Dictionary:

un·be·liev·er

un·be·liev·er [ùnbi lvər]
(plural un·be·liev·ers)
n
somebody who does not share beliefs: somebody who does not believe in an established religious faith or in conventional beliefs

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Thesaurus:

unbeliever (n)

nonbeliever, skeptic, atheist, agnostic, freethinker, doubter

antonym: believer


Dictionary:

fear·ful

fear·ful [frf'l]
adj
1. worried: feeling anxiety or apprehension
fearful for the safety of her investment

2. frightening: causing or likely to cause fear
a fearful storm

3. timid: nervous and easily frightened
a fearful kitten

4. scared: arising from or expressing fear
a fearful expression

5. feeling reverence: feeling respect or awe for somebody or something
gazed in fearful wonder

6. very bad: extreme in degree, intensity, or badness (informal)
had a fearful headache




-fear·ful·ly, , adv
-fear·ful·ness, , n
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Exactly. And this is why the Christian bible has to be the religious bigotry of men rather than the thoughts of an all-wise God.

No genuinely all-wise God would think that way.

So these guys shot themselves in the foot with their own over-zealous religious bigotry exposing their writings to be nothing more than the egotistical ambitions of religious zealots who were out to renounce all other religions. Which, by the way, was clearly an agenda of those ancient societies, they all seemed to have the mentality of "Our God can beat up your God", or, "Our God is real, and yours isn't"

This is precisely what makes these religions so obnoxious.

I knew you would have that response...
Ab, you are so...very predictable.

I don't think you studied very much
when you were pursuing the Christian ministry...
As I have said before...
you cut yourself short when you walked away from it...
the first time you found something you didn't understand
...you flew the coup...better yet, defected.
Now, you need to be taught what every verse means ,
but that's fine
...If you continue to challenge the bible
...hopefully there will be someone
who will try to break it all down for you.
I tell you, the answers are so easy...

I agree. Instead of calling God a liar and an evil being why don't you just say what's on your mind so someone can explain it?

The authors of the Bible make God out to be an evil being. That's one reason why I reject their stories.

No one can explain why a supposedly all-wise divine being is appeased by blood sacrifices. It certainly isn't explained in the Bible, it's just assumed that God is like that, probably because people were already accustom to accepting those kinds of Gods back in those days so no one felt any need to justify it. People just believed that this is what God's were like.

I need no explanations. It's all crystal clear to me.

The Old Testament is just fables like those of Zeus. There's nothing divine about them. They condone male-chauvinism, bigotry against "heathens", and the judging of others to be 'sinners'.

I don't believe that a truly divine being would support any of that.

The Old Testament also has God dealing with sin by drowning out the sinners, which fits in with the persona of those fables.

However, the New Testament is a story about a man who had a totally different view of life. He simply didn't support the moral values of the Old Testament. He taught moral values that were far more closely aligned with the teachings of Buddha.

He was wrongfully crucified for his views. And then the New Testament is nothing more than rumors that try to make out like this man was the son of the God of the Old Testament.

So I need no explanations. I have a totally acceptable explanation of the whole thing.

The Old Testament is total mythology.

Jesus was a mystic that was basically teaching the moral values of Buddhism and pantheism (i.e. what you do to your brother you do to me)

And the New Testament is just hearsay rumors that try to use Jesus to prop up the old religious bigotries of the Old Testament.

So I have all my answers with no questions left. The whole thing makes perfect sense to me as I've described it. Yet it makes absolutely no sense at all if you try to support the Christian view of things, IMHO.

So I have no questions. Just explanations.

Which gift is greater?

1. A rich person with millions upon millions of dollars giving a poor family a few hundred thousand
or
2. A poor family giving another poor family all they have to help them out?

Is not the family that gave all a greater gift because they gave all of what they had and not some?

That is why a "blood" sacrifice is so great and appeasing. For it is the most important thing. Especially in those days where that was pretty much all they had to eat. They didn't have the variety and easy access to food as we do now. They grew their crops and live stock and ate what they could eat. So, that's where it was a great sacrifice to sacrifice their best animal. And is why it was a "Sacrifice". A sacrifice isn't just a ritual, it's just that a sacrifice. And sacrifice is something very important and needed but you give it up any ways in a showing of love for this person your giving the sacrifice to.

Our life is the most valuable thing you'll ever find. You can NOT "buy" a life. You can not buy a life because their is not enough money in the world to do as such. That is where the sacrifice Jesus made for us was the ultimate sacrifice. He gave his life for everyone in the world. He didn't have to my friend. He could have just stayed a carpenter all his life. He didn't have to give us the new covenant between man and God. He didn't have to pursue the life he did. But he did in sacrifice for you and everyone else in the world.

You continuously claim the bible to be male-chauvinist. Have you ever heard the saying "to many chiefs and not enough Indians"? There needs to be someone in control or everyone would just run around with their heads chopped off *figuratively speaking of course*

And about the drowning out the sinners. Does the governments not do the same thing in this day an age even? Sinner = Someone who disobeys the laws of God, Criminal = someone who disobeys the laws of the land. Do criminals not get executed at times?

Being stoned to death was only for a few certain sins, it wasn't for ALL sins. Just because someone stole something, they wouldn't be stoned to death. They may loose a hand or something, but not stoned to death less it was a repeated offence.

First you go on about how God is appeased through blood sacrifices. And later try to understand why this is.
This my friend is your first mistake.

You have to realize that God is not a human being. He is a spirit. He is beyond human. His mind is infinite as is his wizdom and knowledge.
Therefor to attempt to understand God from what we read is simply not possible. Therefor we will never know why the blood is needed other than to cover sin.

Now you say that there is male chauvinism and bigotry.
Well the man is the leader of the woman. That's why we have male dominated society and always will. The man is the dominate animal. And the one God has put in charge. Which is why if you take a man and a woman (A man of God) If the man leads the woman will almost always follow. That's the rule. That's how it works by nature.

Now about seeing others as sinners, they are called that because they have not repented. They have not rejected sin. They sin willfully and don't care. So they are called sinners.
They also mock God,attempt to turn others to their way of thinking,and mislead. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. There is simply no grey area.

As for Jesus. Jesus was prophesied to be the son of God for manny years before he was even born. Jon the baptist came to make the path for the son of God BEFORE birth. So saying he was not goes against history as it's written.
Jesus was not wrongly crucified. That was part of the master plan. He died so that blood sacrifice would no longer be needed. (I hate to explain this again so I wont)


The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice. (Proverbs 12:15)

Take my advice abra and try to understand what you speak of.

It's the same morals my friend. The same laws, the 10 commandments were in the old testament and that's exactly what Jesus taught, the 10 commandments. I can point out all 10 commandments throughout his teachings if you wish. They may not have been on a simple plague called "the 10 commandments". But EVERY single commandment can be found through the teachings of Jesus.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT IS WHEN WE ARE JUDGED FOR OUR SINS.

In the times of the old testament the word*gods law* was just that, the word. It needed someone to carry out the judgement because it was just a law, the word. So we had stoning. The only reward for sin is death. Then the word was made flesh "Jesus". So now the word can carry out the judgement on it's own, and we no longer are to stone people because of that. That is the ONLY big difference between the two.

That's not true.

The Old Testament taught people to seek revenge, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and forgive.

Jesus taught the wisdom of Buddha, not the violence of the Old Testament.

Nope, your story doesn't hold water, IMHO.

But what I have recognized to be truth does.

So again, I'm not impressed. Your claims just don't hold true from my perspective.

I see no reason to support male-chauvinism, religious bigotry, and a need to condone blood sacrifices in order to be "saved".

None of that seems divine to me.

And then you have a God who condemns non-believers for simply not believing that God is associated with all these horrible things?

Sorry, that's kills it right there.

Once again Abra your wise in your own eyes. Nobody can get through to you because you already believe that your right.
To you you the argument is closed. Your mind isn't open to new idea's. No matter what we say your outcome will always be the same.

It will never seem "divine" to you. None of it will ever seem right.
That's the problem with arguing. All it does is reinforce the idea that your right and we are wrong.

The reason for the eye for an eye belief was because in the old days they lived life by "The law" people wanted revenge and would therefor go after eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth.
So the lawmakers saw this and thought it easier to simply incorporate it into the law.
Now just for fun as well as clarification today we go to prison for breaking the law. Back then you just got stoned (By rocks not drugs)

Jesus simply steered people straight. Which I think we can both agree was the right way to go. Wether it was said by boo-duh or Jesus it's still right.

So if jesus said it, there is probably good reason. Anything you can dig up I or someone else can explain away.

All you're basically saying here is the following:

Yes, any sane reasonable person can see that the biblical account of God is unwise, and any attempt to understand it as being wise based on the Bible alone will always fail. Therefore, in order to believe in this religion you must imagine that God is so infinitely wise that he can make this stupidity work somehow.

I mean, seriously.

Why bother?

There already exist other spiritual philosophies that are already sane. Why buy into one that's insane under the hope that some infinite God can explain why it appears to be insane when in fact it's actually sane?

That's just silly.

Just face the facts that the mythology itself cannot be made to make sense. So why even bother with it in the first place?

If you need to imagine some external infinitely wise explanations to justify the absurdities in the mythology then I say just drop it as a failed mythology in the first place.

Why support absurdities under some crazy notion that there "might exist" explanations of why these absurd things could potentially make sense to someone who has way more knowledge than the mythology provides?

That's really just scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to support something that everyone recognizes as being absurd, even the Christians themselves who recognize the need to appeal to imaginary explanations that aren't part of the mythology.

That whole line of thinking is itself absurd, IMHO.

You could apply that same argument to the mythology of Zeus if you wanted to. Or anything really. That's a non-argument, as far as I'm concerned. That's just pure desperation to try to push an obviously absurd mythology that contains no rational explanations itself.

So I'm guessing you want me to go to what? Another mythology? Buddhism or perhaps evolution mythology? Either way you look at it everyone believes something. Even if they can't prove it. It all takes faith.

And what makes you any different? You do the exact same thing! I do believe that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Yeah I guess your right. I've thought about quitting this whole forum deal.

I mean what's the point? Nobody ever listens to what you say anyhow.

If someone says Why would God send anyone to hell? I can explain it but they never listen! I'll probably end up going to the general discussion forum or something.

And the Bible Thumpers have an open mind?

Oh please.

I offer an extremely intelligent and well-thought-out scenario that is perfectly plausible. It explains away all of the absurdities.

The Old Testament is just fables like Greek Mythology. No further explanation there. And this does away with many absurdities, like the very idea that mankind is responsible for bringing death, disease, and imperfection into the world.

We already know from scientific knowledge that death, disease and imperfections existed long before mankind ever showed up on the planet.

So just recognizing this does away with the whole idea that we "fell from grace" from our creator and are in dire need of repentance, which is the whole plot of the Bible.

I could have just as easily chalked off the stories of Jesus as mere fables too. However, after having studying them with much sincerity along with other religions around the world I finally realize that Jesus was most likely a mystic Jew (which was actually common among many Jews in those days). Jesus probably learned of the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism (which was at it's peak around the time Jesus supposedly lived).

Then looking at many of the things that Jesus was supposed to have said look, to me, very much like he was indeed taking a pantheistic view of life. He and the father are one. That's a pantheistic view. We are gods. That's a pantheistic view. What you do to your brother you do to me. That's a pantheistic view.

Moreover, he taught the wisdom and morals of Mahayana Buddhism, and not the things that had been taught in the Torah. When speaking of the Torah to the Pharisees even the authors of the gospels have him referring to it as "Your Law", not "My Law", or "God's Law", but "Your Law".

I just see no reason to believe that Jesus was anything other than a Jewish Buddhist.

I seriously doubt that he ever expected to be crucified for his views. In fact, even when confronted by the main authority, Pilot, he was acquitted. Who thought that he would be thrown to do the dogs by offering them a choice between a murderer or him? I'm willing to bet that even Pilot was surprised that the Pharisees would incite the mob to crucify Jesus.

In any case, the whole New Testament is then just hearsay rumors that grew out of that event. I personally don't believe those gospels are anything more than gossip.

To believe otherwise, opens up a whole can of worms. I must then go back to believing in the God of the Old Testament again, and so on and so forth. I see no reasons to even bother trying to salvage such a story. I see no value in it.

So now I have offered a perfectly sane and well-thought-out explanation of how the religion came to be.

What's so closed-minded about that?

To not consider these kinds of scenarios would be closed-minded.

I'm happy with the pantheistic mystical God of mysticism. There's no need for any excuses for this God. Plus it fits in far better with all we know from scientific knowledge.

It's has no problems.

So why not believe in it? It's the perfect spiritual philosophy.

I'm game. I'll listen to your explanation.

But here's the question I want an answer to:

Why would God send a perfectly innocent loving person to hell simply because they didn't believe that the Bible was the word of God?

They actually reject it on the grounds that it's unwise, unholy, and not the slightest bit divine, in their view. And so they go off to either become an atheist, or they embrace some other spiritual view that seems far wiser and more righteous to them.

No you tell me why this God would send such a person to hell.

I'll listen, but I can't guarantee that I'll agree with your explanation.

But there is a grey area and lest you forget:

Bolded text was my revision replacing a name to the quote.

God created humans who were highly susceptible to the temptations of their environment

God gave humans free will.

God refused to influence human free will even though it may mean eternal death.

God recognized the problem between free will & environment (that no human will ever be without sin)

To rectify the problem God comes in the person of Jesus to be sacrificed in order to atone for the free will actions that would otherwise condemn a person to eternal death.

If a Christian actually believes those statements then it would not be logical to believe that God would continue to trust the fate of individuals to their own actions, when He had already admitted that the combination of temptation and free will could yield nothing short of a sinful nature.

Still, Christians continue to believe that ONLY belief in God’s role in the person of Jesus AND knowledge and repentance of sin, as recognized through biblical text, can ‘save’ an individual from eternal death.

In essence, Christian doctrine belittles the sacrifice that God offered, by making that sacrifice conditional to the free will choice of individuals – but THINK about that.

Why would God go to such great lengths to compensate for the inherently poor choices of individuals only to add restrictions in which ‘free will choice’ is a component?

So the grey area is that part of Christian doctrine that proclaims its exclusivity as the one true religion.

Within that grey area are the many elements that create conflict between individuals, social units, cultures, and nations. That too is reason to question why God would endorse such a belief.

For God to endorse those beliefs would be an endorsement of the violence that humans inflict on each other in the name of God.

That is why so many think of the 'biblical God' as violent, biased, and judgmental and of Christians as egotistical traditionalists whose fear of eternal death makes them 'servants' to do the will of this violent, biased, and judgmental god. (hence the little g as there is little respect given to such a god by those who envision the creative power of the universe without such characteristics.)

You only said what I said in different form.

An eye for an eye = a judgement for the sin that happened.
Forgive = Since the word has become flesh, we are to forgive them ourselves and let the word judge them.