1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Next
Topic: Why There is no Hell (in the Afterlife)
CowboyGH's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:27 AM


Jesus IS NOT GOD.


All just accept your word on that then. drinker


Jesus and God are one in the way they do things, the way they rule the world, the way they do everything. But they are not one as in one being.

At war, all the troups of a country are as one... they are all that country they are fighting for.

CowboyGH's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:30 AM



Jesus IS NOT GOD.


All just accept your word on that then. drinker


Jesus and God are one in the way they do things, the way they rule the world, the way they do everything. But they are not one as in one being.

At war, all the troups of a country are as one... they are all that country they are fighting for.


A good way to explain just came to me....... take an engine for instance. Every piece is it's own piece, it's own object, is singular. But all those parts work together for one united purpose forming the engine..... now they are one, just as Jesus said the father and him was one.

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:45 AM
If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.

CowboyGH's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:47 AM

If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:49 AM


If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.


Sure he was. All are childern of God.

CowboyGH's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:51 AM



If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.


Sure he was. All are childern of God.


Good point, let me refraise that statement. Because Buddha wasn't the begotten child of God.

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 07/24/10 12:58 AM




If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.


Sure he was. All are childern of God.


Good point, let me refraise that statement. Because Buddha wasn't the begotten child of God.


Same difference.

Any attempt to preserve Jesus as the "Only Begotten Son" of God goes right back to the absurd paradox of a God appeasing himself.

You can't really have Jesus as being God and not God simultaneously.

This is the entire Christian story. It's all about having your cake and eat it too. It has to be that way because the story is so utterly logically inconsistent and contradicting that it can only be claimed to 'work' as a paradox.

In other words, it can only be claimed to 'make sense' if we accept that it does not 'make sense'. whoa

It's clearly an illogical, and thus absurd story of a God who appeases himself via his "Only Begotten Son".

Wulfenstraat's photo
Sat 07/31/10 09:07 PM





If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.


Sure he was. All are childern of God.


Good point, let me refraise that statement. Because Buddha wasn't the begotten child of God.


Same difference.

500 years before the New Testament, a young 12 year old boy who would eventually be a god spoke in the temple to the priests and instructed them. His name was Krishna, so similar to Christ. You can see that the New Testament stories of Jesus are really just an accumulation of previous stories of other gods.
Any attempt to preserve Jesus as the "Only Begotten Son" of God goes right back to the absurd paradox of a God appeasing himself.

You can't really have Jesus as being God and not God simultaneously.

This is the entire Christian story. It's all about having your cake and eat it too. It has to be that way because the story is so utterly logically inconsistent and contradicting that it can only be claimed to 'work' as a paradox.

In other words, it can only be claimed to 'make sense' if we accept that it does not 'make sense'. whoa

It's clearly an illogical, and thus absurd story of a God who appeases himself via his "Only Begotten Son".

CowboyGH's photo
Sat 07/31/10 09:14 PM






If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.


Sure he was. All are childern of God.


Good point, let me refraise that statement. Because Buddha wasn't the begotten child of God.


Same difference.

500 years before the New Testament, a young 12 year old boy who would eventually be a god spoke in the temple to the priests and instructed them. His name was Krishna, so similar to Christ. You can see that the New Testament stories of Jesus are really just an accumulation of previous stories of other gods.
Any attempt to preserve Jesus as the "Only Begotten Son" of God goes right back to the absurd paradox of a God appeasing himself.

You can't really have Jesus as being God and not God simultaneously.

This is the entire Christian story. It's all about having your cake and eat it too. It has to be that way because the story is so utterly logically inconsistent and contradicting that it can only be claimed to 'work' as a paradox.

In other words, it can only be claimed to 'make sense' if we accept that it does not 'make sense'. whoa

It's clearly an illogical, and thus absurd story of a God who appeases himself via his "Only Begotten Son".



We are ALL one. That is why Jesus referanced to him being God, then later on praying to the father. Also goes along with

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods

We ALL are parts of God.

CowboyGH's photo
Sat 07/31/10 09:18 PM







If Jesus is not God anymore than Buddha was God, then Christianity hasn't anymore merit than Buddhism.


No because Buddha wasn't the son of God.


Sure he was. All are childern of God.


Good point, let me refraise that statement. Because Buddha wasn't the begotten child of God.


Same difference.

500 years before the New Testament, a young 12 year old boy who would eventually be a god spoke in the temple to the priests and instructed them. His name was Krishna, so similar to Christ. You can see that the New Testament stories of Jesus are really just an accumulation of previous stories of other gods.
Any attempt to preserve Jesus as the "Only Begotten Son" of God goes right back to the absurd paradox of a God appeasing himself.

You can't really have Jesus as being God and not God simultaneously.

This is the entire Christian story. It's all about having your cake and eat it too. It has to be that way because the story is so utterly logically inconsistent and contradicting that it can only be claimed to 'work' as a paradox.

In other words, it can only be claimed to 'make sense' if we accept that it does not 'make sense'. whoa

It's clearly an illogical, and thus absurd story of a God who appeases himself via his "Only Begotten Son".



We are ALL one. That is why Jesus referanced to him being God, then later on praying to the father. Also goes along with

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods

We ALL are parts of God.


Also just dawned on me. Jesus NEVER refers to our Father as God or even a God. Only ever refers to God as father. It's only this world and it's differences in beliefs that have given our father the title of God. Only thing that comes close to our father being called a God is one of the 10 commandments. 3.Do not have any other gods before me. That could be translate into not putting any man before our Father.

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 07/31/10 10:39 PM
Wulfenstraat wrote:

500 years before the New Testament, a young 12 year old boy who would eventually be a god spoke in the temple to the priests and instructed them. His name was Krishna, so similar to Christ. You can see that the New Testament stories of Jesus are really just an accumulation of previous stories of other gods.


Truly. Mythology abounds with such tales.

The Chrsitains (i.e. the authors of the New Testament), were the only one's who were arrogant enough to try to claim that their story is the only one that holds any truth.

All they succeeded in doing is creating a religion that is so arrogant it can only be described as being 'ungodly'.

Now look what their followers are stuck with having to do. They are stuck with having to argue for the arrogance of their religion. It's truly disgusting and gets old real quick.

Like Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ, it's your Chrsitians I don't much care for."

And clearly that's because of their extreme arrogance and religious bigotry. They demand that their Jesus hates everyone who refuses to believe in him, in spite of the fact that even the Gospels have Jesus quoted as stating precisely the opposite view; that He himself did not even require that anyone believe in him.

What an irony.

If Jesus were alive today he would be ranting on about how the Christians are hypocrites, instead of ranting on about the scribes and pharisees as he did in his day.

It's clear to me (and to Gandhi) that Jesus himself would not even support their religious arrogance and bigotry. Yet they continue to preach such nasty stuff in HIS name. And that has to be the most pathetic thing of all. Jesus just got in with a bad crowd and unfortunately they created a hell of an evil religion in his name.

It's sad when you stop and think about it. His name could have been associated with something good and positive.


Wulfenstraat's photo
Sun 08/01/10 08:35 PM
Hear Hear

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Next