LOL!
And your ranting posts are feeble...


Anything to avoid addressing the issues huh?
What's wrong? Can't address you own claims?

Yeah, yeah, same ole, same ole BS.
Fill the pages with fluff, pretend you said something intelligent, insult whoever you can as often as you can...

Fail, fail, fail, and fail again. It is you who implies God is stupid. It is you who continually attacks Christians. It is you who cannot answer honestly. It is you who lies about your own words and claims. It is you who puts words into others' mouths. It is you who admits the lie and still believes it. It is you who is bigoted. It is you who can't admit your fallacies. It is you who thinks pagans are Christian.

Here is my proof: http://mingle2.com/forum/show_posts_by_user/130401

So, shall I call you a "Designer Intellectual"? Remember Karma?








The moral to my parable? Never argue with a little man who thinks he is big as he'll do everything to keep that delusion alive in his own mind.

====================================
Moreover, if you believe that God cannot protect people because he cannot interfere with people's free will then God cannot protect you either. So why would the Bible contain verses like, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
=====================================

How is protecting you taking away your free will? God protecting us doesn't mean he won't let us do certain things, or won't let people do certain things to us that would cause harm. No free will taken away. That's like claiming your countries army has taken away your free will for they keep you safe from other countries. lol. No my friend, just because someone protects you and takes care of you does NOT mean they are taking away your free will.
--------------------------------------------

=====================================
Jesus failed to practice what he preached. He preached the 12 laws of Karma, but he failed to live up to those laws himself. He taught not to judge others, which was good, but unfortunately he didn't heed that advice himself. He judged the Scribes and Pharisees to be hypocrites and accused them of committing sins. He did this publicly in his ranting sermons. The Scribes and Pharisees were well aware of this and he often insulted them directly in public.
======================================

Jesus preached nothing of Karma lol. Jesus preached the laws of our father and how to abide by them. And on your comment about his teachings on judging. Of course Jesus is allowed to judge, for he is the judge of us all. He is the one you'll face after you pass away on this earth, the one you'll answere up to for all your actions through your lives. You forget, Jesus is the word in flesh and we are judged by the word of God.
----------------------------------------

========================================
He also taught to turn the other cheek, but he failed to practice what he preached when he lost his temper in the temple and threw a tantrum overturning the tables of the money changers.
========================================

You forget Jesus is the judge/enforcer of the law. And the lord's house is not to be used as a trade post, thus he over turned the tables and threw them out.
--------------------------------------------

========================================
I'm not suggesting that Jesus got what he "deserved", I'm just saying that he caused the situation. A situation that would not have existed had Jesus chosen to follow the laws of karma himself and not insulted the pharisees in the first place.
========================================

No insults were made. If you see a green apple and call it a GREEN apple are you insulting the apple? No, you are merely stating an obvious fact that it is green. Same as Jesus was doing, he called them hypocrits for they were being hipocrits. And again you forget Jesus is the judge of us all and his judgment is righteous. Therefor Jesus calling the scribes hipocrits was not "name calling". He merely judged them by their actions and proclaimed them to be hipocrits.

I'm sorry that you misunderstand Peter. That's unfortunate.

This is indeed the major problem when discussing the Abrahamic religions. Everyone takes things far too personally.

Here's the situation:

Proselytizers of the religion are constantly badgering people to "accept the Bible as the Word of God".

Surely you can accept the truth of this?

Notice that I did not say "Christians". In fact, IMHO, it's questionable whether Proselytizers are indeed "Christians" in the sense of actually following the teachings of Jesus. But that's a whole issue in it's own right.

Also, I don't think it would be fair to label all evangelists as proselytizers since there are many evangelists who go about their work far more meekly and only truly evangelize to those who appear to be sincerely interested in salvation.

Proselytizers are those people who go around arguing to everyone that the Bible is the "Word of God" and accusing everyone who refuses to accept this as 'fact' to be rejecting "God's Truth", blah, blah, blah.

So proselytizers are arguing with people that the Bible is the "Word of God" and that any religious faith, beliefs, or non-believes that their victims might hold, are false.

So in other words proselytizers are insulting everyone else's faiths and religions, as well as constantly arguing "IN YOUR FACE", relentlessly demanding that the Bible is the "Word of God" and that anyone who rejects it is knowingly and willfully rejecting God and is therefore an unworthy heathen.

So here's the scoop.

During these arguments the proselytizers are arguing that the Bible is the "Word of God", therefore the people they are accusing of rejecting God, naturally point out why they disagree with this claim.

Well, one of the greatest reasons that I disagree with the claim that the Bible is the word of God is that in my honest sincere assessment the Hebrew description of God appears to me to be far too stupid (i.e. UNWISE), to be the "Words" and "Actions" of any ALL-WISE God.

That, my friend, is nothing more than the TRUTH.

It's my TRUTH. From my vantage point, the biblical "Claims" of what God told people to do, and what God himself did, appear to me to be totally UNWISE acts. In other words, these fables are far to stupid to be describing any supposed ALL-WISE God.

That's a valid observation and concern.

So now for "Christians" to take offense to this and to twist it around to suggest that I'm saying that Christians are stupid for believing these stories, is their own assessment.

This is where the proselytizers are then SUPPORTED by innocent "Christians" (i.e. Christians who don't go around proselytizing on their own, but who get caught up in the sale pitches and arguments that proselytizers are having with non-believers).

As a Christian, a person should recognize that for someone to see the Bible as being unwise is a perfectly legitimate reason for them to be rejecting it. At least they can know and understand why the person does not wish to worship the stories of the the Hebrews as the "Word of God".

When I was a Christian I didn't take offense to people who told me that they felt the Bible is stupid. Of course, at that time I was under the naive belief that after having studied the Bible in far greater depth I would be able to simply show them why they are wrong.

As you well know, things did not turn out that way. In the end, I had to face the fact that these people had a valid point.

~~~~

Just as some sincerely friendly advice, I would suggest to you that instead of just blindly supporting every proselytizer who comes along, simply point out where you disagree with their conclusions.

Apparently you do disagree with much of what they say. So why you support random proselytizers and Paper Popes in the name of "Christianity" is beyond me.

All you need to do is offer that you don't agree with their claims in detail.

From what I can tell, you are not a proselytizer and would not even bother to become one since you keep referring to Romans 2 as a reason why hardcore proselytizing isn't even necessary.

So apparently you get caught up in the crossfire between non-believers and hardcore proselytizers mistakenly thinking that their arguments have something to do with you.

Proselytizers typically (in fact just about always) demand that Jesus paid for our sins through his crucifixion. The crucifix and cross have not become icons of their religion by mistake. This is the foundation of Christianity, and has been for eons. The blood of Christ has washed away your sins! It's a blood sacrifice from God on your behalf. The sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Of course that's the tale. I personally disagree that this scenario makes any sense at all. And that's where we're at.

The main reason that I reject these myths is because they are indeed nonsense. They make no sense.

And I confess that putting it into terms like "Why should I believe that God is stupid?", it not the best way to phrase things. That kind of speech unfortunately comes out when the proselytizers don't seem to be understanding that nonsense = stupid.

The Bible is not consistent, and it makes no sense in terms of a supposedly ALL-WISE God being the one who is supposedly making all these directives and taking all these actions depicted in the Bible.

That is, without a doubt, the greatest CASE against it.

What can I say?

It's just the facts of the situation.

It's not. That's what I'm saying.

This is why the argument that God could not have protected Jesus because God had to honor the free will of men is a bogus argument.

What protection did Jesus need? o.O

Jesus was fearless, Jesus preached the gospel even knowing of the outcome of being crucified. Jesus sacrificed his well being for you so that he would suffer death so that you would not have to. He died so that YOU would not have to. So what protection did Jesus need? Jesus is on the right hand of God in the glorious heaven. Again what did Jesus need protection from? What did he loose from being crucified?

I guess you're right from your vantage point. If you accept that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God butchered to pay for you unworthy soul, then I can see why that would make sense to you.

I don't believe in a God who is appeased by having people butchered.

So to me, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

I guess I need to believe in the butcher God first, eh?

You're looking at it with a very primitive mind set. You're seeing the gruesome side, the death, the hanging some man on a pole, ect.

No God isn't satisfied specifically from having someone hung to a pole to die. No, that's not exactly where the love is. Jesus SACRIFICED his entire life for us. He preached through out his life, he in the end gave his mortal life up for us. He gave himself to go through the pain of the crucifixion. He suffered the pain of death so that you would not have to. That's where the sacrifice is.

Would someone not be honoured in memories for having pushed someone out of the way of an oncoming car to save that persons life in the mean time giving his own life up? Especially if that person was someone they did not know, but saved their life any ways?

Would someone not be honoured for diving in a raging river to save a kid's life while giving their own life up in order to save this child?

These are all examples that imply the same sacrifice Jesus did for everyone of us. Jesus didn't care if we killed people, raped people, tortured people, and or anything else of such. No, there is ALWAYS room for repentance and turning your life over to our lord.

I know you're probably not going to believe this, or even understand it, but when I was your age (actually a bit younger), I too, thought much like you. I tried to 'save' Christianity until I was blue in the face. I made every excuse for it that I could dream up, and tried to sincerely make them work too.

I actually made the argument that you have just presented here. But this argument is deeply flawed and cannot be made to work.

This argument could only work if Jesus was indeed a mortal man and decided on his own to devote his life to saving men.

But that's not how the story goes. Jesus was the Son of God in this story. And that changes everything.

You say:



As always, you're comparing God with mere mortals. And that comparison can never stand.

In the case of mortal humans, they could not stop the oncoming car, or the raging river.

However, in the case of Jesus, he would have been throwing himself in front of the oncoming WRATH OF GOD!

That's an oxymoron.

There would have been no need for God's son to sacrifice himself to save us from the wrath of the Father.

All that would be required is for the Father himself to quit being so 'wrathful', and simply show a little compassion.

This is where your explanation breaks down.

Jesus would have been 'saving' us from the Wrath of God.

And how does he do this? By allowing God to take is Wrath out on Jesus?

That's basically what you're suggesting when you compare the wrath of God with an oncoming car or a raging river.

So no. Your explanation is not satisfying for me at all.

If this "blood sacrifice" of "suffering and pain" was required for our salvation it can only be because God is appeased by seeing someone suffer in pain.

Otherwise it makes no sense. There would be no "car" or "raging river" for Jesus to save us from.

Jesus is supposedly saving us from the "Wrath of God".

There is no other explanations possible.

Well, many people have suggested that God had to do this to 'beat' Satan. But that is far less acceptable. That only suggests that God sees Satan as a real threat and powerful enough that God would have actually had to have made a sacrifice to 'beat' the devil. That gives the demon far too much power, so most people, including myself, reject that idea.

So the only thing left. is that the 'sacrifice' was indeed made to appease God (or make atonement for sin).

But that's one of my biggest objection way back in the Old Testament. I reject the very notion of a "God" who is appeased by blood sacrifices, or who would even request such a thing as an 'atonement' for sin.

Giving blood sacrifices to the Gods is a common human myth that pervades many folklore of many cultures. It was even commonly used in Greek Mythology as well.

I asked myself this, "Would the real creator of this universe just happen to be like all these mythological fables that men have always made up?"

My answer is, "Not likely".

That's my answer. You're may differ.

But I also asked, "Do I think an all-wise all-powerful entity would think like that?"

My answer is, "I don't think so"

Yet this idea truly is the basis of the whole "sacrificial lamb" thing of Christianity. Let there be no doubt about that.

~~~~~

So anyway, I'm just telling you why your explanation does not impress me. The 'oncoming car' in this situation would be "God's Wrath". And God could simply 'stop' the car if he wanted to.

You compare this with mortal humans who cannot stop the car, or the raging river. But it doesn't carry over to an all-powerful God who can .

So your analogies here with mortals do not work in this situation.

And he will stop being so wrathful if you were to obey him. He would then not have anything to be wrathful about.

As far as I can tell the only thing I "disobey" is his command that I must believe in him.

So I'm supposed to worship a God to appease his "wrath"?

I prefer to place my faith in philosophies and religions that offer a LOVING God and Goddess, thank you very much.

Why worship a spoiled brat God when I can worship a LOVING God?

Oh, by the way, this wouldn't help your original argument anyway. According to you Jesus suffered God's WRATH for us already!

Therefore it really doesn't matter whether I obey or not now, the WRATH was already suffered FOR ME!

Jesus PAID for my sins (for my disobedience). So now I'm FREE from God's WRATH.

Thank You JESUS!

At least now I've got the demon off my back.

So do you deny claiming to speak with God in your dreams and do you deny having Jesus as a phycic archetype?





Do you also deny accepting Jesus?


Seriously man, some of us wake up with a full recollection of the previous day.

No, of course not Peter.

But you're using the term "God" here in a Christians sense are you not?

This is a very huge problem with people who buy into a Zeus-like archetype of "God". They can't comprehend anything beyond that. It's the only way they can think of "God" and they can't get out of that box.

As you have correctly observed I have Jesus as a psychic archetype. Although, I haven't yet had a conversation with this psychic archetype directly, but I have listened to him and Buddha conversing.

And yes, I have spoken with "God" through Cerridwen. She has indeed spoken to me directly in depth. However, I personally don't think of her as "God", even though on an intellectual level I realize that she is a facet of communique for precisely that. I just think of her as Cerridwen.

They kind of "God" that you have in mind is a concrete absolute kind of "God". A God that must necessarily be limited and restricted to precisely how you think of "God", as well as being limited and restricted in how the "God" himself must think.

The "God" I see is a mystery and cannot be confined or put into a box. Cerridwen, Jesus, Buddha, and a whole lot of other psychic archetypes allow me to have psychic communique with the unknowable.

I don't expect you to understand any of this. But until a Christian can even begin to acknowledge that other views of "God" are possible it would be silly to tell a Christian that I speak with "God" because they would take it to mean that I'm talking to some kind of jealous egotistical Godhead. Which would give them the wrong idea.



Do you also deny accepting Jesus?


Accepting what about Jesus?

Do I not accept that a man named Jesus actually existed?

Have I not said on many occasions that I agree with the moral teachings of Jesus and always have? Even when I first read them I just nodded my head in agreement?

I'm not sure if that qualifies as having "accepted" the moral values of Jesus or not. How can I "accept" moral values that I already held previously? I acknowledge that I agree with them. That's the best I can do.

Have I not accepted Jesus as a psychic archetype in my spiritual endeavors?

Have I not acknowledged that we are all one with the "Father" just as Jesus has? (although that patriarchal term is clearly a Hebrew notion). I prefer to simply say we are all one with the divine essence of reality. (that's the 20th century scientist coming out in me ) There's no need to push gender onto spirit.

Have I not acknowledged that we are gods, just as Jesus had taught according to the Christian gospels?

What is it that you would like me to 'accept' about Jesus that I haven't already accepted?

I will grant you that I do not 'accept' every word of the gospels as being reliable. I think it's unrealistic to hang on every word verbatim (especially the commentary narrative opinions). But seeing since Jesus didn't even write the gospels, rejecting the gospels as being unreliable verbatim would not be the same as rejecting Jesus anyway.

Moreover, why is any of this even important? Where did Jesus himself supposedly say directly that he must be 'accepted'?

aside note: Unfortunately when I ask Christians this they often shoot back bible quotes that have nothing to do with anything Jesus ever supposedly said. They are either quoting from opinionated commentary, or from something Paul wrote, etc. You really need to show me an actual "quote" from Jesus that says that he must be "accepted" as "God" or whatever. And one that isn't ambiguous. Even in that case, I can easily dismiss it as having simply been a poor translation of what Jesus might have actually said. Why should I accept that every quote in the Christian gospels that is attributed to Jesus actually came from the man verbatim?

As far as I can tell it makes far more sense to believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who was grossly misunderstood, than it does to believe that he was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh.

So what's to accept that I haven't already accepted?

Convoluted Christian rumors? (speaking of the actual authors of the New Testament when I refer to "Christians" here)

Why should I accept those?

If you accept the gift, then yes. But if you do not accept the gift it holds no power for you for you did not accept it. And since you deny Jesus as the lord and saviour, the sacrificial lamb for us then that right there shows you have not accepted the gift. So please try again.

Accepting what about Jesus?

Do I not accept that a man named Jesus actually existed?

Have I not said on many occasions that I agree with the moral teachings of Jesus and always have? Even when I first read them I just nodded my head in agreement?

I'm not sure if that qualifies as having "accepted" the moral values of Jesus or not. How can I "accept" moral values that I already held previously? I acknowledge that I agree with them. That's the best I can do.

Have I not accepted Jesus as a psychic archetype in my spiritual endeavors?

Have I not acknowledged that we are all one with the "Father" just as Jesus has? (although that patriarchal term is clearly a Hebrew notion). I prefer to simply say we are all one with the divine essence of reality. (that's the 20th century scientist coming out in me ) There's no need to push gender onto spirit.

Have I not acknowledged that we are gods, just as Jesus had taught according to the Christian gospels?

What is it that you would like me to 'accept' about Jesus that I haven't already accepted?

I will grant you that I do not 'accept' every word of the gospels as being reliable. I think it's unrealistic to hang on every word verbatim (especially the commentary narrative opinions). But seeing since Jesus didn't even write the gospels, rejecting the gospels as being unreliable verbatim would not be the same as rejecting Jesus anyway.

Moreover, why is any of this even important? Where did Jesus himself supposedly say directly that he must be 'accepted'?

aside note: Unfortunately when I ask Christians this they often shoot back bible quotes that have nothing to do with anything Jesus ever supposedly said. They are either quoting from opinionated commentary, or from something Paul wrote, etc. You really need to show me an actual "quote" from Jesus that says that he must be "accepted" as "God" or whatever. And one that isn't ambiguous. Even in that case, I can easily dismiss it as having simply been a poor translation of what Jesus might have actually said. Why should I accept that every quote in the Christian gospels that is attributed to Jesus actually came from the man verbatim?

As far as I can tell it makes far more sense to believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who was grossly misunderstood, than it does to believe that he was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh.

So what's to accept that I haven't already accepted?

Convoluted Christian rumors? (speaking of the actual authors of the New Testament when I refer to "Christians" here)

Why should I accept those?










Accepting Jesus is accepting Jesus as lord and saviour. That would then instil that we follow his teachings, and praise him as the only begotten child of our father. Which would then accept his ultimate gift he gave for us all.

accepting "jesus" simply be accepting he stood for "the only most good of humanity", which was "no greater than" within mankind.

and, that such notion is the "lord" of all truth, or the GREATEST TRUTH, as it destroys hatred bred within mankind of GREATER THAN.

and since it does, than such belief or knowing is as a saviour of mankind, or, SIMPLY saving mankind from the self created WARS AND HATRED OF "GREATER THAN".

"no greater than"...

tis the only three words one needs to know to get to heaven, lol...

oh, but that would destroy the need for the empires built that INSIST CHURCHES, PREACHERS, EVANGELIST, PROPHETS, BE GREATER THAN...

lol...

what a farce...

The Bible gives much instruction prior to being fruitful, like clinging to the love of our youth and leaving the parents to do so. Being fruitful did not imply being promiscuous, but creating families with the partner which we have been joined with.

"Eg., be fruitful and fill the earth. "

To me that means to fill the Earth with your progeny. Not "populate" the world with progeny.

The wording is important. Someone as smart as the Almighty is certainly good with the language.

So what He is commanding is for us to fornicate and bury our newborn in dirt. Bury them while live or not, He does not clarify that detail. So I guess it's the same to Him either way.

I think it was his way of saying, you can't have your fruit-bearing trees bear fruit unless you replentish the soil with nutrients, and therefore you must put nitrogen-rich substances in the earth if you want a good crop, with things like your children, just as long as the fruits are bourne on the trees.

This is quite in line with "do not spill your seed on the ground", as He wants us to bury our children, there is a process here. We don't know why, it'd be simpler and would go with less heartache if we jismd on the ground, but I guess we can't always know why He wants us to do one thing or another, He and His ways are inscrutable.

So those of us who do not bear fruit, and don't bury our children in the ground, are living in sin and are destined to eternal damnation in hell. All that for misunderstanding His words, and putting meaning to where it doesn't belong.

He said "fill the earth". I don't know which part of it is beyond anyone who is of at least normal intelligence.

The big problem is that people made a mental image of God, and people think He wanted to say this, or that, because we can't believe our own eyes and ear when we see in the Scriptures what He actually said.

I think the Bible is the word of God, and if we can't trust Him to be communictating in a straightforward and easily understood manner, and we feel the urge to put words in His mouth and we "interpret" His words to suit our false image of Him, then we are paranoid, mystrustful, idiotic scarycats. We wonder why there is suffering in the world, wars, diseases, natural disasters. Well, my theory is that we don't follow His word, that's why. That's the simplest and most obvious explanation.

This "fill the Earth" think-thing, outwitting and second-guessing Him and His words, is just one of the examples of how we do not follow His teachings.

Why can't we all do the right thing?

and you understand how 'language' has cultural and contextual differences, especially over long periods of time

but cute assessment anyhow,,,

Oh, yes, I understand. Why don't you ask Him if He understands? Is He so much more stupider than I?

I hardly think so. We suffer coz we are not following His words. If you go and justify your interpretations, you are doing the Devil's work, my sweet young lady.

DO WHAT HE, THE ALMIGHTY GOD, SAYS, AND DON'T MESS AROUND WITH "INTERPRETING" HIS COMMANDS. HE IS NOT STUPID, HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS SAYING. IT'S IN LANGUAGE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE? THEN PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, AND DO WHAT HE SAYS, NOT WHAT YOU INTERPRET HE SAYS.


And Christians are constantly perplexed by the non-Christians calling them hypocrites. You don't have any sense, you Christians, and our world is suffering for it.