James 2:14-26

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

Cowboy,




I'm sorry I have not read the very lengthy conversation between you and Abracadabra, but I would like to comment on the above statement.

Everlasting life? That's nice if its true.

However I am still extremely skeptical of the entire story, and I can't really say I believe it. There are too many things that cause me to mistrust the Church and how they picked over all the ancient scriptures and chose what they would allow in the Bible and what they would throw out. Seems very political to me.

I don't think God wrote the Bible anyway. Men did. I also suspect that the entire new testament is a plagiarised forgery.

If indeed a savior died to save mankind on earth, at any time, for any reason, regardless of the story, well, then, I thank him very much.

Excuse me?

So let's put this in your HUMAN analogy that you so love to use.

You're the father and you command a very young baby not to stand up in the crib. You leave the room and when you return you find the baby standing up and you start screaming at the baby, "YOU DISOBEYED ME! YOU MUST DIE! THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR DISOBEDIENCE!"

Yeah right.

The story claims that Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil before having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore according to this story Adam and Eve could not have been aware that eating from the tree was evil or wrong because they didn't yet possess that knowledge.

This is a clearly a logical flaw in the story. A flaw that I would expect to be there had this story truly been inspired by some all-wise all-intelligent being.

I mean, if we're going to assume that God is all-wise, then we need to support that theme, and the Biblical stories don't support that them, IMHO.

But they do support the conclusion that they are just man-made fables. We'd expect man-made fables to contain these kinds of flaws.

Truly, same here.

If some sort of savior was required to save mankind, then I thank him very much too. A belief in the precise details should not be required for salvation that would defeat the purpose of it.

Also, I'm sincerely remorseful concerning any violations of righteousness that I may have been involved with accidentally or otherwise. I know in my heart that my remorse is indeed sincere so I can only imagine that any truly all-knowing God would also be fully aware of my sincerity.

That should be sufficient right there.

What need would there be to appease religious zealots and mortal Paper Popes? That's nonsense.

So if there is any truth to the religion at all, all I can say is that the stories associated with it are not convincing. If any God had a hand in having them written I would suggest that he take some courses on communication and writing.

As far as I can see, when it comes to Cowboy, it's not about appeasing God at all, but rather it's about appeasing Cowboy!

I'm totally comfortable with my relationship with any creator that might exist. I'm totally prepared to meet my maker, and I have FAITH that if such a creator actually exists he/she/it/them will indeed be as rational and just with me as I would be with my fellow man. And as long as that's true then I have nothing to fear.

The only God I would need to FEAR would be a totally unrighteous and unreasonable God. And as far as I can see, that's precisely the picture of God that Cowboy is attempting to paint. A totally uncaring, unrighteous and unreasonable God. A God who would condemn decent honest and sincere people simply because they don't suck up to Cowboy's view of what God should be.

If that's what a God is like then we're no better off than if someone like Moammar Gadhafi were God.

You're example doesn't work. A baby doesn't have the mental capacity to even know what you're saying when you told that child not to stand. You could have talking in Japanese for all the child knew. Adam and Eve were grown people. And God didn't do this anyways. If you were a parent and your child was say 20. This child was disobedient to you, would you continue to allow this child to live with you? Or would you get them out of the house? Get them out of the house and still have a relation with them in hopes to build a stronger relation?

I'm sorry Cowboy, but you don't seem to be comprehending the problem.

The story goes that Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil before having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Therefore they could not have possessed the knowledge that it would be evil to do this thing before they had this knowledge. Thus they could have only eaten from the tree in a state of pure innocence, just like a baby standing up in a crib doesn't yet understand that to do so would somehow be wrong.

So the story is logically inconsistent with its plot.

Had this story truly originated from some infinitely-wise conscious being it would have been logically sound. But as it stands, it's not.

Therefore we can only conclude that it must be a man-made fable created by mortal men who are prone to making these kinds of logical errors. Because an infinitely-wise God would not have made such a trivial error.

Is Cowboy still doing these Genesis seminars? Still insisting that women have extra rib(s), even though that Genesis fable has been shown to hold no water?

And let's not forget the talking serpents! Anyone here ever seen a talking serpent?

Yanno, if something is as hazardous as the Tree Of Knowledge is purported to have been, and seeing as how its existence was allegedly used by the talking serpent to tempt two humans into damning ALL humans for ALL TIME into Original Sin, wouldn't a really smart God have kept it under lock and key? Or not created it at ALL, knowing that his mortal enemy was lurking in the bushes trying to cause mischief?

Occam's Razor tells us that this is just a Straw Man spawned by Judaism/Christianity to indebt the human race into servitude under its chains. To this day, Fundy preachers rail against science teaching too much knowledge, warning that it will be our undoing. Despite the fact that history has shown us over and over again that compliant ignorance is often a capital crime in the rough and tumble Universe we inhabit.


-Kerry O.

By the way, a 20 year old person is no longer a "child", they are already a sovereign adult.

If I had raised that person and they still didn't know right from wrong or how to properly conduct themselves by that time I could only conclude three possible things:

1. I was a lousy mentor and a horrible parent.
2. The child is mentally ill and/or has some other medical problem.
3. The child truly is "evil" in some fundamental way.

As a mortal parent it's my responsibility to do the best I can at #1.

As a mortal parent it's my responsibility to try to provide the best medical and or mental health help for a child who may be suffering from some malfunction.

In the case of number three, as a mortal parent there would be nothing I could do about that, nor could I even truly know that this wasn't also do to a medical condition that I was unable to detect or help in #2.

Not let's turn to God.

Does God provide his best resources for mentoring all of his children on a one-on-one basis.

Well, I can assure you that no God provided me with that kind of mentoring, not even in the form of human mentors sent to me by God. So God would fail miserably as a parent in the case of #1, IMHO.

In the case of #2 an all-powerful God could surely cure his children of any and all medical or mental defects or abnormalities. So in that sense there would be no excuse for any human to ever become mentally ill in any way, whey they do. So God fails at #2.

In the case of #3, God is the only entity who could know if a person is genuinely "evil" whatever that might mean. Only God would have the knowledge and power to deal with that situation. If his way of of dealing with it is to kill the individual then I can only conclude that even God cannot remove "evil" from a person since his only option for that problem is to apparently kill the infected person. So even God cannot "cure" evil apparently.


Now, looking at it from the point of view that I'm the child and God is the parent here's my following assessment:

I know for a fact that I'm not an "evil" person. So #3 is moot in my case.

Now all that's left is for God to step up to the plate and take on his responsibilities as the parent to cure me of any physical or mental problems I might have (as I would certainly do for my child if I could cure them of these things).

Then in sound mind and body God could begin to mentor me using wisdom and intelligent methods of education. I'm actually a very good student and would more than welcome such an infinitely wise teacher!

I would be a model child! A child that any good mentoring parent would love to raise.

So now you're trying to tell me that if I don't believe in the ancient Hebrew religious stories this God would condemn me without a second thought?

That pretty much blows away any idea that this God is intelligent, wise, or righteous, as far as I'm concerned.

What you would like for the religion to be, and what the religion actually represents are apparently two entirely different things.

You say it's entirely about love for everyone, yet at the very same time you're demanding that it's entirely about a God who demands obedience. Which is it? Love or obedience? These are drastically different concepts.

Moammar Gadhafi can demand obedience. Clearly that has nothing to do with love.

And love has to do with understanding and compassion and sincere mentoring, not a cold-hearted demand for blind obedience. That's not love.

So you're picture of God seems to have a lot of conflicts and contradicting concepts.

I personally prefer to view God through the eyes of the Wicca traditions. From my perspective this is a very beautiful picture of God, and I view it as a human archetype, not as a verbatim representation of God.

In this way I can see love in God. I see no love in Christianity. It's all about sin, salvation and the need to condone blood sacrifices on our behalf. That's not love and I see nothing loving about any of that.

I don't buy into the concept that I'm at odds with God and need to appease God by jumping through hoops of man-made religions.

Why make it so sick and demented?

If it's truly about LOVE and God is truly a LOVING entity, then why not just approach God with LOVE and be done with it. Why drag in all the gory crap from the ancient Hebrews?

It's just not necessary.

Either God is LOVE, or God isn't LOVE.

If God is LOVE, and you are a loving person, then that should be sufficient right there. No need to appease any religions or cults.

Why bother bringing religion into the picture at all. Just appreciate life and your creator abstractly. If there exists a truly LOVING God that should be more than sufficient right there.

You can uplift God and life, and your brothers, by allow them to view God however they like.

I'm pretty sure I've already told you that in my spiritual paradigm I include Jesus. Once as Capricorn, and then again as one of the Heirophants. So if you came into my spiritual garden you would see two statues of Jesus. He's recognized twice over.

But I don't recognize the entire doctrine of the ancient Hebrews. I don't see where there's any need to worship that culture as the voice of God.

Love and obedience is the same thing. It's not obedience out of a dictator forced form of obedience. It's obedience out of love. it's doing the will of God out of love, cause you want to be obedient.

Age doesn't make a child. Doesn't matter how old you get, you will ALWAYS be your parent's child. You could be 100 years old, you would still be a child of your mom and dad.

Well, like I've told you many times before, there's very little, if anything, in the moral teachings of Jesus that I disagree with anyway. So there's nothing there for me to "obey". All I would need to do is be who I am and I would naturally satisfy all of the criteria. So there's nothing there to "obey".

If I became a devout Christian I wouldn't need to change a single solitary thing about my behavior or lifestyle.

So if the religion is about "obedience", or being in "harmony" with the moral values taught by Jesus, then I'm already in harmony with that. From my point of view these are the same things moral values that were also taught by men like Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and many others, long before Jesus was ever born.

So there's not need to "obey" when I'm already in natural harmony with these moral values.

If I had a child who just naturally had the same moral values as myself, would I complain? No of course not! On the contrary, I would be well pleased.

Well, then why should I think that God would not feel the same way about me?

I have always said that if I were a God and wanted people to have good morals, and I looked down on my creation and saw atheists who had good morals I would be extremely pleased with them. Look at them! They behave precisely as I would like and they don't even believe that I exist! What better children could a God possible wish to have?

The idea of having children who would rather do something else but only "obey" God out of fear of his wrath or in hope of receiving a reward in turn would be cheesy if you ask me.

I would be far more pleased by the atheists who are just naturally good people. They would be the greatest of all my children to be sure.

Your obsession with this concept of obedience is just something that's totally alien to me. I see no need for it unless the people in question would rather do something OTHER than God's will. That's the only people who would need to "obey" God.

People who are already in harmony with God would have no need to "obey" anything because they are already of like mind with God. There would be no need to "obey" because they simply wouldn't be interested in doing anything else.

So your total obsession with obedience is something that's totally alien to anything I would even need to consider.

What you say doesn't make sense. You state that you already are like the teachings Jesus told us, but then you say you see no need for obedience. If you're doing as one is suppose to do, you would then be obedient. So yeah people that are already in harmony with God are already being obedient.

Well, if that's your view then clearly you can see that a lot of people could coincidentally be in "obedience" without even being aware that they are "obeying" anything.

So once you've reached that level then you can see where "obedience" is the wrong concept to begin with. A better concept would simply be to recognize that anyone can be in "harmony" with the source of all life.

This could include atheists, Wiccans, people who believe in things like the "Law of Attraction", and all manner of spiritual and/or secular philosophies.

This is what people like AdventureBegins, Jeanniebean, myself and many others have been saying for months now.

These people can't be said to be "obeying" anything since they aren't attempting to "obey" anything. They are simply doing what calls to them naturally.

I personally feel that this is a far better picture of God than a picture that turns everything into some sort of mandatory obedience. I think most people will agree then when you are out of harmony with the spiritual essence of the universe you'll know it.

In fact that's the fundamental idea behind Lao Tzu's Taosim. Ever hear the term "Flow with the Tao". That's basically the same thing as saying "Being in harmony with God", if you prefer that term.

This is also the main teachings of Buddhism. Right action, right thinking, right speech, etc. It's just an attempt to become spontaneously aligned with the source of our being (i.e. "god" if you want to call it that).

So almost all religions and spiritual traditions recognize this need to be in harmony with the divine source of our being. That's pretty much a given.

From my point of view to put this in an "obedience-orientation" seems to taint it with unnecessary oppressive connotations. I typically don't think about achieving harmony with something as being 'obedient' to it. That's just not the way I would personally view it.

And you don't seem to think of it that way either. You prefer to view it in terms of "love" rather than "obedience". If you do something for someone out of love you're not typically going to think of that as being "obedient" to them. You're giving to them your devotion freely. In a sense you're giving God the gift of your devotion every bit as much as God is giving you anything in return. So it's a two-way exchange as anything that is in harmony must be.

It's not about just being in harmony with one another, being nice, being kind, being loving, ect. It's about uplifting God in what we do. If you don't put recognition towards God in your actions, then in fact you aren't being "obedient". It's about obeying the laws of our God. It's about showing love to our god through our obedience.

If the 'law' god has given me to understand is not the same 'law' you have pulled from the oft quoted book...

am I to follow the law as god has given me understanding of it?

Or the law as you have hammered it at me?

Which is the proper way...

Your way, for you are in individual.

"The first premise of any moral system should be what I call structural individualism – the fact that only individuals can benefit or suffer, think and act, that each human being is its own moral agent. This principle is denied by many other objective moral systems on the basis of collectivism, that for instance “society benefits/suffers” is a meaningful phrase. But to say such phrases cannot be understood as anything more than a metaphor. There is no actual organism called “society” that benefits and suffers, only individuals. There is no nervous connection between individuals in a “society” : we are all separate biological organisms. So to claim that moral collectivism is true is to either say a biological absurdity, or to commit a basic ontological mistake."

~ Francois Tremblay on Objective Morality

is this the thread where we talk about poo?

According to who's religious beliefs and doctrine?

I agree with AB.


I prefer to follow my intuitive understanding of god as well.

If Cowboy wants to dictate to people how they should behave and demand what directives they must obey then he'll have to find his own followers who can accept that he speaks for God as he seems to like to do.

I'm not interested in anything from the ancient Hebrew texts because I've already made it clear that I don't recognize their writings as having anything to do with god. So no sense in shoving that crap in my face. I've already totally renounced all of it.

Not shoving anything in anyone's face. All you have to do is laugh and move on. No hurt feelings. I dictate nothing of what people should obey. If you do not feel that our one and only god has given us certain laws to abide by, then that is your choice. Again, not shoving anything in anyone's face. Just as you continuously state you do not believe the scriptures are from a god, I will continuously state that I believe they are. You state they are not as it were a fact, so I will state they are as a fact. Why must you try to make other's look bad and make it look like they are pushing their beliefs on you when they are doing the same thing you are doing?