Nope, I don't recall you having every "proven" any such thing. Especially that the Bible does not deny the existence of other valid Gods.

If you would be so kind as to reiterate your proof I'd like to take a look at it again. If such a thing could indeed be proven it would seem to me to be quote paramount in the world of religion.

I would be tickled pink by such a proof because it would show that the Biblical account of God is but one of many valid religions. I seriously doubt that very many Christian's are currently aware of any such 'proof' and I imagine that most Christians would most likely arguing against your so-called 'proof'.

In fact, I think that would make a great thread in the GR forum.

"Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of other valid Gods?"

Start out the OP with your proof of why you believe it does and see how many people agree with you?

If we see 100% agreement from all the other Christians I think that would be absolutely wonderful. Then all religions would suddenly have total and equal merit and all the arguing about which religion is true would cease.

That would be wonderful.

Go for it!

I would LOVE to see a consensus on that.

If the Christians agree to it unanimously I'll accept it with OPEN ARMS.

I will also pay great attention to your "proof" so I can prove this to any other Christians who are thinking that there is just ONE God.

I'll be looking forward to seeing everyone concede to your "proof".

For people who claim that they would like to see my posts disappear you guys sure do seem to be fixated on reading every wonderful word I write.

Even though your responses clearly show that you seldom understand a word of it. You guys remind me of Jesus' disciples, they had ears but could not hear, and eyes but cannot see. And then they go off and act as though they actually understood what their master was trying to tell them.

I do confess that I've gotten 'down and dirty' over the past few months. I've lost all respect for anyone who supports the Bible as the infallible "Word of God", because they do indeed lie to support their fallacy.

Thomas points out, "Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away".Indeed that is true as there is no doubt the Holy bible will be until the end of time with billions of followers no matter what you or anyone else has to say about it."

The only problem with that is that the overwhelming 'billions' of people who claim to be 'Christian' don't even know what the Bible actually claims. All they did was "accept Jesus as their savior", and hope and pray for the best. The overwhelming majority of them could not pass an exam to become a clergy. In fact there are very few Christians who can even list all of the books in the bible and who supposedly authored them, much less give a recap of what those stories were about.

In other words, the vast majority of Christians on planet Earth don't even really have a clue what the doctrine they claim to believe in even has to say.

Can they truly be considered to be "Christians" when they don't even know exactly what it is that they have agreed to be 'saved' from?

The reason that Christianity has so many 'followers' is simply because nothing is required to become a 'follower' other than to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Then BINGO! You're on board as a full-fledged "Christian" and now all the hardcore fundamentalists can USE YOU as SUPPORT for their hatred and religious bigotry in the name of the Almighty God.

That's how it works. Unfortunately.

It's like a runaway pyramid scam.

Look at Spider!

Even Spider confesses that he doesn't go to church because he doesn't like the crap they preach there.

So even he recognizing that just because people claim to be "Christians" doesn't mean that they have a CLUE about the religion.

In fact, most people feel that way. This is why "Designer Christianity" or "Having a Personal Walk with Jesus" has become the new-age rage. People are renouncing the fundamentalists, and anyone else who claims to have a precise and exact interpretation of the scriptures.

In fact, there are indeed many "Christians" (or people who claim to be "Christians" and thus check the box marked "Christian" on surveys) who totally dismiss the idea that the Bible should be taken 'literally'. They see the stories as mere metaphors and parables, and not the Iron-clad infallible "Word of God".

There are also many religious organizations that claim to be "Christians" thus adding to the COUNT of Christians on Planet Earth, yet many fundamentalists totally renounce them as being "Christians"

There are Celtic Christians who claim to be "Christians", they acknowledge the Bible as one source of the "Word of God". They acknowledge Jesus are our Brother who taught us great morals. And they also acknowledge the God of Abraham as being are "Father". They also acknowledge our heavenly Mother too, but that's another story. Just the same they claim that none of this is in conflict with the Bible.

By the way the Bible cannot possibly claim to be the ONLY word of God. That would be impossible because the authors who wrote the Bible could not possibly have known that their stories were going to end up being selected by King James to be placed into the cannon of stories that we today call the Holy Bible. So nowhere in the Bible can an author possible say that someone must believe that the Bible is the only word of God because the Bible didn't even exist back then.

Same is true of Jesus. Jesus never told anyone that they had to believe that the Torah was the only "Word of God". In fact he never ever referred to it as the "Word of God", on the contrary he always referred to is as "Your Laws" when he was speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees. Evidently he was acknowledging that THEY wrote it, and not God.

Jesus also could not possible have demanded that anyone believe int he writings of the New Testament since those writings did not even exist when he was alive. Nor do any of the authors of those gospels even make the claim that Jesus had instructed them to write anything down. They did that entirely on their own.

So to point to "Christianity" as being represented and supported by "Billions" of people is simply a false notion. Most people just accept Christ as their Savior because they want to do the RIGHT THING and the bulk of the society around them has historically been taught (and YES brainwashed) to believe that the RIGHT THING to do is to accept Jesus as your savior, and become a "Good Christian".

So when fundamentalists point to the fact that so many people are "Christians" to support their bigotry in the name of Jesus, it's truly sad. Because most of those so-called "Christians" would most likely reject the views of those fundamentalists anyway if they were confronted with those views head-on.

I know that even back when I was trying to support Christianity my greatest adversaries were not non-Christians, but rather they were Christians fundamentalists who were trying hard to use Jesus as an excuse to spread judgmental hatred and religious bigotry in the name of Jesus.

And the sad thing about it, is that when you get into arguments with those religious bigots they can ALWAYS back-up their hatred and bigotry using verses from the Bible. And they are REAL QUICK to renounce any verses that you might find to try to renounce their hateful and bigoted conclusions.

They use Jesus as a club to beat people into submission and it's truly SICK.

When have I said that? How about you do me a favor, stop lying about me. You don't have to cut out lying completely, just stop lying about me. Do you think you can do that?



I read until you start ranting and then I move on. It would be rude for me to write a post and not read your reply, but I won't read your vile spew when you go into your little hissy fits.

EDIT: The quote above is where I stopped reading.

Here's some examples of what I'm talking about:

First off, I cannot claim to be a "Christian", because that very term implies that I recognize that Jesus was "The Christ" (the prophecized messiah). I don't believe that, nor do I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin nor rose from the dead.

So I can't claim to be a "Christian", nor would I want to, considering what it actually implies. (i.e. that I acknowledge that Jesus was "The Christ")

I don't acknowledge this at all.

Just the same let's look at what the scriptures say:



John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.


Ok, here we supposedly have Jesus saying these words. Although even these words are a hearsay quote. Just the same let's pretend that they warrant consideration.

Jesus is speaking live to men saying that if they hear his words and believe not, he will judge them not. And he was speaking LIVE to men who were actually THERE in person to hear what him personally speak these things.

Here I am a couple millennia , reading hearsay rumors about this man named Jesus. Well, if Jesus would not judge those who did not believe him in person directly, he most certainly isn't going to pass any judgments on anyone who is reading about this via hearsay rumors thousands of years later.

Moreover, is there even any reason why I should care if Jesus passes any judgments on me? I don't believe he is the judge of our souls anyway. I personally believe he was just making a personal statement there trying to explain that he personally wouldn't hold anything against anyone who doesn't believe what he says. He never meant to imply that he was going to judge anyone's soul for eternity.

So anyway, here we have from the Bible a passage that has Jesus himself claiming to not judge anyone for not believing in him. So the Christian rhetoric that claims that it's important to believe in Jesus is simply false.

Moreover we have the following that Christian fundamentalists often point to:


John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


However, please note that this isn't even being attributed to Jesus as a quote. This is just John narrative opinion. This isn't being attributed to Jesus himself. Why should I believe John personal opinions when they clearly conflict with what even he himself claims that Jesus actually had said.


And then we have the following: (again attributed to Jesus)


John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


I absolutely and totally agree with the quote attributed to Jesus on this point. Whether he actually said it or not is basically irrelevant, but it does indeed sound to me like the words that a Mahayana Buddhist would speak.

You see, I believe that Jesus was indeed teaching the spiritual philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Therefore it makes perfect sense that he would say precisely what he said here.

Jesus is speaking about his WORDS. And what were his WORDS? What did he actually teach? Well, if you are familiar with the spiritual philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism you know that the philosophy is that we must exhibit "right thoughts", "right speech", and "right actions".

This is also what Jesus taught.

So in other words Jesus was teaching the Karma principles of Eastern Mysticism via all his moral parables. And that will ultimately be our "judgment".

There's no need for Jesus to judge anyone.

And therefore religion is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you follow the teachings of Jesus because those teachings are the "Only Way to the Father".

However, those teachings are the very same teachings of Buddhism, Confucianism, and many other spiritual religions and philosophies.

It's not necessary to accept Jesus as the "savior", just accept the moral principles he taught. But those moral principles are not unique to HIM. Therefore it's wrong to believe that Jesus is the "only way". That's a misconception that has been perpetuated for centuries and has been the cause of much religious bigotry in the name of Jesus.

The problem with holding Jesus up as the "Only Begotten Son" of the God of the Old Testament, is that it places all the religious stigma and superstitions of the Old Testament on Jesus' shoulders. It basically nails Jesus to the Old Testament so-to-speak.

This is where the original Christians (i.e. the authors of the New Testament) have gone awry. They simply misinterpreted the message that Jesus was attempting to convey.

So the Modern Christians (in this case, the worshipers of the authors of the New Testament) renounce everyone who rejects that Jesus is the Son of the God of Abraham, and they totally reject the actual TEACHINGS of Jesus as being almost irrelevant in comparison with the idea that a person must accept that Jesus is GOD! And that the Old Testament was the Word of God!

That's where Christianity has gone awry, IMHO.

Good, we're making progress. Maybe someday you can free yourself from your obsession with me altogether.

Ummm.....two sons, two daughters.....unfortunately no sinning occurred ....and any godlike delusion who gets their knickers in a twist over my procreation efforts best tie on the apron, peg out the washing, and do the dishes...

Hey Jess.

Wow, changing the goal posts already?

You went from "denies other gods' existence" to "tollerates other religions" to "Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of other valid Gods"... Just too damn funny!

Your deception is quite transparent...

Tell you what... Get your semantics out of the way first because you are way too predictable.

Define: "Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of other valid Gods?" What exactly do you mean by "valid"?

Then drop the capitalization of "Gods".

You also need to drop this condition: "If the Christians agree to it unanimously I'll accept it with OPEN ARMS."

If you can do that, then I want your solemn word that you will honor your original statement that you will respect Christianity if I prove these things. Because so far you have not shown any honorable intention nor honesty in your posts.

Really man, the only person you're fooling here is yourself. Backpeddling, denial, lies, bigotry and lame insults does not make a logical debate, so try being honest for once.

You have my solemn word that I will respect Christianity if you can prove that the Bible acknowledges other Gods (and not merely references a notion of FALSE gods) We all know that it references FALSE gods. There's no biggie there.

However, how do you go about validating your so-called "proof"?

You calling card appears to me to simply make off-the-wall statements and merely act like you've "proven" something.

Here's what I offer to you,...

You don't even need to PROVE you claims. All you need to do is convince the other Christians of your claims and get a convincing consensus.

I offer you the way to do this on these very forums. Just start your thread entitled, "Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of other valid Gods?"

Then give your proof, and see how many Christians chime in with agreement.

It would seem to me that if they all happily chime in with agreement then all the years they spent proselytizing and evangelizing that Jesus is the only way to God would have all been in vain.

Moreover they would need to also acknowledge that Jesus is merely the only begotten son of but a single God, a God who doesn't even necessarily apply to everyone.

Sure, if you can do that I'll be more than happy to respect the NEW Christianity because it will be a far cry from the current Christianity. In fact the NEW Christianity that you're dreaming of would have no choice but to recognize other Gods, and therefore other religions.

I think that would be a very interesting thing, but of course, it's never going to happen.

What would happen with the Abrahamic religions? Even if they acknowledge that there are other Gods, they are still stuck with having different views on what the God of Abraham was like, so their disagreements would continue anyway, as sad as that case may be.

So anyway, have at it. See where it leads. I'll be looking for you thread.

You don't need to convince me, just get the other Christians to climb on board, and I'll be super impressed. Especially if you can get people like Cowboy, Thomas and Spider to acknowledge your "proof".

That would be extremely impressive I think.

Then I could finally speak about the Moon Goddess without having the Christians screaming, "NO! ONLY JESUS IS GOD! Blah, blah, blah!"

I think that would be great!

Give it your best shot, and I wish you the greatest of SUCCESS!

Now let me explain why this is never going to happen:

You say:


Why drop the capitalization? Are they valid Gods or not?

Everyone knows that the bible acknowledge FALSE gods, but false gods don't exist at all, that's why they are "false" gods.



Why should I drop that condition?

If you can't even convince a Christian of your so-called "proof" about Christianity then why should I accept it? Clearly you aren't very confident in your so-called "proof" if you think the Christians can easily dismiss it or won't accept it.

As far as I'm concerned I can prove that the Bible as a whole fable is totally inconsistent, full of contradictions and fallacies, and that Jesus could not possibly have been the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham. I have more than enough proof of all these things.

But the Christians reject them all because they aren't interested in anything that doesn't place Jesus as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That's the only OUTCOME they are interested in. Anything else simply doesn't hold any interest for them, no matter how much evidence there is to support it. Evidence is utterly meaningless to a Christian if it's not supporting the ideology that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

So now you're threatening that very ideology as well.

Go for it, let's see how far you get.

And if you can't convince the "Christians" then why should I accept your personal views of "Christianity" as a "respectable religion" when, in reality, you're views are anymore "Christian-like" than mine?

That is man's commandment to other men.

Can't you tell?

Peter Pan,

On a personal note I think there are some things you need to realize.

If we had met in person in some way, the following TRUTHS would have most likely become apparent.

1. We probably would have never even gotten into a conversation about religion unless it came up inadvertently as a question about something else.

2. If you told me that you are a Christian I would say that's Great. I doubt very seriously that I would even offer you any comments about my spiritual or philosophical views unless you specifically asked.

If you did ask, I would simply say that find the Eastern Mystical views to be the most interesting. I would only continue on that line of conversation if you continued to inquire why I feel this way.

3. My respect for you would not be affected in the least based on what religion or philosophy you affiliate yourself with. I would not spontaneously begin to interrogate you on why you believe in Christianity.

4. Only if you asked me if I believe in Christianity or the Bible would I volunteer that I do not. I would drop it right there unless you continued to interrogate me as to why I do not believe in it. They I would give you my reasons and I would indeed be quite blunt, because you're already 'invading' my personal life by questioning my beliefs. So I'll give you straight answers to the questions you ask.

5. The ONLY WAY that this could become a problem at all is if YOU were to continually HARP at me that I need to believe in the Bible to be saved, or whatever.

In short, if we had met in person religion would not even become an issue unless YOU make it an issue.

I very seldom, discuss religion with people LIVE. I don't go out of my way to argue with Christians. In fact I would prefer not to do that live because they do become emotionally charged about such things and often become angry and bitter, and I'm not wanting to experience that.

On these forums I can remain removed from emotion. Sure people on the other end might bang their heads against walls and lose sleep over a difference of religious views, but I don't. And that's THEIR CHOICE. They don't need to come into a religion forum if they don't want to discuss ALL the possibilities. They CHOSE to.

They also don't need to READ my posts and they whine about how they wish I would go away.

If they don't like what they read all they need is a teeny tiny bit of self-discipline and NOT READ THEM. It's that simple.

That's why I have chosen to do this on a forum rather than doing it live in people FACES. I don't want to bother anyone who doesn't want to be bothered. If people are READING my posts, they obviously the WANT to be bothered.

Otherwise they'd find something better to do with their valuable TIME.

lol, I didn't expect you to honor your original statement...

So now what? Business as usual I guess, of course with the same material from 3 years ago.

I guess not since you refuse to give me a chance to honor it by refusing to follow through on your supposed claims.



Sure looks that way to me. All I ever see you do is post that you have supposedly already "proven" something, but I never see hide nor hair of any of these supposed "proofs". Until I see that change I guess it will remain business as usual in terms of any correspondences with you.

I've already acknowledge a long time ago that you're a "Designer Christian". I might actually find your version of Christianity to be somewhat reasonable. If I recall correctly, you reject the idea that Jesus died to pay for anyone's sins, or that he was the sacrificial lamb of God. Personally I'd agree with those assessments myself.

Now you're suggesting the the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods, and claim to be able to "prove" this. I think you should at least share with everyone what parts of the Bible you feel make these claims. Personally I would find them very interesting.

In the meantime, you seem to always be claiming to have "proofs" of things, but then when asked to share them them they instantly disappear and you come back with some nonsense that someone else is failing to 'honor' something.

What have you shown that needs to be honored?

I haven't even seen you post a rational "theory" much less any "proofs".

Where in the Bible do you believe that a particular author has acknowledged (or even suggested) that other valid Gods exist that are not the God of Abraham?

I would be extremely interested in what other Christians think about this. I personally think that would make a great thread. If I had a clue what verses or chapters you are talking about I'd post the topic myself and see what other people think of it.

It the meantime it appears to me that you don't even have anything that even remotely suggests such a thing, much less could be seen as 'proof'.

Hiya AB...

Evidence for what?

That human's wrote the Bible.

I think we already KNEW that.

It's the superstitious (or spiritual) side of things that's in question. Thus there is no evidence at all for the spiritual and superstitious claims of the Bible.

None. Zip. Zilch.

In other words, the Bible doesn't have a leg up on any other mythology as they were all created around human cultures. They can all be backed up with archeological evidence. The Incas, the Aztecs, the Myans, you name it. There's even evidence to support that various people in Celtic folklore actually existed. Of course, just like the Biblical stories, this doesn't mean that the supernatural or spiritual elements were true.

Also, when it comes to the New Testament it's all secondary hearsay opinion. Opinions that were clearly contested by contemporaries of the time. So even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that some guy preached against the Torah and was crucified for his views, even that wouldn't support the hearsay rumors of the New Testament. It would only support that they were indeed sparked by a controversial figure. I'm personally already more than willing to accept that. But that doesn't send me running off to swallow all the hearsay rumors verbatim. Like as if those guy could have possibly known and quoted every word that they claim to have quoted anyway. That, in itself, is extremely unreasonable, IMHO.

A "judging", think about it my friend. When you go to court for a judgement, do you not get to defend yourself and try to prove yourself innocent? He was saying that will not be done, "he" won't be judging you nor anyone else with emotional feelings that could be swayed. We will be judged by the law, the word. If it says it's wrong and you will receive so and so punishment, then that is what will happen.

EXAMPLE
-------

The law states 7 year imprisonment for stealing something over $100. When faced before the judge, the judge himself isn't whom judged you, for the law itself stated 7 year imprisonment for stealing something of such. Thus you were already judged before you even faced the judge. Just the law book itself does not have the ability to punish you for it is merely a book. So with that you would need a "judge" to carry out the punishment of a crime.

Therefore as Jesus was saying he will not judge them, but the word judges us all. And I have no idea how you're tying Jesus judging someone with someone not believing in him already being condemned. Jesus didn't judge them as such, it is merely written in the law that it be so. Not specifically Jesus judging that way.

Krishna.

Baga-va-gita.

Prior to that...

Sumerian ledgends of the gods. (strong resemblance to Nephlim).

Oh... Did you mean only christian historians claim 'nothing but a vague' resemblance.

Where do you think the three wise men came from. (east on a globe can be a loooong way).

Think about this my friend. That's your interpretation, not mine.

Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, bow down and worship your interpretations?

Why don't you bow down and worship mine?

What "word" do you think Jesus was speaking about?

Obviously you have some sort of delusions that Jesus was speaking about the writings in the Torah as being "the word".

I see no reason to even remotely think like that. Jesus clearly didn't even agree with the laws that were written in the Torah. The authors of the gospels always quote Jesus as referring to the Torah as "your law" when he speaks with the Scribes and Pharisees.

I'm viewing Jesus in a whole different light from you. I recognize Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist. Therefore when he was speaking of "the word" he was speaking of the wisdom that he was personally teaching and sharing with everyone.

And those teachings aren't referring to any sort of 'written laws' like you seem to think. They are referring to the wisdom of karma.

So you have a view of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of the God of the Old Testament who is always referring to the Torah as "The Word", when in fact, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think of Jesus in that way.

In fact, that can't even be made to work. You seem to recognize that fact as you acknowledge that Jesus would have had to have brought a "New Covenant" with "New Laws". Therefore it would be utterly absurd to think that he was referring to the Old Laws as "The Word". So it doesn't even work in that scenario.

It makes no sense at all, either way, to think that "The Word" that Jesus was referring to was anything other than his very own teachings. And his teachings are the same as the teachings of Buddhism.

I personally don't believe that Jesus himself ever said anything like, "No one gets to the father except by me". What he might have said is that no one gets to the father except through the things he was teaching. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

I personally believe that the men who wrote the rumors that made it into the New Testament simply misunderstood what he was attempting to teach. And unfortunately their misunderstanding became the basis for an entire religion that uses his name to support these misunderstandings.

Spider was telling me that Mary herself rejected the rumors about the divinity of Jesus. Is that true? And if so, what do you think about that? If the very woman who was supposed to have given birth to the son of God denies the rumors, then why should anyone else believe them?

Does this mean that Mary went to hell because she rejected the divinity of Jesus?

Damn! I guess I'll be in good company when I get there too.

How could Mary reject these rumors and other people continue to cling to them? That's ridiculous. She would KNOW!

Yet according to Spider the Bible has Mary denying Jesus? That's interesting. I never suspected that Mary herself actually supported my conclusions. Why don't they teach people these things in church?

That's the first thing they should do. "Oh, by the way, the women who was supposed to have been a virgin and gave birth to the baby Jesus denies the whole myth as nothing but rumors"

I haven't looked that up myself to verify it, but I can't imagine why Spider would make up something like that. It doesn't even support the myth, it actually has Mary renouncing the myth. I think there's got to be more to it. It seems to me that if Mary is recognize in the Bible to have rejected the divinity of Jesus then the whole thing would just totally fall apart. She supposedly was asked by angels and gave her consent! Should would KNOW! How could she deny it?

That's crazy, either Spider is pulling my leg, or the Bible is in far worse shape than even I thought. That would be a clincher right there would it not? Having the virgin Mary denying the whole rumor?

No wonder the Jews rejected this stuff. There would be no basis for it whatsoever if that's the case.

What are the similarities between Jesus and Krishna? For your own sake, don't use a radical website that seeks to shame Christianity. Use a legitimate source. There have been many attempts to smear Christianity as a copied religion and all of them have used huge amounts of false claims.

Also, there weren't 3 wise men, but "wise men" with three different types of gifts. People assume that there were 3 wise men, but no Biblical account gives a number.

Jesus is the word, the word made flesh.
---------------------
John 1:14

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
----------------------

Or as we call it these days, the new testament.