Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


so Creation is completed and still no Jesus ...I guess he was still The Word

but isn't that one of the deceptions of the trinity...wouldn't all creation be "The Word" before it became seperated from God

Genesis 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made


God had to rest because he had no one to help him ....

I wonder if he said...

Jesus Jesus, why hath thou forsaken me

Genesis 2:3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


God takes a sick day

he called in to his boss "Elohim" and said that he can't make it into work today because he ran out of power and needed to rest

I've been working for 6 days straight without a day off...which is in violation of union rules

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens


ok...now he's "Lord God" ....this guy clearly has a God Complex

Jesus' father is HIS father. That doesn't mean he is our father. I need to look more into it before I make an absolute statement, but it seems Jesus' father is his father and Jesus would be ours since he is the one whom created the world as mentioned in Genesis 2:4.

Actually this is one of the few things in the Bible that actually makes some sense.

If God is a jealous egotist who wants to be the ultimate authority, and he created man and woman in his own image and likeness, then it shouldn't be any wonder than human men and women want to be jealous egotists who have ultimate authority over their own existence, and possible even authority over the existence of others.

That would have been where humans got there egotistical traits from. God himself. They were made in his image and likeness and this is why they are like him and they all seek to become the ultimate jealous authoritarians.

But then this God wants to put all these humans in their place, which would be mere lowly subjects to HIS AUTHORITY.

So evidently all he has done is create beings who have the same ambition to be FREE as he does, yet he expects them to all cower down under HIS AUTHORITY.

In other words, he refuses to do unto them how he would like people to do unto him.

He violates the very teachings of Jesus.

He wants to be treated as the ultimate jealous authoritarian, yet he refuses to treat anyone else as the ultimate jealous authoritarian.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Well, clearly this God would become extremely upset if anyone did unto him what he has done unto humans.

He would be extremely upset if he were placed into a situation where he had to cower down to the authority of someone else. That would burst his bubble altogether.

So this is just yet another example of how utterly absurd these stories are.

Why would God make us like him, if he didn't want us to be that egotistical?

Perhaps that was his fatal error.

You always try to pass the blame. How you behave, how I behave, how anyone behaves has no direct coalition to God. It has no direct coalition to God unless one is willing to allow to happen. So no, because someone is egotistical isn't because God made them that way, it is because they chose to be that way. If it was God's fault they were like that, then we would ALL be like that. But we're not, that's why we're all different, because again God has no direct relation to how you, I, or anyone behaves in this life unless that someone allows God to effect how they behave in their life.

I was just commenting on the dogma Cowboy.

I'm not attempting to "blame" anyone for anything. That's the business of the dogma itself. The dogma itself is attempting to "blame" humans for turning against God.

I don't "blame" anyone for anything.

I was just pointing out the absurdities of these ancient fables.

In fact, I personally have no desire to be the ultimate egotistical authoritarian dictator over anyone.

I don't even agree that a man should be the ultimate authoritarian in a marriage as these male-chauvinistic scriptures proclaim that God condones.

I have no desires to be the dictator of my lover, best-friend, and partner in life. On the contrary, I think we should either come to a consensus on how we want to live life, or we should simply part ways realizing that we are incompatible.

I have no desire to dictate over anyone.

In fact, this is a huge reason why many people do not believe in these Hebrew fables called "The Holy Bible".

The Bible claims that all people are egotistical pigs who are out to rebel against the authority of God in favor of dictating how things should be done on their own.

But the problem is who is truly doing the dictating?

Some genuine all-wise, all-sane, intelligent God?

Or some male-chauvinistic idiotic Hebrews?

I don't recognize the authority of the Hebrews as being the authority of God.

I refuse to worship the Hebrews. They are the egotistical pigs who are attempting to be the ultimate authoritarians in the name of some supposed Godhead.

But the Godhead that they portray would need to be utterly stupid, ignorant and basically utterly foolish (just like the Hebrews were).

~~~~~~~

To allow the ancient Hebrews to dictate to you what they believe God expects from us would be like allowing the modern day Taliban to speak for God.



I'm no FOOL Cowboy.

I know better than to believe that some supposedly supreme all-wise God would support and condone the Hebrew's male-chauvinism and bigoted degradation of their very own wives and daughters.

Reading the way those ignorant Hebrews treated their women is disgusting. It's really no different from how the modern day Taliban treat their women. And every sane person alive today totally rejects and discourages that nonsense.

But here you are preaching that we should embrace the idea that this kind of ignorance originated from some supreme God.

I don't care who you think came up with these disgusting ideals.

I personally don't believe that any genuinely divine God would be associated with such disgusting ignorance.

~~~~

And all of that stems from the basic idea that someone should have AUTHORITY over someone else.

God has AUTHORITY over men.

God gave men AUTHORITY over women, and so on.

It's all based on egotistical authoritarianism.

~~~~~

I'm personally not interested in having authority over anyone other than my very own self. That will take responsibility for, thank you very much.

And I don't need any God commanding me to become a male-chauvinistic pig in his name!

That mentality belongs to the Taliban!

It's not even remotely a godly concept, Cowboy.

And those ancient Hebrews that you worship as the "Voice of God", weren't all the much different from the modern day Taliban.

Most people are. Got a simple question for you, don't have to answer on this forum in particular, just a question for thought. Do you follow the laws given to us by our God through the scriptures? If no, would you not then be rebelling? Yes you would be if that was the case. Not obeying something/someone is rebelling against the person or thing. So yes, people do rebel against the authority of God.

Not true. The belief is not degrading to women or their daughters. The only power man is given over a woman is being the head of the house. But there are rules that come with this as well.


---------------------
Ephesians 5:23

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Ephesians 5:24

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
----------------------
The laws don't give men the right to be pigs, to be crude to their wives, or to treat them like dirt. They are to love their wife as they love themselves. They are to charish their wives and take care of them.

----------------------
Ephesians 5:25

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Colossians 3:19

19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

Ephesians 5:28-29

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
------------------------

Cowboy...so now there are two Fathers?????.... this time it sounds like you are trying to confuse yourself

but it doesn't matter because Jesus didn't know the time of judgement day...therefore he can't be either one of Those Two Fathers you have conjured up.....and if he is not the father...he is not the creator of anything

not really....God made Eve from a rib and as an after thought for a lonely Adam....which means that God looks like a Lonely Man that has one rib that looks like a woman

also if Man was made in the image of God that means that God has arms and legs...which points to God belonging to a race of beings that once upon a time needed limbs

Husbands aren't the "Savior" of the body.

There is no reason why the Husbands have to be a fascist dictator just because the Christ is like that.

This is just more justification for the Taliban.



Who said anything about giving men the right to be pigs?

We're talking about dictatorship, male-chauvinism and AUTHORITY here.

If Hitler treated you with what he considered to be "love" would that justify his demand to be your dictator?

I've seen many women on these forums post to you that they do not consider your views to express what they consider to be "love".

All you are attempting to do is condone fascist dictatorship in the name of love.

No Cowboy, it doesn't work like that. If two people LOVE EACH OTHER there is no reason why one of them should be the Taliban over the other.

That's not love!

That just ignorant blind fascist authoritarianism based on the bigoted idea that men are more "Christ-like" than women in terms of being a factious dictators.

Which probably is true when it's put that way.

It's just patriarchal ignorance.



Jesus didn't love any "Church" on the contrary Jesus sat around complaining about the "Church" and calling the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites.

Jesus even renounced the immoral teachings of their doctrine the Torah.

See what I mean Cowboy? These fables are filled with lies and you are blindly supporting them by posting these scriptural lies like as if they should be believed.



Well, if your not going to be bitter against them then don't degrade their authority just because of their gender.

That very act would be a BITTER act!

If you want to love your wife you should do everything in your power to find consensus with her and not attempt to dictate over her.



If men love their wives they won't be authoritarian dictators over them.

Again, these fables attempt to claim that Jesus had something to do with a "Church" which is completely false. Jesus had nothing to do with any "Church" that whole idea was arranged much later after Jesus had died.

Jesus was just a Bodhisattva with a handful of disciples. That does not constitute a "Church".

So you're saying your father didn't have a father? Or in other words, your dad didn't have a dad? Jesus is OUR ever lasting father, that's not saying he doesn't have a father.

my Father's Father just like Jesus also didn't know the time of judgement day ....that Jesus didn't know the time of judgement day is why he can never be The Father .....

Funches wrote,

"so Creation is completed and still no Jesus ...I guess

he was still The Word."


Yes Funches...Jesus was still the WORD here in Genesis.....

He had not

yet come

in the flesh...that was to happen at a later time....as was

prophesized...and of course, this did come to pass...

No, his father just hadn't told him, simple as that.

In The Beginning...everyone and everything was "The Word" ,until becaming seperated from God during the moment of Creation

Adam was also "The Word" and was the first Man to be turned into flesh

if Jesus was the Father no one would need to tell him ...see how your own words proves that Jesus isn't the father and therefore the creator of nothing

it's amazing how you keep trying to place Jesus above The Father....are you sure you're not The AntiChrist

No two people can agree on what the "laws" are Cowboy.

The Jews don't recognize any "law" that says that we have to obey the teachings of Jesus.

Neither do the Muslims.

The Christians don't obey the Laws set out be Mohammad in the Quran.

Where do you get off proclaiming that Christianity represents the "Laws of God" whilst rejecting these other scriptures that proclaim to be the "Word of God"?

Clearly you are rebelling against those.

To not believe that specific fables are the "laws of God", cannot possibly equate to "rebellion", because of that were the case you could never know whether you are rebelling or not.

It would be a crap shoot of which scriptures to believe.

Even if you decided to believe in Christianity, by your logic you could still be rebelling against God by merely choosing to be a Protestant and not honoring the Body of Christ in the Catholic Church and the Pope as God's spokesperson.

You could be grossly violating God's laws by preaching your horrible misinterpretations of scriptures to the masses on Mingle.

So you could be in gross rebellion and disagreement with the teachings of Jesus.

Maybe that's why God set up the Catholic Church with the Pope.

You were supposed to be rebellious against that and follow the Protestants. But you did!

Shame on you!

~~~~~~

Do you see how your absurd claims can easily backfire on you?

~~~~~~

If sincerity alone is sufficient, then clearly everyone who is sincere is in good with God no matter which version of scriptures or other spiritual philosophies they have chosen to accept as being "Divine".

I've personally chosen to believe that the Eastern Mystics have the truth of Divine Knowledge.

I sincerely believe that the Old Testament is the rude and crude ignorance of mankind. Not really much different from Greek Mythology at all. They even have God being appeased by blood sacrifices which I have absolutely no reason to believe that any truly supreme being would ever be associated with.

Therefore I have no interest in what "laws" might be in the Old Testament. You have personally claimed that the "Old Covenant" is not longer valid anyway. So you should have no problems with flushing the Old Testament down the toilet too.

I've already told you my views on the Christian New Testament. I sincerely believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. Which already corresponds with my belief that Eastern Mysticism is far more divine than the fables of the Hebrews.

As far as I can see Jesus taught the same things as the Buddha including notions that we and god are one. I have no reason to believe that Jesus supported the Old Testament. He was crucified for blaspheme. Had he not spoken out against the immoral teachings of the Old Testament he would not have been charged with blaspheme in the first place. Had he not renounced the Scribes and Pharisees of that religion he would not have been crucified for his objections.

So it's crystal clear to me that Jesus actually spoke out against the God of Abraham and renounced the immoral teachings that you continually support in his name.

You should pack up and move to Afghanistan and join the Taliban if you want to support those kinds of horrible things.

~~~~~

By the way, are you "rebelling" against Zeus just because you don't believe in those fables?

Is that your attitude toward Zeus?

Or do you simply dismiss the Greek religion as being nothing more than mythology like everyone else?

Well, that's all I'm doing with the Hebrew mythologies. I'm just dismissing them as being unworthy of consideration.

That is most certainly not "rebellion" against any God. There is no God behind those fables to begin with.

That's your belief, not mine.

You keep referring to these fables as "scriptures" like as if they are sacred and special and cannot be denied.

But all religious doctrines are called "scriptures". Scriptures simply means "writings".

The Eastern Mystics have "scriptures" too.

They just don't claim them to be the Word of God. Instead they recognize them to be a collection of the wisdom of spiritual men.

They did not go so far as to lie about their "scriptures" like the Hebrews did.

Of course, we can't blame the Hebrews themselves for claiming to speak for God. They no doubt got their ideas from the Greeks. Their scriptures of Yahweh are not all that different from the Greek stories of Zeus, even including the idea of blood sacrifices.

In fact, if you read about all the different religious superstitions all through the Mediterranean region you will see that these kinds of stories of Gods, demigod (sons of Gods being born of mortal women) and "saviors" and "healers" and all of that stuff was quite common mythology in many different forms.

Christianity is just a collection of those kinds of stories that survived from those ancient superstitious times.

~~~~

I personally believe that a Mahayana Buddhist named "Jesus" (or something close to that) probably did spark the specific rumors that became the Christian "Christ". But that doesn't make the rumors themselves true.

So no. To not believe in religious superstitious fables and myths does not equate to rebellion against "God".

Is just means that a person recognizes the stories to be myths is all.