I respect how you feel. Consider this though. If Perception is reality, you have your reality and others have theirs and it wouldnt be reality if they werent(or you werent) firmly grounded in it.

what you see one way could also be viewed as such

Person one, I think msharmony is a white male who collects fingers in her basement, I respect that you dont believe that, but Id rather not believe that msharmony is so pathetic as to be a black woman with children


person two It seems evident to me that msharmony is a black female with children and if you dont see that you arent looking closely enough or you dont wish to see the truth


now EITHER side may claim a high road of just 'suggesting another view' , but the truth is both sides are so GROUNDED in their truth that they may BOTH be human enough to occasionally and repeatedly condescend to and insult what the others reality is,,,


thus continuing the 'argument' until one choses to just 'let go' (often confused in these threads with agreeing with or submitting to the final word)

I make no accusations. You continuously state that the information/history we do have of God is hogwash. So if you feel it's hogwash it would be safe to say you reject it. I don't "accuse" you outright do it.

The information/history we do have of God?

That you're assertion, not mine.

Yes it is my stance that the Hebrew mythology (merely one of many such "God fables") is indeed a fable just like all the others.

Besides you don't accuse me of rejecting the stories to be from God!

Of course I take that stance on my own.

You accuse me of Rejecting God because I refuse to believe these stories have anything to do with God.

I think it's crystal clear to everyone that I don't believe the stories came from God.

That's a GIVEN!

I've already offered my interpretation of this "history".

The Old Testament is just another fable not all that much different from Greek mythology, IMHO. In fact, it's my view that these basic concepts of male-godheads who are appeased by blood sacrifices are far too similar not to have sprung from the same basic superstitions.

It's my belief that Jesus was a mortal man, most like a Jew who held a more pantheistic view of "God". I believe that he was mostly likely trained and educated in the ways of Mahayana Buddhism because everything he taught is in harmony with those views and values, including the concept of "God and I are One" and "Ye are Gods"

I personally believe that all of the behaviors and moral values that he taught are in perfect harmony with the philosophy that the Buddhists call the "12 Laws of Karma".

Jesus renounced the moral values and directives of the Old Testament. He rejected the stoning of sinners in a very clever way. He rejected the seeking of revenge as in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and instead he taught tolerance and forgiveness and to "turn the other cheek" rather than to seek revenge. Again, it's my view that this is far more in line with the teachings of Eastern Mysticism and Mahayana Buddhism than it is with the teaching of the Torah.

Jesus referred to the Torah as "Your Laws" when he was speaking with the Pharisees, rather than as "Gods Laws". He also accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites. So I see no reason why to believe that Jesus was supporting the Torah as the "word of God".

Everything points to the most likely conclusion that Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, including him having disciples and teaching them his knowledge and asking them to go forth and teach it to others. That's precisely what a Bodhisattva does.

I can easily see where the teachings of Jesus could very easily be misunderstood and made into the New Testament hearsay rumors that we see today. In fact, since Jesus actually did teach against many of the moral values and directives of the Old Testament, the Scribes and Pharisees were probably desperate to prop up their original religious values. So when rumors started that Jesus might have been "The Christ" that was the opportunity the Scribes and Pharisees needed to write up these New Testament stories using Jesus to prop up the very dogma that Jesus himself had dismissed.

That's a very valid and reasonable view of "history". It most certainly could have happened precisely as I say. Mahayana Buddhism was at it's peak right at the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. And everything fits like a glove, as far as I'm concerned.

So there's no reason to be accusing me of "rejecting God". On the contrary, if Eastern Mysticism is true, then perhaps Jesus was indeed a messenger from God who was sent to the Hebrews to try to show them how their original Torah was not from God (of if it had been from God at one point it had become grossly contaminated by the scribes and pharisees whom Jesus proclaimed to be hypocrites).

So hey, in my version of things, Jesus could have still be a divine source of information. He was just delivering a different message from what the Christians think is all.

For all you know Cowboy, my view of this ancient history could be right on the money.

I'm not renouncing any "God Concept". I'm not even renouncing the moral values that had been attributed directly to Jesus himself. (Paul's later ramblings would be meaningless, as would anything from the Old Testament).

Am I refuting Jesus? No. Not at all.

On the contrary, I'm rejecting the religion that was built up around rumors about Jesus. A religion that has become nothing more than an excuse to point figures at people in the name of a "jealous God" and accuse them of rejecting God if they don't cower down to a specific interpretation of ancient historical writings, rumors and hearsay.

Cowboy, you view me as the "enemy" of your religion, simply because I disagree with it the religion. But then you take that a step further and try to make out like I must also b e the "enemy" of God too! Because you demand that religion = God.

All I'm saying is that there may very well be a God (or maybe there isn't), that's something none of us can truly know until we die. But if there is a God, I don't believe that Christianity represent that God in verbatim detail.

Why should I?

Christianity is merely one fragment of a far older religious myth. A myth that I personally reject as being outrageous. A myth that even Jesus didn't agree with in principle on matters of moral conduct and directives.

I personally feel that my view of who Jesus truly was actually makes sense.

So you can use your religion and your "Rubber Jesus Doll" to condemn me on the charge of refusing "God" simply because I don't buy into your religion,...

OR,... you can consider the very real possibility that I might actually have a sane explanation for what would otherwise be an absurd story.

We don't need to use God as an excuse to drive a wall of separation between us. We can simply agree to disagree on ancient history and accept that we are both in harmony with any potential creator that might exist.

There's simply no need to use religion to create division between mankind.

I'll accept that you are in harmony with God. I don't believe that God will hold it against you for believing in the Christian view of ancient fables.

All I ask of you is to do the same for me. Accept that no sane reasonable God would hold it against me for believing that Jesus was a sane reasonable man who was simply misunderstood.

That's all I ask.

And you can't do that, whilst simultaneously accusing me of "rejecting God".

You need to recognize that my views of ancient events does not constitute a 'rejection' of any God.

It does constitute the rejection of particular ancient hearsay stories and fables, but we all do that. We all reject the Greek religion as being mere mythology for example.

Well, I'm just adding Hebrew religion to the list of mythologies is all. That's my personal choice and it does not in any way equate to any "rejection of God" anymore than refusing to believe in Greek religions is a "rejection of God"

Yes I reject Zeus and Yahweh as possible "Gods".

But that doesn't mean that I reject any genuine spiritual essence of life or spiritual creator.

Christians truly need to get past this crap of accusing everyone of rejecting "God" just because they refuse to swallow Christian dogma.

Jesus renounced nothing.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I don't see you as an enemy. Don't take offense to this please, I don't mean it in a sense of calling you a little kid. But what I see in you is an abused confused child who needs guidance. I'm offering my love in showing you the truth about life.

"truth about life" is a relative concept...

It depends upon how much life one has lived, how well one has lived that life...

and what that life has brought to one...

simply because you have found what is a key for you...

does not mean that key fits the gate that stands before me.

Or the one that stands before Abbra.

I find that quite interesting Cowboy.

So you believe that God condemns abused confused children who need guidance into a lake of fire for not believing that the ancient Hebrew speaks on his behalf?

I supposed you also feel that Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking and so on and so forth are also abused confused children who need your guidance? I think I'm in good company.

And let's not forget the Jews, the Muslims, even the Catholics who still insist on believing in hell. And then there's all the atheists throughout the world. The Wiccans, the Buddhists, the Hindus,... and let's not forget the other Protestants who don't agree completely with Cowboyanity.

So if you were a parent, and you felt that your child was an abused, confused child in need of guidance you'd cast them into a lake of fire?

I don't know about you, but personally I'd take the child home and see if I could heal them and help them to become unconfused.

I wouldn't be casting them into a lake of fire for not believing in sick demented ancient Hebrew fables that have God instructing parents to stone their unruly children to death.

Oh wait!

That's the same picture of God you're trying to sell.

Hmmmm?

Very interesting indeed.

What does that have to do with worshiping God in any way? Faith in our father isn't necessarily a choice someone makes, then see's it doesn't appease them so they change ect ect. Worshiping our father isn't worshiping some man made fairy tell, isn't worshiping the bible, it is just that, worshiping our father, our creator, our provider.

How can one not take it as an insult to be regarded as a child, ignorant and unworthy of the respect of a grown person to know what it right and wrong for themselves? How arrogant to assume you know better than others.

I'm just a child as well. I have to depend on our father giving me food, I have to depend on him to give me the opportunity to have a roof over my head. Seek the lord first and then seek things for one self. So how is it an insult to be regarded as a child? Children are inocent at heart, they are sweet, caring, and search for the true treasures in this world. They search for love and interacting with one another in a playful, fun, loving way.

You're contradicting yourself Cowboy.

You say, "Worshiping our father isn't..., isn't worshiping the bible"

Yet, if someone like me renounces the Bible as having anything to do with God you take conniptions and start accusing me of "refusing to obey God".

I even offer sane and reasonable explanations for how Jesus got caught up in those man-made fairytales. Yet, you refuse to even accept my "saving" of Jesus from the biblical myths.

Evidently you are absolutely insisting the following:

1. The Old Testament is the "Word of God".
2. Jesus is the prophecized messiah from those biblical myths.
3. Jesus speaks for God.
4. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even Paul, speak for Jesus!
5. Anyone who refuses to recognize Jesus as "The Christ" is refusing to worship God.

And then you say, "Worshiping our father isn't worshiping some man made fairy tell, isn't worshiping the bible"

Then why do you insist on demanding that we believe in the Bible and accuse us of rejecting God if we refuse to believe in the Bible?

You're not making any sense.

Face it, you're supporting a specific doctrine as the "Word of God". You're demanding that people believe in the Bible as the "Word of God" and anything short of accepting the Bible as the "Word of God" will be determined by you to be "rejection of God".

Period Amen.

In fact, you even want to have the final word on how the things from these ancient texts should be interpreted anyone else's interpretations are simply wrong including the Catholic Popes who support the interpretation of hell being an eternal place of human suffering.

Those damn Catholic HEATHENS!

They must be abused children who are hopelessly confused and in dire need of your supreme divine guidance!

Why can't you allow other people to have their own ideas of what the creator of this universe might be like?

Why can't you let them chose WHO they believe might best speak for God, if anyone.

Why can't you allow atheists to believe there is not God. After all, that's a legitamate view too. And it would be entirely between them and any creator of life.

Maybe the "True" creator of life (if there even is one) doesn't care whether people believe it exists or not. Maybe God doesn't have an ego and isn't jealous, and doesn't care about being "worshiped".

Maybe that's totally unimportant to an infinitely powerful creator. Maybe the whole concept of jealousy and a need to be worshiped is strictly an ideal that came from mortal men.

Have you ever thought about that possibility?

But that's not what you implied. You implied that I am an abused confused child in need of guidance, and then you offered to provide that guidance.

So you were in no way implying that you are in the same situation.

You were claiming to be in a far superior position of knowing "Truth".

No not true, why do you make everything so personal? If a child helps another child get a splinter out of their hand, does that make one of the children more superior to the other? Or if a child helps another child with numerous other things, would that imply that one of the children are "superior"?

If one knows how to do mechanics, but one doesn't. Is the one that does "superior" to the one that doesn't?

If one know how to repair computers, but one does. Is the one that does "superior" to the one that doesn't?

No it doesn't mean one of them is "superior". Not one person on this earth has ALL the knowledge of everything. One person knows this and one person knows that.

Only because of what's inside of the bible. The bible itself is only as valuable as the paper it's printed on. The knowledge that bible holds is what is valuable. You don't renounce the "bible". You renounce the "knowledge" inside of the bible. If you reject the "bible" you would then reject the "knowledge" held inside the bible.

Not particularly exact, no. Accepting Jesus as lord and savior makes that one pure, clean. He is the path to our father. So yeah if one doesn't accept Jesus, they can't get to our father, cause there is only one path to him. Just this is the way God wishes to be worshiped.

Jesus has always been the way, the path to our father. Jesus is the word in flesh. Before the word was made flesh the people of this world was given the word to follow. Now the word has been flesh and we are still to follow that word.

Old testament times: They had the word, the laws our father wishes for us to abide by and a way to achieve forgiveness for sins and trespasses.

New Testament time: We have the word in flesh. He has given us the laws our father wishes for us to abide by in the new covenant between man and God. And through Jesus we can achieve forgiveness for our sins and trespasses.

Climb down off your ego Cowboy, you clearly stated:


"I'm offering my love in showing you the truth about life."


You're going to show me the truth about life?

How arrogant is that?

When I was 22 years old I used to argue for Christianity too.

Although, I can't honestly say that I was ever quite as arrogant about it as you are. I never accused anyone of rejecting God if they didn't believe in Christianity. Of course, as a Free Methodist I was taught to have more faith in Jesus than apparently you have.

We gave Jesus the power to save whomever he so chooses. It's not for us to say what a person must believe in order to find grace in the eyes of the Lord.

~~~~

As to the rest of your posts, what are you doing? Just rehashing the same old stuff. Do you honestly think I haven't heard all of that before?

It's baloney!

I know the biblical story Cowboy.

I'm telling you that I don't believe it is the word of any God!

How can you not understand that?

Evidently you can't comprehend that. You're just not capable of understanding that extremely simple thing.

Let me try it one more time and please read this as carefully as you possibly can and really try to let it seep in until you fully understand it.


I do not believe that the Bible contains the Word of God


Can you comprehend that?

You also say the following:



What the hell are you talking about here?

When I refer to the Bible I AM INDEED referring to the stories, parables, and claims that are being made in that doctrine.

What the hell do you think I'm referring to? A particular specific printed copy?

I most certainly do reject the idea that the knowledge contained in the bible is the "Word of God".

Absolutely!

Are you only just now grasping this concept, after we've been discussing this information for many months?

Of course I'm talking about the INFORMATION contained in the biblical cannon! Sheesh!

I'll say it one last time:


I do not believe that the Bible contains the Word of God


And thus all of your previous posts here are totally meaningless. All you do is continue to treat the Bible as though it's the Word of God. You just take that for granted as a 'given'.

I don't.

I offer my reasons why I feel that the information contained in the bible cannot possibly have come from any all-wise, all-intelligent, all-loving, all-caring, all-perfect, all-powerful entity.

That's my stance.

Absolutely.

Are you only just now comprehending that this is my position?