Cowboy wrote:

That's not what is insultive. Your continuous statements along the lines as "Hebrew FABLES" and things you say of that nature is when it becomes insultive. When you state it in an insultive way. If you don't believe in the scriptures that is your prerogative, but there is no need to say insultive things along the lines of "Hebrew fables" or folklore or many other things you have said.

That's what I believe, so that's the terminology I use.

There's absolutely no reason for you to feel insulted by the fact that I believe that biblical cannon of stories is nothing more than man-made fables. That's my conclusion, and my belief.

When you stop and think about this how silly is this truly?

Here you are suggesting that you find it insulting if someone suggests that your religious doctrine is fables. Yet, your stance is that only your religious doctrine is true and all other religious doctrines are necessarily false.

This is the epitome of arrogance that comes with Christianity.

"We demand that YOUR religions are nothing more than false fables!"

"But dare to suggest that our might be a fable and we will be sorely offended!"

That precisely the kind of mentality that kept Christianity thriving throughout most of history. It's ok for the Christians to renounce all other religions as false religions, but if anyone dares to renounce Christianity as a false religion then OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!

That's what I believe, so that's the terminology I use.

There's absolutely no reason for you to feel insulted by the fact that I believe that biblical cannon of stories is nothing more than man-made fables. That's my conclusion, and my belief.

Cowboy wrote:

Oh but specifically through our discussions for instance. It's always been you that has said "fable this, fable that, ect ect". It's always been you that has tried to make Christianity look foul. It's one thing to tell your beliefs, but when you start throwing insults at the other's belief is when it gets insultive. If you don't believe in Christianity, that is your prerogative, your choice.

I don't "try" to make Christianity look foul. I simply point out why the stories are not all-wise or even remotely consistent, and why it can't be the "Word" of any supposedly all-wise God.

Also, if you'll take note, I usually offer this in the face of someone who is trying to PUSH the religion onto me via their sneaky underhanded tactics.

For example, even though I have made it perfectly crystal clear to you for months not that I don't believe in the Christian religion, you still continually insult me by referring to the Hebrew God as "Our Father" when speaking with me about this religion.

That's a direct insult to me because I have made it clear that I do not view that picture of God as "My Father". In fact, I don't even restrict the God concept to a male-chauvinistic personified judgmental being. Yet you keep referring to that picture of God as "Our Father" when discussing religion.

You have been attempting to proselytize Christianity on the General Religion Forums ever since you got here. You are totally closed-minded to any other possible religious or spiritual ideas, and you have made that perfectly clear.

So it's crystal clear that your only agenda is to proselytize Christianity.

All I do is point out the extreme flaws in that religion for you.

Moreover I actually offer alternative explanations of how that particular religion came to be. That's a GENERAL RELIGION discussion my friend.

But no, if you had your way Christianity would be the only accepted interpretation of the ancient Hebrew history. I have an alternative explanation for that very same history.

The original religion was nothing more than just another Zeus-like mythology complete with blood sacrifices and everything. It's filled with self-contradictions and behaviors that I personally feel are not fitting for a supposedly "all-wise" God.

And that is a VALID, General Religion view.

I'm offering a personal view on a historical collection of stories that I do indeed believe are every bit as much mythology as that of Greek mythology. I make not secret about that. That's precisely my stance and my own personal conclusion concerning those stories.

The appearance of Jesus is a whole different thing completely. Even the Jews don't acknowledge that Jesus was "The Christ".

Are you going to now accuse the Jew of trying to make Christianity appear "foul" because they don't believe that Jesus fulfilled any prophesies of the Torah?

I'm merely in agreement with the Jews and Muslims on that point. There's nothing new there.

Yet, I believe that a man probably did actually teach against the horrible moral values of the Torah and was crucified for his views on grounds of blaspheme. I expect that this event actually occurred.

So then the question becomes, "If Jesus wasn't the Christ, then who might he have been, and how could all of these rumors about him have come to be the way they are?"

Well, my conclusion on that is that Jesus was a Jewish mystic (that was common in those days), and he was probably also a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva (again something that was quite common in those days). That fits in with much of that the rumors of Jesus have to say. Jesus would have claimed to have been one in the same as "The Father" (meaning the creator of life), he also would have taught that "Ye are Gods", and so on and so forth. In fact, it's my personal sincere belief that Jesus taught all of the laws of karma that came from Buddhism. And his teachings in no way reflect the kinds of moral behaviors and directives that had been taught in the torah.

So once I realized that Jesus was just a mortal man, then there is no longer any reason to believe that the New Testament is the "inspired word of God", on the contrary it's the work of men. Now the question becomes, "Was it just misunderstood rumors, or an outright attempt to use the rumors of Jesus to prop up the very religion that Jesus threatened to destroy?". I personally believe that it was the latter. I truly believe that the New Testament was written to purposefully use the rumors of Jesus to create a new religion where the "Only way to salvation" would not be through acceptance of Jesus as the "The Christ" - The sacrificial lamb of God who supposedly paid for the sins of mankind with his blood.

I'm trying to tell you Cowboy, as sincerely as I possibly can. I don't believe that any all-wise creator of this universe would have stooped so low as to have his only begotten son crucified on a pole just so he could offer mankind a way to salvation.

It's my honest sincere opinion that such a God would have either been extremely desperate to have done such a thing, or extremely stupid.

I'm sorry if you find that to be offensive in any way, but it's my sincere view. I don't believe that the creator of this universe would have either been desperate or stupid.

And so the story as it stands in Christianity is totally absurd, IMHO.

I seriously do not believe that these religious fables contain a word of truth. They are some truly gross product of the superstitions of men, or worse yet, a truly devious attempt to get people under the thumb of religious authoritarians.

However, consider this. The pharisees at that time either incited the mob to have Jesus crucified, or they stood back and did nothing to prevent it. In either case it doesn't say much for their integrity.

Well, who do you think actually wrote the New Testament? It was most likely written by these same kinds of totally unscrupulous people who wouldn't hesitate to nail Jesus to the Old Testament after they had physically nailed him to a cross.

I don't trust the New Testament to be anything more than the devious works of men.

And like I say, for it to have been the "Divine plan" of some supposedly all-wise God makes absolutely no sense. I can't see any all-wise God stooping to the brutal tactics of men to try to solve his problems. IMHO, for a God to have done such a thing could only have been an act of pure desperation, or outright stupidity.

I personally don't believe that God is either desperate or stupid. So the story cannot possibly be divine, IMHO.

I don't "try" to make Christianity look foul. I simply point out why the stories are not all-wise or even remotely consistent, and why it can't be the "Word" of any supposedly all-wise God.

Cowboy wrote:

I'm not insulted cause YOU don't believe in the gospels. It becomes insultive when you state fable this, fable that, folklore this, folklore that. If afriend paints a painting and asks you what you think of it. If you don't like it, will you flat out tell them it's hideous, it's the worst painting you've ever seen? Or will you be kind to the person and state that you just don't like it, maybe it's not your type or scapegoat with you're not into paintings? That's all I'm saying, if you do not believe in the gospel, that is fine. But there is no need to insult another's beliefs. You don't do this directly, but you know it gets under other people's skins when you use the words such as fables and or the many other descriptive words you use.

I don't "try" to make Christianity look foul. I simply point out why the stories are not all-wise or even remotely consistent, and why it can't be the "Word" of any supposedly all-wise God.

Also, if you'll take note, I usually offer this in the face of someone who is trying to PUSH the religion onto me via their sneaky underhanded tactics.

For example, even though I have made it perfectly crystal clear to you for months not that I don't believe in the Christian religion, you still continually insult me by referring to the Hebrew God as "Our Father" when speaking with me about this religion.

That's a direct insult to me because I have made it clear that I do not view that picture of God as "My Father". In fact, I don't even restrict the God concept to a male-chauvinistic personified judgmental being. Yet you keep referring to that picture of God as "Our Father" when discussing religion.

You have been attempting to proselytize Christianity on the General Religion Forums ever since you got here. You are totally closed-minded to any other possible religious or spiritual ideas, and you have made that perfectly clear.

So it's crystal clear that your only agenda is to proselytize Christianity.

All I do is point out the extreme flaws in that religion for you.

Moreover I actually offer alternative explanations of how that particular religion came to be. That's a GENERAL RELIGION discussion my friend.

But no, if you had your way Christianity would be the only accepted interpretation of the ancient Hebrew history. I have an alternative explanation for that very same history.

The original religion was nothing more than just another Zeus-like mythology complete with blood sacrifices and everything. It's filled with self-contradictions and behaviors that I personally feel are not fitting for a supposedly "all-wise" God.

And that is a VALID, General Religion view.

I'm offering a personal view on a historical collection of stories that I do indeed believe are every bit as much mythology as that of Greek mythology. I make not secret about that. That's precisely my stance and my own personal conclusion concerning those stories.

The appearance of Jesus is a whole different thing completely. Even the Jews don't acknowledge that Jesus was "The Christ".

Are you going to now accuse the Jew of trying to make Christianity appear "foul" because they don't believe that Jesus fulfilled any prophesies of the Torah?

I'm merely in agreement with the Jews and Muslims on that point. There's nothing new there.

Yet, I believe that a man probably did actually teach against the horrible moral values of the Torah and was crucified for his views on grounds of blaspheme. I expect that this event actually occurred.

So then the question becomes, "If Jesus wasn't the Christ, then who might he have been, and how could all of these rumors about him have come to be the way they are?"

Well, my conclusion on that is that Jesus was a Jewish mystic (that was common in those days), and he was probably also a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva (again something that was quite common in those days). That fits in with much of that the rumors of Jesus have to say. Jesus would have claimed to have been one in the same as "The Father" (meaning the creator of life), he also would have taught that "Ye are Gods", and so on and so forth. In fact, it's my personal sincere belief that Jesus taught all of the laws of karma that came from Buddhism. And his teachings in no way reflect the kinds of moral behaviors and directives that had been taught in the torah.

So once I realized that Jesus was just a mortal man, then there is no longer any reason to believe that the New Testament is the "inspired word of God", on the contrary it's the work of men. Now the question becomes, "Was it just misunderstood rumors, or an outright attempt to use the rumors of Jesus to prop up the very religion that Jesus threatened to destroy?". I personally believe that it was the latter. I truly believe that the New Testament was written to purposefully use the rumors of Jesus to create a new religion where the "Only way to salvation" would not be through acceptance of Jesus as the "The Christ" - The sacrificial lamb of God who supposedly paid for the sins of mankind with his blood.

I'm trying to tell you Cowboy, as sincerely as I possibly can. I don't believe that any all-wise creator of this universe would have stooped so low as to have his only begotten son crucified on a pole just so he could offer mankind a way to salvation.

It's my honest sincere opinion that such a God would have either been extremely desperate to have done such a thing, or extremely stupid.

I'm sorry if you find that to be offensive in any way, but it's my sincere view. I don't believe that the creator of this universe would have either been desperate or stupid.

And so the story as it stands in Christianity is totally absurd, IMHO.

I seriously do not believe that these religious fables contain a word of truth. They are some truly gross product of the superstitions of men, or worse yet, a truly devious attempt to get people under the thumb of religious authoritarians.

However, consider this. The pharisees at that time either incited the mob to have Jesus crucified, or they stood back and did nothing to prevent it. In either case it doesn't say much for their integrity.

Well, who do you think actually wrote the New Testament? It was most likely written by these same kinds of totally unscrupulous people who wouldn't hesitate to nail Jesus to the Old Testament after they had physically nailed him to a cross.

I don't trust the New Testament to be anything more than the devious works of men.

And like I say, for it to have been the "Divine plan" of some supposedly all-wise God makes absolutely no sense. I can't see any all-wise God stooping to the brutal tactics of men to try to solve his problems. IMHO, for a God to have done such a thing could only have been an act of pure desperation, or outright stupidity.

I personally don't believe that God is either desperate or stupid. So the story cannot possibly be divine, IMHO.

And like I say, for it to have been the "Divine plan" of some supposedly all-wise God makes absolutely no sense. I can't see any all-wise God stooping to the brutal tactics of men to try to solve his problems. IMHO, for a God to have done such a thing could only have been an act of pure desperation, or outright stupidity.

Quit talking to me about insulting people.

I've told you that I have my spiritual beliefs.

What do you do? You continually insult me by referring to your religious beliefs as being the word of "Our Father" and that all "Our Father" wants from me is obedience, etc., etc., etc.

If you had any respect for me you'd acknowledge that I have my own spiritual beliefs and not continually try to proseyltize your religoius believes onto me speaking about "Our Father" wants this, and "Our Father" wants that, etc.

You insult me directly by demanding that your God is my God whether I accept it or not.

And when I tell you that I reject the biblical doctrine because I feel that the stories are unwise, and often outright stupid, you become offended.

Well DUH!

If you'd quit trying to proselytize the religion onto me I wouldn't need to tell you why I don't believe in it.

Can't you accept that I believe in a mystical view of God. A view that cannot be put into words, or made into a male-chauvinistic persona?

You religious proselytizers badger people endlessly trying to convince them of your religion, and when they fail to "break" under your constant pressure then you start accusing them of "insulting" you because they refuse to accept your religion or because they have finally told you that they refuse to believe in it because they personally feel that it's utterly stupid. Far too stupid to have come from any divine source.

That my friend is a very VALID reason for rejecting a religion. And in all honestly it is a large part of my reason for rejecting what I believe to be ancient Hebrew fables.

If you can't handle people telling you why they aren't buying into your proselytizing then you shouldn't be trying to sell the religion to people in the first place. Especially people who have told you endlessly that they aren't interested in buying into it.

Just accept that they have their reasons for rejecting the ancient Hebrew stories as nothing more than fables.

That's a legitimate stance for a person to take.

Like I say, even the Jews aren't convinced that Jesus was "The Christ". Are you offended by the Jews?

You're just trying to make it personally 'insulting' so you can have an excuse to cry foul. That a standard tactic of almost all proselytizers of your religion.

Scream insult and injury because someone disagrees with your religion.

Why not just accept that not everyone is going to buy into it?

You insult me directly by demanding that your God is my God whether I accept it or not.

Cowboy wrote:

You've shown no inconsistencies or "contradictions" or anything of such. You've shown some things you thought to be, and when people show you that they are not, you respond with something along the lines as "That's your interpretation" or state that we twist the scriptures to try to make sense out of them. When none of that is done, they make perfect sense on their own.

Quit talking to me about insulting people.

I've told you that I have my spiritual beliefs.

What do you do? You continually insult me by referring to your religious beliefs as being the word of "Our Father" and that all "Our Father" wants from me is obedience, etc., etc., etc.

If you had any respect for me you'd acknowledge that I have my own spiritual beliefs and not continually try to proseyltize your religoius believes onto me speaking about "Our Father" wants this, and "Our Father" wants that, etc.

You insult me directly by demanding that your God is my God whether I accept it or not.

And when I tell you that I reject the biblical doctrine because I feel that the stories are unwise, and often outright stupid, you become offended.

Well DUH!

If you'd quit trying to proselytize the religion onto me I wouldn't need to tell you why I don't believe in it.

Can't you accept that I believe in a mystical view of God. A view that cannot be put into words, or made into a male-chauvinistic persona?

You religious proselytizers badger people endlessly trying to convince them of your religion, and when they fail to "break" under your constant pressure then you start accusing them of "insulting" you because they refuse to accept your religion or because they have finally told you that they refuse to believe in it because they personally feel that it's utterly stupid. Far too stupid to have come from any divine source.

That my friend is a very VALID reason for rejecting a religion. And in all honestly it is a large part of my reason for rejecting what I believe to be ancient Hebrew fables.

If you can't handle people telling you why they aren't buying into your proselytizing then you shouldn't be trying to sell the religion to people in the first place. Especially people who have told you endlessly that they aren't interested in buying into it.

Just accept that they have their reasons for rejecting the ancient Hebrew stories as nothing more than fables.

That's a legitimate stance for a person to take.

Like I say, even the Jews aren't convinced that Jesus was "The Christ". Are you offended by the Jews?

You're just trying to make it personally 'insulting' so you can have an excuse to cry foul. That a standard tactic of almost all proselytizers of your religion.

Scream insult and injury because someone disagrees with your religion.

Why not just accept that not everyone is going to buy into it?

You religious proselytizers badger people endlessly trying to convince them of your religion, and when they fail to "break" under your constant pressure then you start accusing them of "insulting" you because they refuse to accept your religion or because they have finally told you that they refuse to believe in it because they personally feel that it's utterly stupid. Far too stupid to have come from any divine source.

And you state the same thing. When you state that your religious beliefs are true, you automatically denounce all other religious beliefs putting them on a "fable" level. So why do you try to point fingers at Christianity for doing this when there are 4 fingers pointing back at you?

No one has shown me that the inconsistencies and contradictions that I've observed in the biblical writings are not precisely as I claim.

Clearly, you're going to pretend that they don't exist. But that doesn't make them go away for me. They do exist as far as I'm concerned.

It's my conclusions. In fact, Issac Newton came to similar conclusions, as did many other very wise and educated men. So I'm in great company.

I'm not alone in my conclusions, by far.

But I don't demand that. Not even close.

I've told you countless times that I feel totally confident that no God is going to hold your religious beliefs against you.

In that sense you are not doing anything wrong by believing in your religion. And in that sense, no religion is "false". It may be false in its verbatim statements, but it's not "false" in the sense of being a valid pathway to God.

I personally believe that you cannot go wrong in your personal dedication to Christianity! GO FOR IT! By all means.

Don't let me stop you.

But even by your the words of your own Christ, you are violating his directives when you JUDGE my relationship with God.

Something I do not do to YOU!

I do not judge your relationship with God based on "religion".

Religion is totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Cowboy wrote:

And you do the same with yours. So why is it again any different from what I do? Why is it ok for you to say that this is how our spirituality is, but it's not ok for me? And I badger no one, this is a religion chat forum, where people come to chat about religions. No badgering going on, just merely discussion on my religious beliefs.

What are you talking about?

I don't proselytize any religion at all.

I offer my own personal views that I believe that Eastern Mysticism is probably the best spiritual philosophy we have to work with. But I ask no one to actually believe in it.

In fact, I'm cool with atheists. I don't believe it's important to believe in any religion.

I'm also cool with Wiccans, and Faery Lore, and a lot of other religions.

I confess that I have a problem with the Abrahamic religions. But the problem there stems form their "jealous God" concept. The reason they are problematic is because they hold that everyone who doesn't recognize their religion as the only true word of God is out of touch with God and potentially even an enemy of God.

I don't proselytize any religion.

And I've told you a gazillion times that if you want to believe in Christianity MORE POWER TO YOU! But if you try to convince me that it's true I WILL tell you why I don't believe in it myself.

And THAT'S what you seem to have a problem with.

Cowboy wrote:

I don't judge your relation with God. I know not weather you have one with him or not. I know not whom does or does, whom will go to heaven and whom will not. I make no judgment there. Again this is merely a religion discussion, you take it way to personal and far my friend. We come here to discuss our different religious beliefs. Not specifically to "convert" one to our beliefs, just to share in discussion our different beliefs.

Cowboy wrote:

Have no problem with it at all. It's how you word things sometimes. Claiming them to be fables, hearsay rumors, lies, ect ect. I try to keep this a civilized discussion and you put little insults in there like that. If you do no believe in it as obviously you don't, that's fine. That is your choice, your decision, no harm done no one insulted.

But I do believe that they are fables, hearsay rumors, and/or potentially outright lies.

That's what I honestly believe.

Why should anyone be insulted by that?

It just what I truly believe.

That should be a civilized discussion.

Well, excuse me, but weren't you the one who started complaining about being "insulted" by my religious beliefs, and/or non-beliefs?

I don't take any of this personally.

As far as sharing in the discussion of different beliefs, it's my belief that the ancient Hebrew Torah, or Old Testament is nothing more than man-made mythology.

Jesus was just a mortal man. Most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

And the New Testament is nothing more than superstitious rumors about Jesus, or potentially an outright devious attempt to use the rumors of Jesus to create a new religion.

That's my beliefs concerning the Hebrew scriptures.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to accept this. But if you start trying to convince me otherwise, you should know by now where that's going to lead.