Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’m quite sure that they are very sincere. Now with that very same sincere sentiment I would like to share my views on those very same thoughts. You may ask why I do this? Well, because the biblical story claims to be speaking for “my creator” too. And thus this gives me the right as a human being to explain why I don’t accept that this story if from any supreme all-wise creator.



But that whole line of thinking presumes that mankind’s governmental solutions are indeed all-wise and just. I personally do not agree with the governmental justice system. I feel that it is extremely lame and far from wise. At best it’s a mere necessity to protect innocent people from further harm. However, at worst, it’s just downright ignorant.

For example, what’s to be gain from ‘punishing’ someone by incarcerating them for life? In what way does ‘punishment’ equate to ‘justice’? In fact, I totally disagree the very ideal of “punishment”. I feel that we shouldn’t even be using that term in our criminal justice systems. Instead, we should view all incarcerations in terms of a necessary action to protect the innocent society from further actions from the criminals.

I also believe that our incarcerating systems should truly be aimed at ‘rehabilitation’ if possible. And while they often claim to be ‘correctional’ institutions, in truth they are never genuinely designed nor managed with that in mind.

Moreover, if rehabilitation is not possible (something that we as humans cannot easily determine, but an omniscient God most certainly should be able to easily assess), then we should either terminate the criminals who cannot be rehabilitated or rehabilitate the ones who can be ‘saved’, but in no case ‘punished’ anyone.

That’s my view on that. So I simply disagree that our human concept of ‘justice’ should apply to a genuine supreme all-wise being.



And there again the concept that somehow ‘punishment’ should be the penalty for ‘sins’ is a concept that I simply don’t accept as being a ‘divine’ ideal. It’s just not wise. The idea that people should be punished for sins is a flawed human idea of mortal men, IHMO. So it makes no sense to push that ideology onto “God”.




So here you have Jesus (according to Matthew) confessing that God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. Jesus is confessing that our creator is a loser God.



Again, it was John who made that claim, not Jesus. We simply don’t have any writings from Jesus at all. Everything that we attribute to Jesus is just hearsay from other authors, authors who often times don’t even agree with each other.

Also, a moment ago you were speaking to an issue of “justice’. But now you’re speaking in completely different terms.

Imagine that you have a wonderful daughter. She is very loving and treats everyone with respect and offers up her own time for humanity and for the sake of others. However, it just so happens that, like me, she doesn’t believe in the Biblical story. She’s either an atheist, or maybe she believes in a pantheistic or pagan religions and simply doesn’t accept that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, and she doesn’t accept that Yahweh represents God, nor does she accept that the Bible represents the word of God.

Your beautiful loving daughter is violently raped and killed by a weird sick serial rapist. She never accepted Jesus as her savior, nor did she even recognize that he was the son of God. In the meantime, the rapist, after spending many years in jail finally comes around to realize that his actions were indeed horrible and with genuine remorse in his heart he asks Jesus to forgive him and come into his life.

Now you die and go to Heaven, and when you meet Jesus he’s standing next to the man who raped your daughter, and you ask, “Where is my daughter?”, and Jesus replies, I’m sorry but she didn’t believe in me so I had no choice but to send her to hell.

Where is there any justice in that?



No, like I say, it breaks down horribly and doesn’t represent love at all. Also, if you re-read your first sentence you’ll see that you seem to be assuming that if Jesus isn’t the Son of God, then the Biblical God would still exist and still have wrath against sinners. In other words, your justification of Jesus only makes sense in the face of a wrathful God to begin with. Get rid of that whole entire mythology and pick up something like pantheism, and then you have no wrathful God to be ‘saved’ from in the first place.



I reject the entire mythology from square one. Why should be stuck on that mythology anymore than I should be stuck on Greek Mythology?

I don’t believe in a wrathful jealous godhead who instructs people to murder heathens and stone sinners to death, etc. Yet, I would need to believe all of that in order to believe in the Biblical picture of God. In fact, even in the New Testament of Christianity people were still stoning sinners to death because that very same biblical God had “commanded” them to do so. This is even in the story of Jesus. Yet Jesus renounced all of that. He taught people not to judge others. Yet it would be impossible to stone sinners to death if you can’t first judge them to be a sinner.

So Jesus didn’t even teach the same things that had been taught by that old mythology. He was clearly rejecting it. The things that Jesus taught were far more in line with the teachings of Buddha, and completely out of line with what had been previously taught in the “Old Testament”.

So there’s really no reason to even suspect that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, since he clearly didn’t even agree with those teachings.

The Eastern Mystical view of “god” is far more difficult to understand. But in truth, it’s actually a far more loving picture. Not only is there no need to nail anyone to any poles to ‘save’ bad people, but everyone ultimately returns to the creator without acceptation. There are no ‘losers’. In a very real sense, it’s actually a picture of a genuinely perfect God who never loses so much as a single soul.

The Biblical God is a huge loser. He lost the vast majority of humanity to Satan during the Great Flood, and even the authors of the New Testament make the claims that Jesus said precisely what you had posted: "Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. For small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14

So the Biblical God is a guaranteed loser of souls, by the mythology's own confession. Moreover, if we give the words of Matthew any merit at all, then the vast majority of “Christians” who think they have been ‘saved’ must necessarily be wrong. Because according to “Jesus” (if we can trust Matthew to speak for him), only very few will make it into the kingdom of heaven. So most Christians are going to be in for one HELL of a surprise when they discover that “accepting Jesus as their Savior” doesn’t always work.

I can't believe in any religion that creates a hell in the first place. The concept is just sick.

There is no heaven unless you make it for yourself on earth today and there is no hell unless you make on this earth for yourself.

Life hands us things to deal with and our attitude about life and how we deal with life changes and happenings is what make heaven or hell for us, nothing else.

Truly.

No, it's a simply a matter of a religion using a historical figure's trumped up fate to exact compliance with its dogma. If this were true, there would be no need for the creation of a hell to hold over the heads of those who don't subscribe to its particular version of 'Truth'.

Looked at realistically through the lens of what religion _demands_ of those who don't adhere to its tenets, it becomes glaringly apparent that said sacrafice is anything BUT altruistic-- the religion that "owns" this historical figure is only using sleight of hand to get something for which it offers nothing in return.

You're either part of the tribe or you simply must be made to suffer. Some free will, huh?

-Kerry O.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him would be saved. He who believes is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, for he has not believed in God's one and only son." John 3:16-18, Jesus speaking.

We do indeed all have a choice; to accept Jesus as revealed in the Bible, or to make up our own version of Jesus according to our own desires of who we want him to be, or worse yet, dismiss God and His word entirely.

It's not about trying to force one's tenets on anyone else. It is indeed freewill. In fact, love cannot exist where freewill is not present. Love requires a choice, whether it be in the selection of a mate, or in this case, our embracing of a loving heavenly father who provides reconciliation through Jesus, or rejecting Him.

No greater love has anyone than this: that he should lay down his life for another.

Truly. It's clear from history that the whole idea behind the Abrahamic religion was the idea "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". That whole idea right there was intended to place the religion above all other.

In Christianity all we see is a clever trick using a very unfortunate crucifixion of an innocent man (a man who clearly rejected the previous religion), to prop up the very religion the man rejected and make him into a brand new "Jealous" God.

Now you have to put Jesus BEFORE Yahweh.

No man can get to to Yahweh but through Jesus!

It's just yet another layer of tribes trying to make their God more important than the previous one.

Are you saying that you are rejecting Zeus then?

Clearly not. Obviously you simply don't believe in Zeus and therefore you cannot 'reject' him. How can you 'reject' something that you don't even believe exists?

So this whole idea that to disbelieve in the Bible or in Jesus is the same as 'rejecting' God is utter nonsense.

Are you suggesting that a God would be so stupid as to not even know the difference between disbelief and rejection?

I don't believe that those male-chauvinistic bigoted Hebrews speak for any God. And I don't believe that Jesus was the son of Yahweh.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "rejecting" anyone.



Soliders, firefighters, paramedics, and police do this every day for the mere freedom of people they don't even know.

Jesus would have nothing on any of them.

Besides, aren't you missing the point here? Why would Jesus have had to die in the first place? Just to appease an angry God?

The whole religion is an oxymoron because Jesus is supposedly saving us from his own stupid wrath. If that were the case all he'd need to do is just forgive us. There's no need to have himself nailed to a pole to appease himself so he can forgive people their sins.

The whole story is simply nonsensical.

What makes far more sense to me is that Jesus was NOT the son of Yahweh, but instead he was a mortal man, most likely educated in Mahayana Buddhism, who actually REJECTED the teachings of Yahweh.

Also you need to be careful when reading the Bible. For example, you quoted John as saying "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him would be saved. He who believes is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, for he has not believed in God's one and only son." John 3:16-18, Jesus speaking.

But then you ended it with "Jesus Speaking". I don't see it that way at all. John wasn't claiming to be quoting Jesus directly in that particular verse. On the contrary he was merely stating his own opinion of what he felt Jesus might have stood for.

In fact, MUCH of the New Testament is often quoted as the "words of Jesus" when in fact, it isn't implied by the very authors who wrote it.

So, then Jews are 'condemned already'? Because the Jews indeed _do NOT_ believe he is 'the son of the one and only god', the same god said to be the center of their religion.

Now, I doubt you'll answer the question because it poses a serious dilemma-- you can't quite curse the Jews in the same manner as is often done to those totally outside the religion. It would make you look very judgemental and most apologists prefer to avoid appearing that way.



No, it's like asking a man "Did you stop beating your wife yet?" and demanding that he supply a yes or no answer.

Just because _you_ believe there are limited choices limited by your dogma doesn't mean the other 2/3rds of the world agree.




Funny how that doesn't apply to atheists, isn't it? They could be the most noble of creatures who provably laid down their lives for others, yet in your dogma, they are still damned.

That's why I can't believe that dogma. It requires nothing of nobility be done nor anything altruistic-- and sometimes even bestows cheap forgiveness upon those who have done horrible things.


-Kerry O.

Buy into what I say or you are a heathen destined for hell.

Truly. It's nothing more than extreme arrogance hiding behind the robe of Jesus.



Besides, they're just making Jesus out to be a two-faced hypocrite.

He's sacrificing his life to save you from his own wrath.

It's an oxymoronic religion.

I point to the verse from John showing that Jesus did not claim to judge against those who don't believe in him:


John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

And they immediately throw the verse that comes right after that back in my face, to assure me that God will indeed hate me if I don't believe in Jesus:


John.12:48-49 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

What a cop out! Especially in light of the following claim!


John.10:30 I and my Father are one.

These scriptures are just meaningless dogmatic circles that contradict each other from page to page.

There's absolutely no reason why I should believe that an all-wise diety can't even get his own story straight. He and the Father are one when that suits an author's purpose, and they are totally seperate entities when that better suits their purpose.

They aren't even consistent in their story. There's no reason to believe that such an inconsistent flawed story came from any supreme being. Especially when it contains such sick demented garbage as the idea of God having his only begotten son nailed to a pole to appease himself.

With all due respect (as indicated by the photo above), IMHO it's just an utterly stupid story. I just see no reason whatsoever to believe that the creator of this universe is as utterly stupid as the authors of the biblical stories demand.

Abra, I agree with you completely on this one.

It is illogical, said in my best Spock voice.

I told u you were close.. keep digging.. Blessings...Miles


They loved this Abra


Matt 8:8-13

8 The centurion answered and said, "Master, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10 When Yahshua heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 Then Yahshua said to the centurion, "Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed that same hour.
NKJV

Keep digging for what? Even more contradictions?

I think I've found more than enough already.

u r doing good my friend.. Shalom..Miles

I’d like to return to some posts a couple pages back in which the definition and questions pertaining to the words “Covenant” and Testament” were being discussed.

In current and more common vernacular (as noted) the definitions of the two words are clearly distinguishable from each other. So the question arises as to how these two, separately defined, words became interchangeable in the Bible.

While anyone is welcome to read hundreds of pages which explain the difference between the Greek word διαθηκη (diatheke) commonly translated into English as ‘covenant’ as in “last will and testament” and the Hebrew word ברית (berith) also commonly translated into English as ‘covenant’ referring to a one-sided promise, this can be explained more simply.

First, when translating language one into language two, a word is often translated as closely as possible by examining the context of the original writing of language one and transcribing the word as it pertaining to the most similar cultural context of language two.

In was in this way that the original translations ended up using one word or the other even though the original written texts used the same word ‘covenant’ throughout. In some areas the Greek translation just did not fit the same continuous context and so testament was substituted.

What was the difference? Context. Examples:

In Hebrew scripture (the Old Covenant) there were several covenants made and they were pretty much one-sided acts of grace bestowed by God on a very secular level. As in God granting Abraham and his entire line of descendents continued prosperity with no particular favor or reciprocation in return. The flood covenant which was also nothing more than a one-sided promise of God’s favor to all of humanity – the favor being never to bring such destruction on mankind again. With not particular act of reciprocation required.

But then there were covenants that were different; covenants that were still one-sided but required adherence to certain stipulations which were non-negotiable and non-changing.

In our common language we would have difficulty assigning one single word to both cases, as did the Greeks. So they changed the word from language one to be more logically understood in the context of readers of language number two (Greek).

In Greek the word covenant was an agreement between parties – and in all cases the agreement was between humans. In some cases the agreement was forced as in a king protecting a person or family IF in reciprocation total devotion was given to the king. The Greeks looked at the context of certain ‘covenants’ and noticed that some were simply a one-sided promise while others where a one-sided and very provisional act of grace which was seen as the subjugation of a king over his ‘faithful’ subjects.

In the end – (and very early in Biblical history) theologians decided that the two words could remain as long as they were considered to be interchangeable.

This is ironic to me for one BIG reason. By allowing this interchange to be of little consequence to Christians, those who remained true and faithful to the ORIGINAL (OLD Covenants) which were granted forevermore by God’s word – such as Abraham and descendents, David and others, were suddenly viewed by Christians as condemned to hell. Not because the Jews did anything wrong but because they refused to enter into the ‘new covenant’. The new covenant (to Christians) was conceptually the ‘last will and testament’ because God physically gave his life to procure it and therefore it must take precedence over all previous covenants.

The Greeks also saw it this way and so interpreted the new covenant as testament. Makes sense when considering how language is interpreted, but it takes acceptance of modern Christianity to a all new level of low. As Abra is constantly pointing out, how could any Christian trust the word of this god when so many promises could be broken. How could any Christian trust the word of this god when past covenants, which were meant to be everlasting, were suddenly wiped out? How could any Christian deny a Jew their place in heaven in favor of their own? Considering the many different covenants that god entered into and then broke, according to the Christian faith, how can any Christian think that for all their trying they could possible be assured a place in heaven?

Personally, I think it’s better to forget trying to please a god and instead, attend to what we have here and now, our own lives and the lives of others, and the care of our environment for the future of our descendents. Is it not heaven to be entrusted with such a great task? Is it not heaven to use our physical form, in any way available to us, to make life good, better for those in need, and easier on the environment on which we depend for our future?

Perhaps if hell exists in your ideology, then it exists now. It exists when we fight against what we have here and now, and fight instead as an individual, self-absorbed and fearful of ‘loosing’ something personal – such as the grace of a god who cannot be trusted. Not even Mother Teresa could be assured of a place in the Christian ideal of heaven, because that ideal was forged on the blood of some innocent man and upheld by the inadequacies of language and cultural inconsistencies.

Is this post still alive? I thought I killed it last month.

U know that OT that is so bad that the jews try and follow seems not to mention a hell.. Ever talked to a jew about what happens when u die? Blessings...Miles

Dante wrote some interesting things about the afterlife you may enjoy. (sorry I don't have a link right now)

Ps 115:16-17

16 The heaven, even the heavens, are Yahweh's;
But the earth He has given to the children of men.
17 The dead do not praise Yahweh,
Nor any who go down into silence.
NKJV

I thought people in heaven praised Yahweh?

Rev 11:15-19

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying,"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Master and of His Messiah, and He shall reign forever and ever!" 16 And the twenty-four elders who sat before Yahweh on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped Elohim, 17 saying:

"We give You thanks, O Yahweh Elohim Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.
18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth."

19 Then the temple of Elohim was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.
NKJV

Blessings...Miles

AAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL hell is, is a holding place for Lucifer. No person has or ever will go to hell. Hell was not made for mankind. It's not either you make it to heaven or go to hell. You either have earned the gift or heaven and eternal life or you cease to exist. There is NO after life punishment or anything.