People talk of "free will" but they don't practice it.

If free will has any meaning or truth at all there can only be suggestions. No such thing as commandments. These are guidelines which were later called "commandments" by men who wanted more control over the flock.

There is no "sin" as the term is only owned by religious doctrine to describe disobedience of God. Outside of a religious organization or belief, the word "sin" is meaningless.


There is no sin. There are no commandments.

There is only freedom.

Freedom is paramount.

Noting ..this wonderful country here (USA)which allows us more "freedom" than any other "civilized society"(at least for the time being) based its doctrines of freedom on natural god given rights.....what you are arguing is the interpretation of terms, so every time some one brings up this interpretation of terms simply smile and say "I believe we have a language barrier, remember the tower of babel?"

I'm not talking about interpretation of terms. I know exactly what a person means when they use the term "sin" and I am aware that it is connected to (and part of) some religious doctrine.

I am clear on what it means to them. They just don't realize that outside of their belief system, the word has no meaning.

They are not clear on the fact that it only applies to them and those who buy into their religious doctrine. They might try to apply their "sin" to others who are outside of their religious doctrine but that is only their personal perception.

Where they error is in thinking that people outside of their religion should accept their perceptions of them as "sinners" and should accept their term "sin" as if it should apply to everyone.

Unlike the term "Crime." A criminal and a sinner are not the same thing. A criminal has broken the law and his religion has nothing to do with it. A "sinner" on the other hand, refers to a religious perception.

Interesting



I will certainly have to consider this.

So are you saying that people only have free will when it comes to sin?

In my book decisions people make for better or worse are all part of free will.

It certainly does to those who have to pay the consequences.

How did you come to that conclusion?

About "free will" I said that if "free will" is a fact, then there can be NO COMMANDMENTS. There can only be suggestions or guidelines.

You don't understand. Paying the consequences for your actions and even for your thoughts has to do with the law of cause and effect and the law of attraction, not something you refer to as "sin."

The term "sin" refers only to a religious doctrine and has to do with obedience of a particular religious concept of God. It only has meaning to people who accept that particular doctrine.

The law of cause and effect, is a natural law and has nothing to do with religion.

Uh...if I smoke or do drugs I pay the consequence... anything that is harmful to us is also sin. It's not love for ourselves & we are to be good stewards of our bodies as well.

WRONG is sin just like crime is sin... if you don't agree that's your choice. Free will or whatever you want to call it, but it's still what it is. The consequences are real. That's why God calls it sin because He sees what we do as destructive to ourselves, our lives & to those around us.

Uh......As I have said, I understand what you mean by the term "sin" and I understand how you use the term, but what you don't understand is that it is an unnecessary and meaningless word to the non-religious.

The non-religious do not use that term unless they except the premise of the religious doctrine. The term "sin" always points to religious doctrine.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

One must have patience with brick walls. They will eventually crumble with time and sufficient chipping.

yeah but like my dad always said "never try to teach a pig how to sing, it will just waste your time and anoy the pig".

I agree, in essence. If you aren't part of the "flock", the word "sin" is meaningless. The same goes for "commandments". And freedom? Is it not truelly just another word for "nothing left to lose"?

I do not agree with all Christians. I admit that I sometimes cringe when I see them attempting to battle a logical arguement based on their emotions and personal convictions, even though I share the same... I admit that some are misguided in their unsolicited attemps to convert others to their beliefs, as I believe one both teaches AND learns by example, not by proselytizing or bible thumping, which I see as doing more harm than good, for the most part.

While I'm "confessing" here, I'll go further by admitting that I do find pearls of wisdom in many other beliefs and theologies. After all, my maker gave me a brain and the capability to recognize truths from all quarters.


My observation in some of these forums are that there are infantile and closed minded statements made on both sides (believers in one true God vs non-believers). I'm sure that in my not so well thought out attempts to defend my faith, that I make them too.

What I don't get, is the hateful vehemence and downright uncivil rudeness that seems completely uncalled for and only serves to hinder understanding and compassion for the other's point of view.

Even if you remove the possibility of God as termed by biblical standards, we are all still the same species with more in common than we like to admit. Which is shameful considering that we all can at least agree on the fact that we're only here on earth for a little while.


You say sin is meaningless.

I say there's a spirit residing in my heart that guides me to seek compliance and reconciliation.

You say the Commandments are guidelines.

I agree but only in the very strongest sense of the word "guideline", as to me they are meant to guide me and light my way towards the ultimate spiritual reward, thus helping me avoid the loss of that possibility.

You say freedom is paramount.

I say freedom is subjective to the individual. While we are free to do right by ourselves and others, we are also free to enslave ourselves and lock ourselves out of hope for a personal sense of peace.

I believe we have much more in common than we have cause for dispute. jmho

I seriously don't understand why you don't get this Allen.

I fully understood it even when I was a Christian.

They hatred comes from Chrisitanity.

Yes it does.

It comes from the very simple idea that the Christian God is a jealous judgmental God who hates heathens and will reject anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is his word.

That's hate Allen.

That is hatred aimed at everyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God.

To reject the Bible is to reject God so the Christains claim.

That is where all the hate arises from Allen.

It's a hateful religion toward anyone who refuses to believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Christians are constantly using this concept of hate to say hateful things to "non-believers" in the Bible.

I can tell you right now that I fully believe in the spiritual essense of all humanity.

I believe that we are spiritual beings, and that the entire physical world is the omniscient manifestation of spirit.

I also believe that because our true essence is spirit there was never a time when we did not exist.

I believe that we existed long before we were born. In fact, I believe that before Abraham was, I AM!

Yes, I believe just like Jesus believed.

I also believe that Jesus went to the far east during his missing years from the time he was 12 until he returned when he was about 30.

Jesus learned the ways of the eastern mystics. He basically learned Buddhism and the teachings of Buddha.

Jesus returned to his homeland to teach the great news.

Jesus taught that he and "the father" are one. That's Buddhism.

Jesus taught that "all are Gods". That's Buddhism.

Jesus rejected the judgmental ways of the old Testament. He taught that we should be non-judgmental. That's Buddhism.

Jesus rejected the vengence that was taught in the Old Testament of an-eye-for-an-eye and a-tooth-for-a-tooth. He taugth instead to turn the other cheek. That's Buddhism.

Jesus rejected the stoning of sinners and the idea that everyone needs to be punished for their wrong doings, instead he taught forgiveness. That's Buddhism.

It's crystal clear to me that Jesus was not the son of the God of the Old Testamant and that he was clearly teaching the ways of Buddha.

So Christians claim that I'm rejecting God and that God hates me for being a heathen and he will reject me from his eternal heaven and cast me into an eternal hell whilst they stand next to Jesus laughing and thumbing their nose at me for being so evil as to not believe in a hateful God who taught people to stone each other to death and to murder heathen.

Christians love to hate heathens. It's true Allen. They love to denounce anyone who doesn't buy into the Biblical story of God and tell tehm that they are rejecting God and will be cast into an eternal hell for not believing like the Christians.

Now you might say, "Oh but all Christians aren't like that!"

That's a totally meaningless statement. The Bible teachers that the God of Abraham hates heathens and has even commanded people to murder them.

The bible even states as a commandment from this God, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

And people who believe that the Bible is the word of God take this stuff literally.

Moreover, those who claim, "All Christians aren't like that" are doing nothing more than claiming that all Christians truly don't believe that the Bible is the word of God.

But how oxymoronic is that?

If they don't believe that the Bible is the word of God then why do they claim to be members of a religion that demands that it is?

Christianity is a bigoted and hateful religion against anyone who denounces that the Bible is the word of God.

It's that simple.

I denounce that the Bible is the word of God.

I think it's clearly obvious that the Old Testament never came from any divine mind.

And I also believe that Jesus actually preached entirely against that hateful doctrine.

So that makes me a 'heathen'. And enemy of "God", and therefore an enemy of Christians who believe that they are the soldiers of God. Onward Christians Soldier!

They are prepared to denounce and discredit anyone who dares to claim that the Bible can't be the word of any God.

So they flatly reject my spirituality.

They strip me of my spiritual dignity by proclaiming that I am an enemy of God who has knowingly rejected his eternal love in favor of chosing to side with Satan!

That's disgusting and quite offensive Allen.

But this is what their doctrine demands!

To say that "All Christians aren't like that" is absurd.

All that says is that all people who call themsleves "Chrsitians" truly don't believe that the Bible is the word of God.

So why then do they even bother to call themselves Christians?

It's ridiculous.

Why support a religion that you honestly don't believe in if you are willing to respect non-believers of the Bible?

The Bible teachers that non-believers are heathens that God will murder and send to hell at the drop of a hate.

If you don't believe that God is truly like that, then you are like me! You are truly not a Christian at all, you're just trying to believe in Jesus without accepting that the entire doctrine is true.

But it truly can't work that way. Eitehr the whole biblical story is true, or something else is true. Perhaps the scenario that I believe (i.e. Jesus was a Buddhist who denounced the Old Testament and tried to teach the loving ways of Buddha instead)

Abra, I don't hate anyone or advocate the OT's teachings about condemnations of men against other men based on their intrepertations of scripture.
I'm a Christian simply by virtue of Christ's teachings alone. I don't make blanket statements about "heathens, heretics, athiest, agnostics, Buddhist, pagans", or any other personal beliefs.
I already admitted that I've at times made statements that are subjective to my own core beliefs in defense of my faith and realize that it's wrong and unhelpful, not to mention potentially offensive to some.
As far as my participations in these forums are concerned, I'd appreciate not being challenged as if I, simply because I do accept Christ's message as given in the NT, would not be treated as if I personally advocate witch burnings and stonings of heretics as a solution to anything.
There can be no productive dialog where there is no base foundation of values.
When I'm told that my beliefs are hateful, as is the God I worship, it's an attempt to strip me of my own dignity and only serves to polarize any shared values we may have.
You can say I'm not a Christian. That's your call and I respect your right to think so, but it only attempts to demean my core beliefs and only leads to disintrigration of any dialog between us, as It's insulting and therefore leads to nowhere in respect to my potential to gain positive learning about your own views.
If someone enjoys argueing and debating more than finding common ground based on mutual compassion, it's counter-productive to any (for me at least) any further dialog.

I am truly sorry that you feel this way. When I say that a person cannot reject the Old Testament and be a Christian, I say this as a matter of principle, and most certainly not with the idea of demeaning anyone's core beliefs.

However, since you even mention the very term "Core Beliefs", I would be quite interested in hearing precisely what those might be.

However, before you say what they are allow me to respond to the following:



It appears that you have already stated your core beliefs right here. You claim to be a Christian simply be the virtue of Christ's teachings alone. And it appears that you don't not advocate (support) the teachings of the OT.

It would seem to me then, that you are stating that you do not accept that the OT is the word of God. After all, how could not advocate the word of God?

So clearly you reject the OT as being the word of God just as I do.

So now it comes down to precisely what is it that you believe Jesus taught?

Clearly he taught a bunch of moral values. I think everyone knows this, and I would hold that Jesus taught precisely the same moral values as Buddha. I hold that it is impossible to adhere to the teachings of either of these men without simultaneously adhering to the other. So from that point of view it is entirely moot whether you follow the teachings of Buddha or Jesus as they both result in precisely the shame behavior.

Now what follows is the important part:

Do you believe that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham sent specifically to be crucified to pay for the sins of man and thus offer salvation to men?

I hold that if you believe this to be true, then you absolutely cannot reject the tenets of the Old Testament because to do so would also reject the very notion of a God who requires blood sacrifices before he can forgive sins in the first place.

You must understand that the idea of Jesus being the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham demands that you believe in the God of Abraham, which demands that you believe in the Old Testament.

Now having said all of that. Let me say that following:

What you are claiming as 'Your Christianity' is actually what most people who call themselves "Christians" do indeed believe. They sweep the God of Abraham under the carpet and worship Jesus as their NEW GOD.

This has been called "Designer Christianity" by many scholars. Sweep the God of Abraham under the carpet and worship Jesus as God. Other people have called it "Salad Bar Christianity" - just take what you find appetizing and leave the rest on the bar.

I truly have no problem with "Designer Christians". They typically don't exhibit the hatefulness of fundamentalists who use Jesus as a weapon to be beat people with the words of the God of Abraham.

However, I would argue that even the New Testament itself often refers back to the OT to reinforce those ancient beliefs. So all you are trying to do is rip Jesus out of the Bible and make him into your own malleable God.

Trust, me I've been there and tried that myself. What I soon discovered is that Jesus is nailed more firmly to the Old Testament than he was to the cross. The authors of the New Testament drove those spikes in quite deep.

Jesus cannot be seen as the sacrificial lamb of the jealous judgmental God of Abraham whilst simultaneously denouncing the behavior of that original God.

That just makes no sense at all.

So if you are merely out to worship the moral teachings of Jesus, then why not just become a Buddhist and do it that way?

As long as you affiliate yourself with "Christianity" you are supporting the Old Testament and the fundamentalists who use it to denounce non-believers as heathens.

All I'm saying is that you are supporting a label that truly doesn't reflect your true beliefs.

As far as I'm concerned, it simply makes no sense to denounce (not advocate) the teachings of the God of Abraham whilst simultaneously trying to claim that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of that same God.

That's "Salad-bar Christianity". That does not support the Bible as the word of God.

Based on what you are telling me, you're every bit as much of a "heathen" as I am by biblical standards, the only difference is that you refuse to admit it.

And I'm in now way attempting to 'pick on you' or degrade you in anyway. I'm simply stating how I see it.

It might help you to know that I too was a Christian for the first 30 years of my life. I finally denounced the religion altogether. I came to the stark realization that Jesus could not possible have been the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

And I hold to anyone who claims to be a "Christian" that the biblical story truly is an all-or-nothing proposition.

You can't rip Jesus out of the Bible and still claim that he's the sacrificial lamb of God. That truly holds no merit.

Again, this isn't a judgment on you. I'm just telling you that the Bible is a whole story that demands that it's all-or-nothing.

To be a "Salad Bar Christian" is honorable, but truly unworkable.

You're just trying to take the love of Jesus and reject the hate of the God of Abraham. But the sacrificial lamb concept surrounding the crucifixion has to go when you do that.

That's all I'm saying.

As far as personal sentiments goes, I admire what you're trying to do. I'm just trying to explain that it's truly not doable (other than as a personal delusion), and that's not meant as an insult. A lot of people like that delusion, they find it quite attractive. In fact, this is who the majority of Christians believe today!

This is why the church and the organized religion is dying. "Christianity" will eventually become a personal walk with Jesus with more and more people denouncing the OT. But if you take a hard look at the NT you'll quickly discover that you'll need to reject most of it as well, because it references and supports the OT all the time.

To rip Jesus from the Bible you'd be better of using my scenario and accepting that Jesus was indeed a mortal man just like you and me. He also denounced the OT. Just like you and me.



I'll be more than happy to find common ground with you. But I can assure you of one place that we will never find common ground, and that would be the idea that Jesus was the sacrifical lamb of the God of Abraham who was crucified to pay for the sins of man.

That is the major point that we will not find common ground on, unless you are willing to consider that Jesus was indeed just a mortal man no different from Buddha.

That's truly the bottom line right there.

Here's the point.

If you want to believe that Jesus was the sacrifical lamb of the God of Abraham more power to you. I don't hold that against you.

However, if you hold that I'm somehow rejecting God by not believing in that scenario, then you are insulting me.

I do not reject my creator.

I reject a story that appears to me to be totally full of holes. And I hold that no divine being would have been the inspiration for such an ambigious story.

The OT is not divine. Even you agree with that.

Matthew7 "Build on the Rock"
24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26"But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."
28And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."


Abra, it's obvious that you have an axe to grind. If you truely believe in God, I suggest you pray about it.

Good day

Excellent thread Jeannie.

"Sin" like Freewill" can be seen in the same light... a religious idea, although we all know that free will is a given, I'd like to draw the comparisons. Freewill (religious version) A God given thing that holds many restrictions to its use... somewhat an oxymoron from where I'm standing. Free will, as in human nature, is the ability to think and/or do for yourself WITHOUT outside intervention - to me this is the pure and logical way to use it. This is not to say that we should not consider the feelings of others in the process of using the same; as in a meaningful life, we should always consider the cause and effect on everyone else. Blessings to you. :)

Abra,

I understand what you are saying and your frustration with designer Christians. I think that being a "Christian" is an accepted thing in this society and one can attach themselves with a church and find friends and talk about the teachings of Jesus and at the same time agree that to burn witches and stone children as suggested in the O.T. is not cool.

And yet they still seem to go around saying (parroting) that they believe the Bible is the word of God. Some believe that Jesus is God, some don't talk about that.

Most Christians I talk to personally, are just confused individuals. They don't understand what they believe and they don't really understand why their 'God' had to die for their sins 2000 years ago, but they accept it I think, because it gets them into the door of their church and gets them a place in their society.

Few people are willing to set themselves apart from the crowd and question their church authority because they are bombarded with accusations that they are questioning God himself. People are followers. They are sheep. They even call themselves sheep, and Jesus is their Shepard.

But that analogy seems demeaning to me. What does a Shepard do with his sheep? He sheers them, he takes them to the market. Some people eat mutton, so sheep are also slaughtered. Why would anyone want to be sheep?

They will turn away from reason and questions because they have no answers. They have been told to turn away from that kind of temptation and to question not the word of god, lest they be corrupted with what... reason? Logic?

I don't know. I don't know why it would make sense to worship Jesus and reject the O.T.

In fact I believe the O.T. was the old Judaic law and the New Testament was a complete plagiarized fabrication done by Roman elite who hated and feared the Jews. They needed a new religion, a kinder gentler easier one that would let them have more power over the flock of sheep.

I am astonished that today's modern civilization still believes this ancient fiction and I am at a loss as to why they do it except for the need to fit into a society that practically demands that you conform to the current religious dogma.

I have many Christian friends who are very nice people. But I still don't understand their reasoning.

You can love one another, you can live the path of love and compassion without attaching yourself to illogical myth and dogma and teach it as fact. But they are afraid to question the emperor who wears no clothes.