Cyclops, I certianly pass no judgements on you personally. I'm quite sure that your intentions are indeed honorable. However, that does not equate to your interpretations of Hewbrew writings as being correct, or even remotely true.

Back in the days when Christianity ruled you would have indeed been considered a herertic with your attitude that Catholic church has made the scriptures into lies. What you're truly doing is asking people to reject the actaul religion and instead listen to your own personal opinions on the matter.

As ironic as this may sound to you I'm actually in a quite similar boat, with the exception that I take my "interpretations" of the Hewbrew writings (i.e. the Bible and Torah) to a far different conclusion (i.e. I conclude that there never was a male-chauvinistic jealous godhead named Yawweh, Jehovha, YHYW, or any other such name who was appeased by blood sacrifices much in the same way as the Greek God Zeus.) I also conclude that Jesus was neither the son of this egotistical godhead, nor did he even make any such claim directly.

So what do we end up with?

We basically end up with two PROTESTANTS. Yes, that's precisely what we both are because we both PROTEST against the interpretations of the "Church". The only difference between us is that I take my interpretations to an extreme conclusion that renounces the God of the Torah or Old Testament altogether, and I recognize that the man named Jesus could not have been the son of any such God and was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, which was the prominent form of Buddhism in those days.

So the bottom line is that we are BOTH ultimately PROTESTANTS. We have both protested against the status quo. We have simply come to different conclusions.

However, there is a VAST difference between us. You attempt to continue to hold to many of the ideals that the Church originally supported (i.e. The God of the Old Testament was indeed real. He was indeed appeased by blood sacrifices, and that Jesus was indeed his only begotten son given as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of man.)

Therefore since these are YOUR OPINIONS, you should be willing to discuss why you believe they have MERIT.

But instead, you reject the opportunity to explain why you feel these things must be true, and run for cover under the pretense of "obeying scripture". But this already flies in the face of you publically telling other people that THEY are in ERROR?

In ERROR with what? Your opinions?

Clearly, by your very own admission the Chruches and Clergy themselves are "in error" and have turned the scriptures into lies.

Why should anyone believe YOUR personal interpretations?

At least I'm willing to share the reasons why I feel that a jealous egotistical male-chauvinistic godhead who is appeased by blood sacrifices makes no sense as a supposely "divine" and "all-wise" creator.

I share my reasons why I feel that the story of Adam and Even has no merit even as a stand-alone story on its own, but it has even less merit in the face of scientific observations and knowledge.

I share my reasons why I feel that the man named Jesus didn't even agree with the moral teachings of the Torah (or Old Testament) and therefore did not even agree with this mythical God. I show how the teachings of Jesus are far more in line with Mahayana Buddhist and in direct contradition to the moral teachings of the supposed "God of Abraham".

If you are going to take a position that the clergy and churches have "taken the Gospel of Truth and made it lies" then you're going to need to explain your position on that in some depth. You can't just tell other people that they are in error simply because they don't agree with your own personal conclusions. And then top that off by refusing to even give supporting reasons for how you came to your conclusion. That makes no sense at all.

Why should anyone value your opinions if you aren't even willing to support them with reasoning of how you came to believe them yourself? And HOW MUCH of the scriptures do YOU take for granted?

Also, do you consider other sources of information? Do you consider the religions and traditions of pre-biblical societies? Do you consider the religions and traditions of cultures that resided side-by-side with the Chrisitans? Do you consider modern scientific knowledge? Or do you instead, just focus on the Hewbew writings along trying to justify their story only?

I confess that as an Earthling I consider all of humanity and all knowledge. It's my conclusion that the Torah or Old Testament has no more merit than the Greek Mythologies of Zeus and company. In fact, I see VERY LITTLE difference between the God of Abraham and Zeus. With the exception that the God of Abraham was far more male-chauvinistic and jealous. But they were ultimately both appeased by blood sacrifices.

And as I've already stated I see absolutely no reason to believe in "Christianity" (i.e. the idea that Jesus was somehow "The Christ" who was sent by the God of Abraham as a blood sacrifice to pay for the sins of man". From my point of view, that's a truly demented and twisted turn that was given to an already absurd religion.

That's where I stand on these stories. My view is entirely practical and sincere. I sincerely cannot believe that these utterly absurd stories (IMHO) actually describe the mind and behavior of the creator of this universe and all of humanity. They are just far too stupid (again, IMHO).

Finally, even if it turned out that this Christian version of the story is indeed true and our creator truly is that crazy, then I still couldn't "accept" this blood sacrifice to have been performed on my behalf.

So the bottom line is that even if our creator truly is as demented as these stories claim, then I'd be in a real pickle because even if I knew that it was true, I still couldn't accept it with a sincere heart. I would feel extremely sorry for our creator, and I'd be extremely depressed that I had been created by such a demented sick entity.

That's where I'm coming from.

So before you could convince me of anything. You'd have to first convince me of why I should believe that our creator could be Zeus-like in behavior to even begin with. Why should our creator be appeased by blood sacrifices? How is that "all-wise" or "all-compassionate"? It just sounds utterly gory and stupid to me. That's the kind of behavior I would expect to find in a rowdy barroom drunkard, not in any "Divine all-wise God".

I see no reason at all to believe that these old Hewbrew tales are anything more than the imagination of a sick society.

2 Timothy

2:15 Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately. 16 But avoid profane chatter, because those occupied with it will stray further and further into ungodliness, 17 and their message will spread its infection like gangrene



sometimes when it feels as if people are arguing for arguments sake, it is best to opt out of the conversation, I used to do this with my ex husband too,,lol


although this usually does piss of those who are intent on arguing,,,

Using the excuse that a sincere and honest exchange of ideas constitutes "arguing" is a pretty weak "argument" in and of itself.

Cyclops seems to have no problem "arguing" the case that traditional religious institutions have it all wrong, and that only he has the "correct" interpretation of the Bible. Yet, even though he makes this CLAIM he rejects the opportunity to give the reasoning that he feels might support it.

The problem with that attitude is that claims and assertions have indeed been made (i.e. he has already made the "charge" that other people are in *error* in their understanding of things). Yet he then refuses to back up that "charge" with reasoning.

If people are going to use the excuse that meek Christians aren't supposed to "argue" the words of the Bible, then they should do precisely that. But Cyclops has already made TWO arguments! He first argues that people on this forum are in *error* in their understandings, and then he continues to argue that even the mainstream religious institutions have turned the "Gospels" into lies.

To now claim that he doesn't "argue" is absurd. What he genuinely fails to do is to "support" his arguments with any sound reasoning is all. If a person doesn't want to 'argue' a case, then they shouldn't claim to have superior knowledge to begin with. But this is precisely what Cyclops claims to have. He claims that only HIS opinions correctly represent the TRUTH of the Gospels.

That's an "argument" right there.

I have been reading the discussion between Cyclops, Andybgood, and Abracadabra and my hat is off to Andy and Abra!

I am familiar with the condition of thinking that I am right and everyone else is "in error" and I sympathize with Cyclops for the rut that he is in. Hey, I have been there. He may be in for a rude awakening some day, and when that happens, I wish him the best.

We hold our truths so close to our souls that we separate ourselves from other people and this is the cause of conflict and war. Yet all we have to do is to understand that every single person is on a unique and lonely path towards enlightenment. If one person is 'in error' then we are all 'in error' because there is not a one of us who knows the truth.

A toast goes out for those who realize that they don't know what truth is, and continue to seek knowledge and enlightenment, and live their lives as fully as possible.

So you're basicaly toasting those people who have never posted here?

I think we just had a different perspective on what we read.


One direct answer from Cyclops was: The God of the old testament was Elohim made of God the Father and the Logos. The Logos was the God walking and talking to the sons of God. This Logos later laid down his immortal life and became flesh being Christ. The Logos was God and with God in the Elohim.



The (quite condescending) response was:
what fairytale book does this come from?


Cyclops responded:
It is from the KJ. Use your Strong's Concordance with dictionaries. I say this kindly, If you did not know that much, you are not fit to teach against or for a subjuct you do not begin to understand. I repeat, I say this with kindness and not being rude.



The next post was(notice the WTF in the post):


Markum! For once I agree with you 100%. I would swear this was from the Book of Mormon, the one brand of Christianity that is the BIGGEST lie short of Scientology!

The God of Jews is Jehova,

The God of Christians is Yahweh,

Supposedly the real God has no name. All Gods is is "I am."

WTF? Why is the Bible written in Stereo?


Cyclops responded:
I am sorry but you error greatly! YHWH is Hebrew. It has no vowels written because the name was too Holy to speak. The same YHWH has been guessed at as both by both. Jesus had a Hebrew name and a Greek name. If you will look at his Greek name it is very close to the name of the Old Testament name of YHWH. So! The Jehovah is a close Englished version of the Hebrew for YHWH. Yahweh is far from being close. Look in your Strong's for proper pronuciation.


Since the spirit here is as it is. I withdraw from discussion.

Peace!


now, from MY perspective, I can relate to what Cylops referred to as 'the spirit'. IN many of these threads people tend to debate with different 'styles'. Sometimes that style can be condescending, insulting, and sometimes verging on vulgarity. If Cyclops was trying to be civil(which I have no reason to think he wasnt) than I understand how the tone of te 'debate' seemed to be getting very combative and condescending,,, and in that I dont blame him for choosing to opt out .....

Jesus was the son of man. We are ALL children of God. Nuff said!

There are two distinct takes on Christianity. One side worships Jesus as their savior.

The other follows the words and teachings of Jesus much like a practicing Buddhist. There is a saying in Buddhism, if you come across someone calling himself Buddha kill him for there is no Buddha and that Buddha is in all of us.

Fundamentally all Christians of the first flavor miss the point of Jesus's teachings completely! The second group more or less gets it.

Here is a question I love...

If Jesus knew MILLIONS would die in his name for a variety of foolish reasons would he have gone through with God's plan? I would think if he had any conscious he would have demanded an explanation to justify an act that would lead to the deaths of so many others in his name!

Three crusades, two inquisitions, six purges, the Catholic church turning a blind eye to the holocaust, Spain raping the new world for (IN THIS ORDER FOLKS!) Gold, Glory , and God.

Then again some people are just such total sheep they could care less what their myopia prevents them from seeing is wrong. As long as everything fits their view of the world nothing is wrong with them. How about all the Children who suffered in Jesus's name as well?

Oddly Christianity is not what is wrong, It is what people have done to it!