old Testament appears to be absurd and unrighteous myths, should not be seen as an insult to anyone, unless they personally wrote the stories. Also, why would you call it a comedy club to suggest that Jesus might have actually been a mortal man? What's so funny about that? I think it's far more comical to believe that he was born of a virgin, disagreed with everything his father supposedly had taught as moral values, and then rose from the dead. To me that sounds like material for Saturday Night Live. What I'm suggesting actually makes sense. He was a mortal man who taught against the moral values of the Torah, was crucified for his views, and then rumors rose up about this man claiming that he was some sort of demigod. Where is there anything insulting or funny in any of that? You just CLAIMED that you are here to DISCUSS religions topics, yet all you do is LAUGH and RIDICULE at every religious scenario I put forth. You claim that my very sane and down-to-earth explanation is a 'comedy' show, yet you expect me to believe that some God turned lot's wife into a pillar of salt and not LAUGH at that notion?
Who's being serious here, and who's entertaining comedy REALLY? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Even theologians recognize the violence in the Old Testament. At one point God commands his people to murder every man, woman, and child of another culture and show no mercy just so his people can move onto "promised land'."
Abbra this is obviously something created by the personal ideology or for the personal gains of a man people looked to as a leader. Most of whome (in that time) were also 'leaders' with the local 'religious system' which gave the law of the land. It is why a person should read the bible carefully... Gods hand is in it but mans hand created it... (and when were WE ever perfect). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Even theologians recognize the violence in the Old Testament. At one point God commands his people to murder every man, woman, and child of another culture and show no mercy just so his people can move onto "promised land'." Abbra this is obviously something created by the personal ideology or for the personal gains of a man people looked to as a leader. Most of whome (in that time) were also 'leaders' with the local 'religious system' which gave the law of the land. It is why a person should read the bible carefully... Gods hand is in it but mans hand created it... (and when were WE ever perfect). 
Perfect position on the subject, recognising both aspects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
've done a very good job at it thank you very much me and the select few other people in this forum. You've not shown any contradictions or anything that held grounds. Yes after we showed you they were not actually contradictions you would say something along the lines "well that's your interpretation". And saying we're taking verses out of context which we weren't. And outside of the contradictions, you've shown no such thing as problems or reasons why it's not or anything of such about Christianity. All you've accomplished is helping me in giving me something to do in my extra time and I thank you for this. Denial of the truth doesn't change it. Besides, look at what you're bending over backwards to support via your twisted interpretations: A fable that demands that all of mankind is at odds with his creator. And has purposefully chosen to be. A fable that requires that the only way mankind can get back into 'grace' with his creator, is for his creator to have to sacrifice his son to a horrible death to "pay" for the sins of man?
I mean, give me a break, if that wasn't so utterly despicable that would be comical right there! pst....... got a secret for you as well I didn't mention in my previous post. Your insults aren't insulting at all, they are quite comical, you should try to join a comedy club. I don't give out any insults. That's your delusion. All I do is point out that the Old Testament is far too violent and ignorant to be the words and actions of any "God". How can that be seen as an 'insult'? Even theologians recognize the violence in the Old Testament. At one point God commands his people to murder every man, woman, and child of another culture and show no mercy just so his people can move onto "promised land'.
To suggest that such a horrifying scenario is ungodly surely cannot be taken as an 'insult' to anyone. To suggest that the entire Old Testament appears to be absurd and unrighteous myths, should not be seen as an insult to anyone, unless they personally wrote the stories. Also, why would you call it a comedy club to suggest that Jesus might have actually been a mortal man? What's so funny about that? I think it's far more comical to believe that he was born of a virgin, disagreed with everything his father supposedly had taught as moral values, and then rose from the dead. To me that sounds like material for Saturday Night Live. What I'm suggesting actually makes sense. He was a mortal man who taught against the moral values of the Torah, was crucified for his views, and then rumors rose up about this man claiming that he was some sort of demigod. Where is there anything insulting or funny in any of that? You just CLAIMED that you are here to DISCUSS religions topics, yet all you do is LAUGH and RIDICULE at every religious scenario I put forth. You claim that my very sane and down-to-earth explanation is a 'comedy' show, yet you expect me to believe that some God turned lot's wife into a pillar of salt and not LAUGH at that notion?
Who's being serious here, and who's entertaining comedy REALLY? The old testament may seem violent and not like a righteous god compared to the new testament for you do not understand the two. Before Jesus walked this world we were judged by our peers using the word. The word was then made flesh so now the word can carry out the judgement on it's own eg., Jesus. Jesus has ALWAYS been the judge, just in the days of the old testament the word had no name nor was it flesh and bone it was just that the word. Now the word has been made into flesh and bone to carry out the judgement relieving us of making judgements towards each other. And no even now it's not all a bed of roses, life isn't a bed of roses. It's not ment to be all beautiful like a fairy tell. It's straight up the truth. It's not buttered up to be all pretty and innocent, no. Our father wanted to tell us exactly what will happen for our disobedience and exactly what will happen for our obedience. Sorry it's not all pretty and beautiful like running through a field of clover all day with the sun shining. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
The old testament may seem violent and not like a righteous god compared to the new testament for you do not understand the two. I understand perfectly how you believe you can make it work. I just totally disagree with your THEORIES. Just as you totally disagree with mine.
And a very huge part of it is shown below: Before Jesus walked this world we were judged by our peers using the word. The word was then made flesh so now the word can carry out the judgement on it's own eg., Jesus. Jesus has ALWAYS been the judge, just in the days of the old testament the word had no name nor was it flesh and bone it was just that the word. Now the word has been made into flesh and bone to carry out the judgement relieving us of making judgements towards each other. No, that makes absolutely no sense at all, IMHO. Jesus can not possibly be said to be the "Word" of the Old Testament made flesh, because he didn't even agree with the basic tenets of the Old Testament moral values. Not even close. Jesus taught the moral values of the 12 laws of karma, not a repeat of the Old Testament. Not even close. And no even now it's not all a bed of roses, life isn't a bed of roses. It's not ment to be all beautiful like a fairy tell. It's straight up the truth. It's not buttered up to be all pretty and innocent, no. Our father wanted to tell us exactly what will happen for our disobedience and exactly what will happen for our obedience. Sorry it's not all pretty and beautiful like running through a field of clover all day with the sun shining. Not a bed of roses? No absolutely not. This religion is seriously obsessed with the concept of sin to an extremely unhealthy degree. And it would be the creator in this story that is totally responsible for precisely what his creation has become. In order for me to believe in this religion of YOUR CHOICE, I would need to place such extreme limitations on what God could be like that I could not possible believe that God is infinite in anything. Certainly not in power, wisdom, communication skills, or anything else truly. To believe in this biblical picture of God demands that I believe that God is a bumbling inept fool incapable of possessing even average human intelligence. He's even been limited to the masculine only (by an obviously heavily patriarchal society that made him up) There's certainly no reason at all that I would want to place FAITH in the idea that God is so grossly inept. And there isn't a logical reason to believe in this religion at all. None whatsoever. Therefore, if I'm going to believe in a "God" I must consider truly wise pictures of a truly infinite God. Either God is infinitely wise and powerful, or maybe we should start thinking like the atheists. But the bumbling biblical God is nothing but an idiot. There's nothing there worthy of worship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Even theologians recognize the violence in the Old Testament. At one point God commands his people to murder every man, woman, and child of another culture and show no mercy just so his people can move onto "promised land'." Abbra this is obviously something created by the personal ideology or for the personal gains of a man people looked to as a leader. Most of whome (in that time) were also 'leaders' with the local 'religious system' which gave the law of the land. It is why a person should read the bible carefully... Gods hand is in it but mans hand created it... (and when were WE ever perfect). I totally agree. In fact, that's precisely what I'm saying. I agree that there are hints of mysticism in the Bible. There is *some spiritual truth* in it. Let there be no doubt about that. There are actually many pantheistic statement all through the Bible. The bible is also filed with shamanic visions. It clearly states on many occasions that people were given spiritual wisdom though dreams and psychic visions. The Bible even has a King going to a witch who contacts a dead spirit for him. There are many elements of spirituality in the bible in places. But there is also a LOT of what is obviously nothing more than the opinions of men. Often times those opinions are clearly self-centered on what those men wanted to be true at the time. I have no problem with recognizing that there are *some* spiritual truths peppered throughout the biblical writings. But to take the whole thing literally in every detail and call it the "Laws" of God, is just utter nonsense, IMHO. And that's precisely what it's being held out to be! I can see the pantheistic spiritual truths in the bible. I even see them clearly in the teachings of Jesus. But all the rhetoric that he was born of a virgin, was the only begotten son of the God of the Old Testament, and was the sacrificial lamb to pay for this sins of man, is where the thing goes sour. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
The old testament may seem violent and not like a righteous god compared to the new testament for you do not understand the two. I understand perfectly how you believe you can make it work. I just totally disagree with your THEORIES. Just as you totally disagree with mine.
And a very huge part of it is shown below: Before Jesus walked this world we were judged by our peers using the word. The word was then made flesh so now the word can carry out the judgement on it's own eg., Jesus. Jesus has ALWAYS been the judge, just in the days of the old testament the word had no name nor was it flesh and bone it was just that the word. Now the word has been made into flesh and bone to carry out the judgement relieving us of making judgements towards each other. No, that makes absolutely no sense at all, IMHO. Jesus can not possibly be said to be the "Word" of the Old Testament made flesh, because he didn't even agree with the basic tenets of the Old Testament moral values. Not even close. Jesus taught the moral values of the 12 laws of karma, not a repeat of the Old Testament. Not even close. And no even now it's not all a bed of roses, life isn't a bed of roses. It's not ment to be all beautiful like a fairy tell. It's straight up the truth. It's not buttered up to be all pretty and innocent, no. Our father wanted to tell us exactly what will happen for our disobedience and exactly what will happen for our obedience. Sorry it's not all pretty and beautiful like running through a field of clover all day with the sun shining. Not a bed of roses? No absolutely not. This religion is seriously obsessed with the concept of sin to an extremely unhealthy degree. And it would be the creator in this story that is totally responsible for precisely what his creation has become. In order for me to believe in this religion of YOUR CHOICE, I would need to place such extreme limitations on what God could be like that I could not possible believe that God is infinite in anything. Certainly not in power, wisdom, communication skills, or anything else truly. To believe in this biblical picture of God demands that I believe that God is a bumbling inept fool incapable of possessing even average human intelligence. He's even been limited to the masculine only (by an obviously heavily patriarchal society that made him up) There's certainly no reason at all that I would want to place FAITH in the idea that God is so grossly inept. And there isn't a logical reason to believe in this religion at all. None whatsoever. Therefore, if I'm going to believe in a "God" I must consider truly wise pictures of a truly infinite God. Either God is infinitely wise and powerful, or maybe we should start thinking like the atheists. But the bumbling biblical God is nothing but an idiot. There's nothing there worthy of worship.
And this is why his teachings didn't coincide with the teachings of the old testament. Matthew 5:17 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. That law was fulfilled, completed, finished with the coming of a saviour. Jesus was that saviour which then he gave us a new law, new prophesies. And God is infinite. What makes you think he's not? In order for me to believe in this religion of YOUR CHOICE, I would need to place such extreme limitations on what God could be like that I could not possible believe that God is infinite in anything. What limitations? God is infinite and almighty. Again, what limitations are you referring to? |
|
|
|
|
