But if God can't reach you in say Buddhism, or in any other faith, does that not limit God?

No it does not. This would fall under the lines of disobedience because our father has given specific instructions on how to worship him and how to reach him. God "could" be reached this way if he wished for it to be, but he has instructed us otherwise. He wishes to be worshipped a certain way and has set out a certain path for us to reach him. This isn't restricting God, only restricting us. Only allowing us to him in one way, one path. And that is through the only begotten child of god, Jesus Christ.

what?... Start with chapter one... God sometimes walked with Adam and sometimes did not. Next... God is in heaven and you must pass a narrow gate to reach him... and then... God is in heaven and only by jesus can you reach god. which became... God is in heaven and St. Peter stands at the gate to judge you...

Yet in all this falsness god is still with you though you see him not...

When you see the footsteps in the sand it is YOUR footprints you observe... God simply moves your legs.

Cowboy wrote:

No it does not. This would fall under the lines of disobedience because our father has given specific instructions on how to worship him and how to reach him. God "could" be reached this way if he wished for it to be, but he has instructed us otherwise. He wishes to be worshipped a certain way and has set out a certain path for us to reach him. This isn't restricting God, only restricting us. Only allowing us to him in one way, one path. And that is through the only begotten child of god, Jesus Christ.

The who focus on a God who demands "obedience" is a flawed thesis to begin with.

If you agree with the moral values and desires of God then you would have no need to "obey" because you would be in harmony with God's desires.

On the other hand if you need to "obey" God then clearly you are in disagreement with what God wants from you. Therefore you obedience would be pretentious and dis-genuine. You could only be doing it to appease the God out of fear of the God's wrath or out of lust for some gift the God is offering you.

So the whole obsession with obedience is a bogus thesis to begin with.

The Hebrews were just an extremely arrogant culture who were actually quite underhanded and devious in the construction of their religion. Their religion actually reveals and exposes their greed.

They not only wanted to own the patent rights on God and religion, but they even had this God choosing them as his favored people.

The whole Hebrew religion is nothing more than arrogance gone berserk. That's truly all it is.

And this is why the God they have created in their folklore is totally unrighteous and just as big of a jealous egotistical jerk as the people who created him.

The Christians even took the rumors of Jesus and used those rumors to turn Jesus into the very same kind of egotistical pig. Something that I'm certain that Jesus himself never intended to be.

Christianity is the anti-thesis of Jesus as far as I'm concerned.

You worship the enemies of Jesus all the while claiming to be serving Jesus himself, which is precisely what the authors of the New Testament hoped they could get you to do.

Obviously, their scam turned out to be a great success throughout history, getting people to use Jesus to support bigotry, ignorance, and religious arrogance.

All things that Jesus himself would most likely renounce in a heartbeat.

You don't need to give up on Jesus. Just recognize that the Christians used him to support their bigotries in his name.

Jesus is probably the single greatest victim of Christianity.

First they nailed him to a pole, and then they literally nailed him to the Old Testament via their writings in the New, a set of moral values that Jesus himself fought hard to try to eradicate. Yet, look at what has happened. People today calling themselves "Christians" fell for the scam hook, line, and sinker, and now they use Jesus as a battering ram to support the very hateful things that these ancient egotistical Hebrews nailed onto Jesus.

In fact, this brings us full-circle right back to the obedience thing.

Christians often renounce that "nasty deeds" that have been done by the religion throughout history. They simply suggest that those actions were done be people who weren't "True Christians".

And how do they decide what constitutes a "True Christian", well a "True Christian" is only one who agrees with there moral interpretations of the Bible.

And why is that important? Because they have convinced themselves that it's all about "Obedience" and before a person can obey with a sincere heart, they must first be in agreement with what they are being asked to obey. So they need to interpret the religion in a way that they can agree with it in order to have any chance at all of qualifying as being sincerely obedient.


~~~~~~~~~~

I've taken this to it's ultimately conclusion:

Do I agree that we should judge other people and stone them for being sinners when we judge them to be sinners?

No I don't agree with that at all, in fact I would refuse to "obey" any God who asked me to do that.

Now many Christians argue that we are no longer supposed to judge others and stone sinners to death, because Jesus changed that and taught us not to judge other and not to cast stones unless we ourselves are totally sin free.

Fine, but that doesn't change the fact the the "Father God" in this religion did indeed instruct people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. It would be THAT God that I would be in disagreement with an unwilling to "obey"

In fact, this became vividly apparent to me in the New Testament when the mob was going to stone the sinning woman at the well. The very first thing that came to my mind is that I wouldn't be part of that mob in the first place. Why? Because I would already be unwilling to obey God's command that we should stone sinners to death.

I'm already in disobedience and disagreement with God at that point.

Then Jesus says, "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

My question to Jesus would simply be, "Well who's idea was it that she should be stoned to death in the first place? Certainly not our idea! This was what your FATHER has commanded us to do!"

But of course at that point I would already be "disobedient" of the Father because I would have already refused to cast the first stone (sin or no sin).

This whole parable by the well makes it appear that it's the men who are lusting to stone people to death, but that's wrong thinking. The whole idea of stoning sinners to death supposedly came from GOD in the first place!

So the men who were trying to stone the woman to death were supposedly trying to be "Obedient" to God.

Same is true of the very people who had Jesus crucified! All they were doing was obeying the God of the Old Testament who commanded that they should kill heathens. And Jesus certainly qualified as a "Heathen" he was constantly rejecting the moral teachings and directives of the Old Testament, and even blaspheming against the "House of God" by calling the Pharisees hypocrites!

That would be like calling the Pope a hypocrite in Catholicism. You're basically blaspheming against the entire religion.

So the people who were trying to stone the adulterer at the well, and the people who incited the crucifixion of Jesus were all trying to be obedient to God.

In short, if you disagree with any of the moral values in the Old Testament, then you disagree with God.

The only reason that Christians fell in love with Jesus is because Jesus himself blasphemed against the Old Testament and renounced those actions that no sane person agrees with.

Yet, what do they do? They taken Jesus and nail him right back onto the Old Testament by claiming that he's the "Only begotten son of that horrible God", and then they use Jesus to support the nasty bigotries that came from the Old Testament (the jealous God syndrome), (bigotry against homosexuality), etc. etc.

By tying Jesus back onto the Old Testament like that all the Christians are doing is using Jesus to support the very crap that they would have renounced long ago.

In fact I often wonder just how far Judaism and Islam would have gotten had they not had the support of Christianity!

And YES, Christianity supports both Judaism and Islam, because Christianity loaning its support to the idea that the jealous God of Abraham does indeed have validity.

And all three of these religions stand on that same single foundation.

So when you support Christianity you're actually validating the foundations of both Judaism and Islam. You're saying, YES, the OLD TESTAMENT is indeed the "Word of God".

Then it's easy for the Muslims to just say, "Yes we agree, too bad you guys are LOST by following Jesus instead!"

The whole religion just became an overblown soap opera.

On the other hand if you need to "obey" God then clearly you are in disagreement with what God wants from you. Therefore you obedience would be pretentious and dis-genuine. You could only be doing it to appease the God out of fear of the God's wrath or out of lust for some gift the God is offering you.

The who focus on a God who demands "obedience" is a flawed thesis to begin with.

If you agree with the moral values and desires of God then you would have no need to "obey" because you would be in harmony with God's desires.

On the other hand if you need to "obey" God then clearly you are in disagreement with what God wants from you. Therefore you obedience would be pretentious and dis-genuine. You could only be doing it to appease the God out of fear of the God's wrath or out of lust for some gift the God is offering you.

So the whole obsession with obedience is a bogus thesis to begin with.

The Hebrews were just an extremely arrogant culture who were actually quite underhanded and devious in the construction of their religion. Their religion actually reveals and exposes their greed.

They not only wanted to own the patent rights on God and religion, but they even had this God choosing them as his favored people.

The whole Hebrew religion is nothing more than arrogance gone berserk. That's truly all it is.

And this is why the God they have created in their folklore is totally unrighteous and just as big of a jealous egotistical jerk as the people who created him.

The Christians even took the rumors of Jesus and used those rumors to turn Jesus into the very same kind of egotistical pig. Something that I'm certain that Jesus himself never intended to be.

Christianity is the anti-thesis of Jesus as far as I'm concerned.

You worship the enemies of Jesus all the while claiming to be serving Jesus himself, which is precisely what the authors of the New Testament hoped they could get you to do.

Obviously, their scam turned out to be a great success throughout history, getting people to use Jesus to support bigotry, ignorance, and religious arrogance.

All things that Jesus himself would most likely renounce in a heartbeat.

You don't need to give up on Jesus. Just recognize that the Christians used him to support their bigotries in his name.

Jesus is probably the single greatest victim of Christianity.

First they nailed him to a pole, and then they literally nailed him to the Old Testament via their writings in the New, a set of moral values that Jesus himself fought hard to try to eradicate. Yet, look at what has happened. People today calling themselves "Christians" fell for the scam hook, line, and sinker, and now they use Jesus as a battering ram to support the very hateful things that these ancient egotistical Hebrews nailed onto Jesus.

In fact, this brings us full-circle right back to the obedience thing.

Christians often renounce that "nasty deeds" that have been done by the religion throughout history. They simply suggest that those actions were done be people who weren't "True Christians".

And how do they decide what constitutes a "True Christian", well a "True Christian" is only one who agrees with there moral interpretations of the Bible.

And why is that important? Because they have convinced themselves that it's all about "Obedience" and before a person can obey with a sincere heart, they must first be in agreement with what they are being asked to obey. So they need to interpret the religion in a way that they can agree with it in order to have any chance at all of qualifying as being sincerely obedient.


~~~~~~~~~~

I've taken this to it's ultimately conclusion:

Do I agree that we should judge other people and stone them for being sinners when we judge them to be sinners?

No I don't agree with that at all, in fact I would refuse to "obey" any God who asked me to do that.

Now many Christians argue that we are no longer supposed to judge others and stone sinners to death, because Jesus changed that and taught us not to judge other and not to cast stones unless we ourselves are totally sin free.

Fine, but that doesn't change the fact the the "Father God" in this religion did indeed instruct people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. It would be THAT God that I would be in disagreement with an unwilling to "obey"

In fact, this became vividly apparent to me in the New Testament when the mob was going to stone the sinning woman at the well. The very first thing that came to my mind is that I wouldn't be part of that mob in the first place. Why? Because I would already be unwilling to obey God's command that we should stone sinners to death.

I'm already in disobedience and disagreement with God at that point.

Then Jesus says, "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

My question to Jesus would simply be, "Well who's idea was it that she should be stoned to death in the first place? Certainly not our idea! This was what your FATHER has commanded us to do!"

But of course at that point I would already be "disobedient" of the Father because I would have already refused to cast the first stone (sin or no sin).

This whole parable by the well makes it appear that it's the men who are lusting to stone people to death, but that's wrong thinking. The whole idea of stoning sinners to death supposedly came from GOD in the first place!

So the men who were trying to stone the woman to death were supposedly trying to be "Obedient" to God.

Same is true of the very people who had Jesus crucified! All they were doing was obeying the God of the Old Testament who commanded that they should kill heathens. And Jesus certainly qualified as a "Heathen" he was constantly rejecting the moral teachings and directives of the Old Testament, and even blaspheming against the "House of God" by calling the Pharisees hypocrites!

That would be like calling the Pope a hypocrite in Catholicism. You're basically blaspheming against the entire religion.

So the people who were trying to stone the adulterer at the well, and the people who incited the crucifixion of Jesus were all trying to be obedient to God.

In short, if you disagree with any of the moral values in the Old Testament, then you disagree with God.

The only reason that Christians fell in love with Jesus is because Jesus himself blasphemed against the Old Testament and renounced those actions that no sane person agrees with.

Yet, what do they do? They taken Jesus and nail him right back onto the Old Testament by claiming that he's the "Only begotten son of that horrible God", and then they use Jesus to support the nasty bigotries that came from the Old Testament (the jealous God syndrome), (bigotry against homosexuality), etc. etc.

By tying Jesus back onto the Old Testament like that all the Christians are doing is using Jesus to support the very crap that they would have renounced long ago.

In fact I often wonder just how far Judaism and Islam would have gotten had they not had the support of Christianity!

And YES, Christianity supports both Judaism and Islam, because Christianity loaning its support to the idea that the jealous God of Abraham does indeed have validity.

And all three of these religions stand on that same single foundation.

So when you support Christianity you're actually validating the foundations of both Judaism and Islam. You're saying, YES, the OLD TESTAMENT is indeed the "Word of God".

Then it's easy for the Muslims to just say, "Yes we agree, too bad you guys are LOST by following Jesus instead!"

The whole religion just became an overblown soap opera.

Do I agree that we should judge other people and stone them for being sinners when we judge them to be sinners?

No I don't agree with that at all, in fact I would refuse to "obey" any God who asked me to do that.

Now many Christians argue that we are no longer supposed to judge others and stone sinners to death, because Jesus changed that and taught us not to judge other and not to cast stones unless we ourselves are totally sin free.

Fine, but that doesn't change the fact the the "Father God" in this religion did indeed instruct people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. It would be THAT God that I would be in disagreement with an unwilling to "obey"

First they nailed him to a pole, and then they literally nailed him to the Old Testament via their writings in the New, a set of moral values that Jesus himself fought hard to try to eradicate. Yet, look at what has happened. People today calling themselves "Christians" fell for the scam hook, line, and sinker, and now they use Jesus as a battering ram to support the very hateful things that these ancient egotistical Hebrews nailed onto Jesus.

Now many Christians argue that we are no longer supposed to judge others and stone sinners to death, because Jesus changed that and taught us not to judge other and not to cast stones unless we ourselves are totally sin free

Fine, but that doesn't change the fact the the "Father God" in this religion did indeed instruct people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. It would be THAT God that I would be in disagreement with an unwilling to "obey"

Cowboy wrote:

So you only listen/obey what someone may ask or tell you just to get a reward? You would do as your girlfriend/wife asks just for the reward? You would do as your friend asks just for a reward? You would do something for another, just for the reward? Wow man, that's a bit greedy. Why would you not obey/listen to our father in heaven out of love? Why would you not obey someone's wishes just out of love? Why must there be some form of reward?

Cowboy wrote:

So if someone wasn't stoned for their breaking of the law, then how else would they have been punished?

You're just purposefully trying to be hateful now Cowboy.

That isn't even close to what I had suggested. I was talking about being in agreement with someone!

Would I do something for someone if I morally disagreed with what they are asking me to do?

No, I wouldn't. And that has nothing at all to do with being greedy. You're just trying to be nasty is all, and twist things around to be hateful.

Also, why would you "LOVE" your father in heaven if you disagreed with his Moral Values?

Clearly you don't even like the moral values of the God of the Old Testament because you're so in love with the moral values of JESUS! Which are totally different!

So why support a religion that uses Jesus as an excuse to uphold the moral values that you, yourself, disagree with?

You renounce all people who do that as being "False Christians"!

Yet, as far as I'm concerned you still hold Jesus up for the purpose of supporting hatred and bigotry against things that you personally don't like.

In other words, all you basically do is use Jesus as an excuse to support whatever moral values YOU choose to support and just renounce whatever you disagree with as being "False Christianity".

It must be nice to have convinced yourself that God is always on your side no matter what argument you might enter into.

In fact, this is precisely what attracts a lot of religious fundamentalists to the religion. They see an opportunity to use a religion that can be very easily twisted to support their own bigotries in the name of God through Jesus Christ their "Savior".

But their hatred toward others always surfaces. They constantly twist everything that everyone says in an effort to belittle the other person, (just as you did to me above).

Are you out to share the LOVE OF GOD? Or are you out to use religion as a selfish egotistical way to try to degrade anyone who refuses to cower down to your demands of what the religion should represent?

If I disagree with Your Version of Christianity then I'm clearly refusing to "Obey Our Father".

Yeah right.

From my point of view that's an extremely arrogant and hateful accusation right there.

As far as I'm concerned Cowboy, you're just a perfect example of precisely how this religion is often abused.

You're just purposefully trying to be hateful now Cowboy.

That isn't even close to what I had suggested. I was talking about being in agreement with someone!

Would I do something for someone if I morally disagreed with what they are asking me to do?

No, I wouldn't. And that has nothing at all to do with being greedy. You're just trying to be nasty is all, and twist things around to be hateful.

Also, why would you "LOVE" your father in heaven if you disagreed with his Moral Values?

Clearly you don't even like the moral values of the God of the Old Testament because you're so in love with the moral values of JESUS! Which are totally different!

In other words, all you basically do is use Jesus as an excuse to support whatever moral values YOU choose to support and just renounce whatever you disagree with as being "False Christianity"

In fact, this is precisely what attracts a lot of religious fundamentalists to the religion. They see an opportunity to use a religion that can be very easily twisted to support their own bigotries in the name of God through Jesus Christ their "Savior".

If I disagree with Your Version of Christianity then I'm clearly refusing to "Obey Our Father"

The biblical God is supposed to be all-powerful Cowboy.

God should deal with his own desire to punish people. He shouldn't be asking other innocent sinless people to be doing his dirty work in the first place.

Besides, this flies in the very face of his Commandment "Thou shalt not kill". So the God would be a hypocrite in his directives.

The TRUTH is very simple Cowboy.

These ancient Hebrews who wrote this stuff knew that there isn't any all-powerful jealous judgmental God to enforce the rules they were making up. And this is precisely why they had to ask their readers to do their killing for them.

A genuinely all powerful God would have never had any need to stoop that low.

Thus you should be able to see that these fables are clearly man-made and did not come from any all-powerful God in the first place.

It's that simple.

Cowboy wrote:

Besides, this flies in the very face of his Commandment "Thou shalt not kill". So the God would be a hypocrite in his directives.

Guess we're going to have to throw most every judge in the world in prison for murder. Since they sentenced the murderer so and so to death, lol sorry had to throw a little humor in there.

Abra, a JUDGMENT and MURDER are two TOTALLY different things. Murder is unjustified killing of one, judgment if it results in death is penalty for a crime one has committed.

Cowboy wrote:



Not true. When we get into specific discussion about a specific thing in the bible, you say something trying to make God look hateful. Then I post something that shows your misinterpretation, then the conversation on that particular thing stops right there. And you'll say something along the lines as "well that's your interpretation" or "you twist things around trying to make them fit". I'm wide open to learning, I love learning about our father. All you do though is come to disagree and argue. You just say nay, you don't say why you say nay to show how this could be so.

You keep comparing God with humans. If we go by your analysis we must accept that God is no different from a human.

Legal Judges have nothing to do with religion. Even a purely atheistic community would have a legal system and judges.

Moreover, in a sense you are right though, any "Christian" judge would indeed be disobeying the teachings of Jesus if he or her condoned the execution of anyone. That's right!

Also, legal judges are even suppose to be making "moral judgments" on people. They are only supposed to be enforcing the laws and dishing out the totally man-made consequences of breaking those laws.

Finally, in a court of law that has a jury the so-called "judge" isn't even judging anyone. The jury is! All the so-called "judge" is there for is to insure that the process is being carried out, once again, in accordance with man-made legal procedures.

None of that has anything at all to do with "God". And like I say, that kind of system would exist even in a purely atheistic community.

The hypocritical and contradictory things in the Bible is that the authors of the Bible are asking mere mortal humans to morally judge other humans to be sinners and to kill them.

This flies in the face of a God who commanded people not to kill.

Moreover, why would God be asking mortals to morally judge one another? They might get it wrong!

A truly all-powerful God who knows everything and can instantly and magically cure your cancer or whatever, could also decide who deserves to die because they are a "sinner" and he could excute them himself by simply inflicting them with cancer, or a stroke, or a heart attack, etc.

It would be totally absurd for such an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God to be asking humans to do HIS JOB for him!

The mere fact that these fables are asking humans to do GOD's WORK is a crystal clear sign that these authors knew that no such God exists even as they were making up the fables.

They were just trying to get humans to enforce their rules in the name of a God.

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.


But you can never leave well-enough alone. The first thing you do is run off looking for another verse that will contradict this one and try to force a negative hateful Jesus again

I also show where the gospels have Jesus stating that he did not come from the righteous but for the sick. And therefore he did not come for me.

You insist on using Jesus as an excuse to belittle anyone who refuses your interpretation of the religion.

You are the one who keeps insisting that the religion must remain bigoted and hateful.

I renounce using Jesus to support hate and religious bigotries.

I show where Jesus himself said that if a person does not believe in him he will not judge them.

You quickly dig up other quotes in and effort to use Jesus to renounce those who do not believe in him.

You flatly refuse to even allow for a LOVING interpretation of Jesus.

I show where gospels have Jesus himself saying that does not require that people 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.


But you can never leave well-enough alone. The first thing you do is run off looking for another verse that will contradict this one and try to force a negative hateful Jesus again.

You refuse to allow for a LOVING interpretation of Jesus.

That's Your Choice and that's Your own personal creation of the religion

You insist on using Jesus as an excuse to belittle anyone who refuses your interpretation of the religion.

I also show where the gospels have Jesus stating that he did not come from the righteous but for the sick. And therefore he did not come for me.

Once again, you go running off trying to find a way to refute my LOVING interpretation of the religion and once again turn it right back around into a hateful accusation that attempts to refute my LOVING interpretations.

You are the one who keeps insisting that the religion must remain bigoted and hateful.

Not me.

I show where Jesus himself said that if a person does not believe in him he will not judge them.

So there is no need for a judgment on someone not believing in God. Their punishment is already set in stone.

Well there you go with your hateful God again.

The God who "punishes" anyone who doesn't believe in him?

That would be a sick demented God right there.

Yeah I see your point. Everyone gives strangers anything they ask, and allows the stranger to live with them in their home. You make a lot of good points. Just because God created you and knows OF you, that doesn't not mean he knows you personally. That's what life is about, growing and building a relationship with our father. To make him happy, to show you love him and wish to spend eternity in his abode with him. In hopes to have the opportunity to make a real solid relation with him. To spend good quality bonding time with our father.

Nothing you could say can justify a God who "punishes" people for not believing that he even exists.

As far as I'm concerned any such concept of a God is necessarily a concept of a very deeply hateful God.

This is why the religion of the Hebrews cannot be from any supposedly divine being.

The point isn't the "God is hateful", that would be absurd.

The real point that is being shown is that the religion itself is a false religion. The claims and demands of the religion are far from divine, and therefore cannot represent a divine God.

What you preach as the "Word of God" is clearly nothing more than the hateful lies of mortal men.

That's the whole point Cowboy.

It doesn't even have anything to do with any "God".

It can't, because it makes outrageous claims that aren't even close to being "divine" in their nature.

Sorry Cowboy, you just said that it was a "punishment". Now you're trying to change your story already.

It's clear to me that you don't even have a story. All you have are empty defensive statements to try to support something that's totally unsupportable.

Bedsides, if I were to accept your views and interpretations of this religion you would just be confirming my observations and conclusions that it's nothing more than a man-made scam anyway.

You haven't offered me anything other than support for the conclusions I've already observed to be the most likely truth of these fables.

So the more I talk with you, the more convinced I am that my original observations and conclusions are indeed correct.