Well, not only that. But it wouldn't apply to just rainbows in the sky. Any refraction of light that produces colors like that would also occur only because of this symbolic promise of God. In other words, when you see an oil spill on the ground and it glitters as a rainbow, that too would be the same effect. Light going through a prism or any droplet of water. You can see a rainbow of colors just in a glass of water if the sunlight is hitting it just right.

In fact, it was Isaac Newton that showed that color is actually a property of light, and not of objects. The objects merely have the property of being able to reflect certain frequencies of light.

In a sense you could say that the entire world is just black and white and everything we see as 'color' is actually just a property of the light that falls upon these objects.

Strange isn't it?

So truly there's a very real correlation between light in general and color in general. In other words, if there were no rainbows prior to God's promise to never flood the world again, then there would have also been no color prior to that. Everything would have been just been in black and white.

Besides what's the point in a God promising to never flood the world again if he's constantly threatening to toss everyone into a lake of fire anyway?

Seems like a rather silly promise to me.

I promise I won't drown you, but fail to do as you're told and I WILL burn you!

Some promise.

God threatens no one. Must we forget heaven is a GIFT, it's not an automatically earned thing. It's earned through our obedience, again it's a gift.

So it's not God threatening to toss anyone into hell, it's God giving you a way to save yourself from hell.

But that's not what the myth says. The myth says that you will be condemned and cast into a lake of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. That's a THREAT to anyone who refuses to believe in the myth.

And since the myth claims to be speaking for a "god" then that "god" is depicted as being a "god" who threatens people.

There is no basis in claiming otherwise, for the mythology speaks for itself. It's a mythology about a God who threatens to harm people.

Oh, by the way, if you prefer to believe that God threatens no one you really should check out Eastern Mysticism because it's truly all about a God who threatens no one.



I mean, if you have particular ideals that you think God should be like, then it seems to me that you should choose a religious philosophy that reflects those ideals.

Seems like that would be far better than choosing a doctrine that demands that God is all the things that you don't like in a God, and then spending the rest of your life trying to defend against the very doctrine that you chose as a picture for God.

I've been trying to convey this to you all along. Just imagine what you think God should be like, and then pick a religion that matches that view. Then you won't be in the bind of having to defend a religion that is in constant conflict with what you think God should be like.

Just a thought. I personally found that choosing a religion that best matches how I perceive God to be works best for me.

You don't see me having to defend my religion. It doesn't conflict with my idea of what God should be like, so there's no need to defend it.

This verse among many others show that heaven is a GIFT. It's not an automatically earned object. So therefore hell isn't necessarily a "punishment". We either cease to exist or earn eternal life in heaven. And no one can "buy" there way into heaven by doing good deeds in vein. It's a reward for our obedience.


=================================
Romans 6:23

23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul is just regurgitating the basic mythology here. He didn't invent this stuff. He's just writing about his beliefs.

In fact, Paul wasn't even a Christian until Jesus appeared to him and proved to Paul that he existed. So Paul didn't even need to have faith. Jesus appeared to Paul and stripped Paul of his free will choice to "believe". Paul had no choice but to believe in Jesus at that point.

Assuming you believe Paul's stories, of course.

I personally don't believe Paul.

Weather you wish to believe it or not is up to you. No one can prove ANYTHING to you less you are willing to accept it. We can not prove to you the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, we can no prove playing with fire gets you burned, can't prove water freezes at 32degrees F less you are willing to accept the evidence of such.



Of course Paul wouldn't have been a Christian until Jesus appeared to him, NO ONE was a "Christian" until Jesus walked this earth. Again the word itself is Christ like. So how could one be Christ like if they had not the chance to know of the Christ? And yes Paul still needed faith for he had to have faith that Jesus was telling the truth. Faith is only giving credit to what is being said to be true. And no that didn't strip anyone of free will, he still had the free will to say to Jesus "Well you've got some screws loose in your head man, I will see you later" It was his free will to believe in Jesus. Just as it is your free will not to and my free will to believe as well.

So then why do you bother?

I already told you that I believe in a wonderful truly divine God.

That doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

You keeping trying to push a God onto me who is associated with all sorts of horrible things from male-chauvinism to having his only begotten son butchered on a pole to appease him so that he can forgive people.

I see absolutely nothing good in any of that.

Why are you so bent on trying to dirty up my picture of God?

I already have a picture of God that is far more beautiful than the one you are offering.

So why would I even have any incentive to downgrade my belief in God?

What would be the point to that?

If I'm going to downgrade God into a being who is far less moral than myself I may as well just believe in atheism. In fact, I'd rather believe in atheism than to believe in a God who isn't even as nice as me.

No it wasn't God whom had Jesus put on that cross. It was the men of this world that hung him on there. And no Jesus wasn't butchered on a pole to appease God. Jesus willingly took the pain of death so you would not have to. Wasn't a sacrifice in the essence of sacrificing animals for forgiveness ect. The sacrifice was being put through the pain of death when it was not earned by Jesus himself, he willingly took your death for you so that you could have eternal life.

I fully understand that this is how you view the story. This is your interpretation of things.

I personally feel that the story cannot be made to work this way.

Therefore the story works for YOU.

It does not work for ME.

Do you understand?

Same as the other thread. You continuously state something does not work or does not make sense. Then when I show you that it does, you use a "well that is your interpretation". But you refuse to enlighten us with yours most usually.

Why do you lie?

I've posted many of my interpretations, and you've even argued against them. So why would you claim that I refuse to enlighten you with mine.

I've done it countless times.

You reject my interpretations.

I reject yours.

So what's your problem?

You think of God how you want to, and I'll think of God how I prefer.

That seems reasonable to me.

What's wrong with that?

No you don't my friend. You merely continue to reject the gospel stating they are hear say rumours and or there's no proof or something along those lines. Usually a discussion is done this way.

Me: Jesus is the son of God. The bible specifally states that God said "This is my son in whom I'm well pleased."
You: No he is not, he was merely a budhist. The bible is nothing by hearsay rumours.

See how that works? I say my point of view including reasons and or evidence of such, then you say something including reasons and or evidence why. But most the time it is just you saying something negative about Christianity not including reasons on why it would be negative. Then when someone shows how it's not negative, you use the scapegoat well that's your interpretation. But you refuse to give another possible interpretation of what is being said, you just flat out deny it and leave it there. That's not a discussion my friend.

Genesis 9:13-17

Gen_9:13, "I do set my bow in the cloud,
and it shall be for a token of a covenant
between me and the earth."

Gen_9:14, "And it shall come to pass,
when I bring a cloud over the earth,
that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:"

15, "And I will remember my covenant,
which is between me and you
and every living creature of all flesh;
and the waters shall no more become a flood
to destroy all flesh."

16, "And the bow shall be in the cloud;
and I will look upon it,
that I may remember the everlasting covenant
between God and every living creature
of all flesh that is upon the earth."

17, "And God said unto Noah,
This is the token of the covenant,
which I have established between me and all flesh
that is upon the earth."

Gen_9:13-15. This beautiful phenomenon is owing to the refraction of the beams of the sun in passing the drops of falling rain; the rays are separated into the prismatic colors, and then reflected from the cloud opposite to the sun and the spectator. We need not suppose that the rainbow was unknown before the flood; but God then appointed it to be the cheering seal of his covenant with the earth, which is as steadfast as the natural laws from which the rainbow springs.

American Tract Society Dictionary.

Sexual intercourse per se is not a sin.
That is a gift and priviledge of marriage.

Churches should never teach that it is sin except outside the context of marriage.

You're not being truthful Cowboy.

I have indeed debated with you on that quite extensively, and I have offered many reasons why I feel that it makes sense to believe that Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

It went more like this:

You:

Jesus is the son of God. The bible specifally states that God said "This is my son in whom I'm well pleased."

Me:

I don't believe that we should just automatically trust the writings in a book without thinking about them more deeply.

Consider the following:

First off, if Jesus was not God, then the Gospels are not inspired from God, and are therefore the works of men who had an agenda. So we need to realize that this is indeed the case if Jesus was not God.

I am going to consider the case where Jesus was not God. Therefore I question the things that you point to in the Bible.

My first observation is that Jesus did not teach the same directives and moral values that had previously been taught in the Old Testament. Therefore I see no reason to believe that he was the son of that God. Moreover, I have already made my case why I feel that the Old Testament is already ungodly anyway. So I have even more reason to believe that Jesus was not sent by that God.

However, upon learning of Mahayana Buddhism I have recognized that the teachings that are being attributed to Jesus do indeed match the philosophy and moral values of this form of Buddhism.

That's my first observation.

Then I observe that if Jesus was indeed a Buddhist, he would indeed makes statements like "I and the Father are One", because Buddhism is based on Pantheism. He could have also said things like "Before Abraham was I am", again a meaningful statement for a Buddhist to make.

Even the Gospels have Jesus pointing out that "Ye are Gods". Once again this lines up with Jesus being a Buddhist far more than it does with the idea that he was the Son of the Biblical God.

Even the Gospels have Jesus referring to the Torah as "Your Laws" when speaking to the Pharisees, not "My Father's Laws". And then he calls the Pharisees hypocrites too boot.

In Mahayana Buddhism the concept of a Bodhisattva was quite popular. A Bodhisattva is a person who vows to dedicate their life to helping others find spiritual enlightenment. That's precisely what Jesus was apparently trying to do. He gathered together some disciples, taught them his knowledge, and instructed them to pass it along in the spirit of a Bodhisattva.

So it all fits perfectly.

It s very sound and reasonable hypothesis, IMHO.

One that makes far more sense to me than the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh to pay for the salvation of men.

I just offer it up as a plausible theory.

I think everyone is already aware of the more popular Christian theory that you should just believe everything that is written in the Bible without questioning it.

~~~~

Come to think of it I even have more reasons:

I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus was bringing to mankind a "New Covenant" with God, and didn't even bother to write it up in his own words. Instead he left it up to belated hearsay gossip?

That's highly suspicious to me as well, and doesn't sound to me like something an all-wise God would do. Especially if he was planning on condemning everyone who refuses to believe it. Why let it become the work of mortal men through second-hand hearsay Gossip when he could have written it up in his own divine words?

Surely, if Jesus was truly God, (or the Son of God) he could have written a literary work of art that would knock the socks off anyone who reads it. But clearly that didn't happen.

Instead, all we have is second-hand belated hearsay rumors.

I personally don't believe that an all-wise creator would send such an important "New Covenant" to mankind in such a sloppily fashion.

But I'll grant you that that's my own personal feelings on the matter.

But isn't that ultimately what faith comes down to? Personal feelings?

I don't trust the authors of the gospels to be telling the truth. And I see no reason to trust them.

I agree.

That's a far better way to look at it. In fact the whole Bible should be viewed in this same way. Including the flood itself. The whole thing should be recognized as a moral parable. Not just the rainbow.



The Bible can be a beautiful story when not taken so literally!

It's the literal interpretations that kill it.

Question: "What does the Bible mean by “you are gods” / "ye are gods" in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?"

Answer: Let’s start with a look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34. The Hebrew word translated “gods” in Psalm 82:6 is elohim. It usually refers to the one true God, but it does have other uses. Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.” It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.

This use of the word “gods” to refer to humans is rare, but it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God’s words and would therefore be God’s representative to the king. The Hebrew word elohim is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.

The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.

Now, let’s look at how Jesus uses this passage. Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The unbelieving Jews respond by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?

In contrast, we have the serpent’s lie to Eve in the Garden. His statement, “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5), was a half-truth. Their eyes were opened (verse 7), but they did not become like God. In fact, they lost authority, rather than gaining it. Satan deceived Eve about her ability to become like the one true God, and so led her into a lie. Jesus defended His claim to be the Son of God on biblical and semantic grounds—there is a sense in which influential men can be thought of as gods; therefore, the Messiah can rightly apply the term to Himself. Human beings are not “gods” or “little gods.” We are not God. God is God, and we who know Christ are His children.

© Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries.

It's called teaching by example. If Jesus would have just wrote it all out, then that would leave room for people like you. Well if the son of God himself didn't do it then why should we act as such?



Yes we are ALL children of God, therefore we would be gods ourselves. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN child of God, born of a virgin. He isn't the only child of God, just the only BEGOTTEN child of God.



Yes you have all the right. Hope for your sake it's the truth. May God be with you brother.

What example? There was no example. Jesus never procreated, he never married, never had to play the role of a husband, never had to play the role of a parent or raise children.

There was no example, other than to just sit around and complain that Pharisees are hypocrites.

Some example that is.




Not impressed. Flesh is flesh, DNA is DNA, either Jesus was human or he wasn't. How he might have came to be a human is totally irrelevant.

In fact, I would argue that if God wanted to send his son to Earth, Jesus should have just appeared out of nowhere (like walked in from a desert or something). There would be no reason for him to have to be born as a baby and grown up through a normal life. And certainly no reason to use a mortal woman to give birth to him.

In fact it would have been better if he had no mortal family to be associated with anyway, I think.

This fable is the way it is because the concept of a demigod was easier for people to accept back in those days. There were many fables of divine gods being born of virgin women. That's how mythologies were written back then.





God is with me and she said to say, "Hi".