Well, the only reason for that is supposedly that you accept Jesus as "YOUR" sacrificial lamb.

Besides, if you recall I've already rejected the entire Zeus-like Old Testament and the notion of Gods who are appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place.

So the very notion of blood sacrifices as atonement for sin is nothing more than man-made superstitions to begin with.

Why should the real creator of the universe just happen to be like Zeus only with a jealously streak and a male-chauvinist attitude.

It's far too Zeus-like. You probably reject the Greek mythologies as being "silly", well, they really aren't all that different from the biblical mythologies. So if one is "silly" then so is the other.

You keep forgetting. I don't believe in "punishing" children. I personally believe that the very concept of "punishment" is an ignorant concept that should be abandoned altogether by any truly wise and intelligent parent or teacher.

So I don't condone "punishing" children, especially or the purpose of supposedly "teaching" them a "lesson".

The only lesson that can possibly teach the child is that it's ok to punish people, which I disagree with.

Secondly, you keep whining and denying the concept of a hell in this religion, but as far as I can see this is just yet another one of your very own personal interpretations, in fact, as far as I'm concerned most religious authorities and clergy would disagree with you. I'm certain that the Catholic Church and the real Pope would disagree with you because they are very adamant about the existence of hell for humans.

You're trying to strip this ancient picture of God of some of it's "ugliness" by using your "Salad Bar" approach.

In essence you're really not much different from me. You're just trying to create your own version of the religion.

There's absolutely no reason for me to accept your version when I have my own. This is why Protestantism and the Paper Pope concept can't fly. All it ends up doing is creating a myriad of Paper Popes who all claim to speak for God and none of whom agree with each other.

As far as hell is concerned the Catholic Church offers the following"



I'm in agreement with the Catholic Church as far as the biblical mythology is concerned. These fables clearly have Jesus stating to humans that they are in danger of being thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

And the other verses they offer also support these things.

So apparently you're are in disagreement with Jesus himself when you say that humans will not be thrown into hell, because there you have it in Mark's own words, that Jesus clearly stated to humans that they can be thrown into hell.

Sorry Cowboy, but if you're going to claim to speak for Jesus at least try to get it RIGHT.

You are renouncing the teachings of Jesus himself! That's grounds for blaspheme right there!

How do you justify your rejection of the words of Jesus?

If I were going to believe in the mythology, I'd have to accept these things. Clearly I reject a lot of this stuff as being nothing more than hearsay rumors or even more likely, purposeful manipulation and propaganda in an attempt to use Jesus to support previous ideas of the religion.

After all Christianity isn't truly about Jesus at all. It's about using Jesus as an excuse to support the idea that the God of the Old Testament with his need for blood sacrifices to atone sins is REAL.

I reject that whole notion.

At least I reject the validity of the myths.

You claim to support them, yet you reject the very words of Jesus himself. So you're being inconsistent yourself.

You're trying to clean up the picture a bit and reject the things that even your recognize are totally unacceptable. So you remove the threat of hell, and pretend that it's either be "saved" or simply perish without a hitch.

That's your own "Band-aid Christianity", trying to make the God appear to be a bit more sane than the mythology actually allows for.

So evidently you don't like the actual mythology as it truly stands either then.

Secondly, you keep whining and denying the concept of a hell in this religion, but as far as I can see this is just yet another one of your very own personal interpretations, in fact, as far as I'm concerned most religious authorities and clergy would disagree with you. I'm certain that the Catholic Church and the real Pope would disagree with you because they are very adamant about the existence of hell for humans.

You keep forgetting. I don't believe in "punishing" children. I personally believe that the very concept of "punishment" is an ignorant concept that should be abandoned altogether by any truly wise and intelligent parent or teacher.

So I don't condone "punishing" children, especially or the purpose of supposedly "teaching" them a "lesson".

But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "t is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." And in Revelation 14:11, we read: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

Hell is not just a theoretical possibility. Jesus warns us that real people go there. He says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt. 7:13–14).

Cowboy wrote:

How can there be ever lasting punishment in hell when hell is thrown into the lake of fire? I've shown this.

So if your child steals your car, there will be no punishment to them? If they say steals your neighbor car, there will still be no punishment? Comes into your room at night and steals your wallet, there still will be no punishment? Your child lies to you up and down all the time and you find these out, still no punishment? Now i'm speaking of no punishment whatsoever at all? No grounding, no nothing?

And I've shown the the entire biblical fable is nothing but contradictions and absurdities from Genisis to Revelations.

So I guess, we both feel that we've "shown" our major points.

Is the absurdity of Protestantism starting to sink in yet?

All it can possibly lead to is precisely what we're doing. Arguing endlessly about who's interpretations should be accepted as the "Word of God".

I prefer my interpretations, and you prefer yours.

So the whole idea of Protestantism is utterly meaningless unless we offer to allow each person to have there own interpretations.

And like a GOOD Protestant I do precisely that. I allow you to have your interpretations for YOU!

So if you were a GOOD Protestant you'd respect my right to hold my own interpretations for ME, and quit calling me a LIAR!

It is my interpretation of the Old Testament that it's just as absurd and ridiculous as the Greek Mythology of Zeus. That is not a lie, that's my sincere and genuine opinion and a sincere and genuine opinion cannot be a lie, it's just what it is.

So quite calling people liars just because they have a different view from yours.

That's just totally immature and ignorant behavior. Didn't your parents teach you better manners than that?



No there would be no "punishment" for that, but there would be consequences for those actions. And those consequences would be positive and constructive. And that right there is a major difference in intellectual mindset. For example if there was any "grounding" associate with this, the "grounding itself would not be a "punishment", and that would be make perfectly clear to the child. The grounding itself in no way "redeems" the actions, nor is it a "punishment", on the contrary it's simply a necessarily action at that point because the child obviously needs better mentoring.

In fact, you're totally hypothetical assumption that my child would steal a car in the first place is just that totally hypothetical, I have no reason to believe that I would have been such an inept mentor in having raised the child in the first.

I personally don't believe that any child of mind would steal a car. Because I would have brought them up to have more respect for other people's property than that.

So your analogy with God as being a "mortal parent" already assumes that God is an extremely poor mentor and doesn't even know how to raise children property in the first place.

In that sense, your analogy here doesn't even work. Your God would need to be an inept parent before your analogy could even work.

As far as the rest of your post denying that humans can be thrown in to hell as the Gospels have Jesus clearly stating, I'm not impressed.

Clearly even you see the insane nature of such an idea, so you try to find ways to pretend that it's not really in the biblical myths.

You're already trying to pretend that the Biblical God is better than the biblical fables allow for.

So evidently you don't like the Bible or what the Gospels have Jesus teaching either then.

That's all I can see.

And like I say, that's fine with me. You can have whatever interpretation you so choose, for YOU.

I have no problem with that.

Just recognize that you have your interpretations and I have mine.

Quit calling me a "Liar" just because I have different interpretations from yours. That's just arrogance and ignorance on your part.

My view is that the Biblical fables have no more merit than Greek mythology. That's no "lie", that my personal assessment of these fables. A personally assessment cannot be a lie, it's just a personal view is all.

And I've told you a gazillion times. You are more than free to believe however YOU LIKE. I pass no judgments on you!

So you need to give me the same respect and recognize that my views and beliefs are valid for ME.

But you can't do that because you want to be the POPE.

No there would be no "punishment" for that, but there would be consequences for those actions. And those consequences would be positive and constructive. And that right there is a major difference in intellectual mindset. For example if there was any "grounding" associate with this, the "grounding itself would not be a "punishment", and that would be make perfectly clear to the child. The grounding itself in no way "redeems" the actions, nor is it a "punishment", on the contrary it's simply a necessarily action at that point because the child obviously needs better mentoring.

And I've shown the the entire biblical fable is nothing but contradictions and absurdities from Genisis to Revelations.

So the whole idea of Protestantism is utterly meaningless unless we offer to allow each person to have there own interpretations.

And I've shown the the entire biblical fable is nothing but contradictions and absurdities from Genisis to Revelations.

So I guess, we both feel that we've "shown" our major points.

Is the absurdity of Protestantism starting to sink in yet?

All it can possibly lead to is precisely what we're doing. Arguing endlessly about who's interpretations should be accepted as the "Word of God".

I prefer my interpretations, and you prefer yours.

So the whole idea of Protestantism is utterly meaningless unless we offer to allow each person to have there own interpretations.

And like a GOOD Protestant I do precisely that. I allow you to have your interpretations for YOU!

So if you were a GOOD Protestant you'd respect my right to hold my own interpretations for ME, and quit calling me a LIAR!

It is my interpretation of the Old Testament that it's just as absurd and ridiculous as the Greek Mythology of Zeus. That is not a lie, that's my sincere and genuine opinion and a sincere and genuine opinion cannot be a lie, it's just what it is.

So quite calling people liars just because they have a different view from yours.

That's just totally immature and ignorant behavior. Didn't your parents teach you better manners than that?



No there would be no "punishment" for that, but there would be consequences for those actions. And those consequences would be positive and constructive. And that right there is a major difference in intellectual mindset. For example if there was any "grounding" associate with this, the "grounding itself would not be a "punishment", and that would be make perfectly clear to the child. The grounding itself in no way "redeems" the actions, nor is it a "punishment", on the contrary it's simply a necessarily action at that point because the child obviously needs better mentoring.

In fact, you're totally hypothetical assumption that my child would steal a car in the first place is just that totally hypothetical, I have no reason to believe that I would have been such an inept mentor in having raised the child in the first.

I personally don't believe that any child of mind would steal a car. Because I would have brought them up to have more respect for other people's property than that.

So your analogy with God as being a "mortal parent" already assumes that God is an extremely poor mentor and doesn't even know how to raise children property in the first place.

In that sense, your analogy here doesn't even work. Your God would need to be an inept parent before your analogy could even work.

As far as the rest of your post denying that humans can be thrown in to hell as the Gospels have Jesus clearly stating, I'm not impressed.

Clearly even you see the insane nature of such an idea, so you try to find ways to pretend that it's not really in the biblical myths.

You're already trying to pretend that the Biblical God is better than the biblical fables allow for.

So evidently you don't like the Bible or what the Gospels have Jesus teaching either then.

That's all I can see.

And like I say, that's fine with me. You can have whatever interpretation you so choose, for YOU.

I have no problem with that.

Just recognize that you have your interpretations and I have mine.

Quit calling me a "Liar" just because I have different interpretations from yours. That's just arrogance and ignorance on your part.

My view is that the Biblical fables have no more merit than Greek mythology. That's no "lie", that my personal assessment of these fables. A personally assessment cannot be a lie, it's just a personal view is all.

And I've told you a gazillion times. You are more than free to believe however YOU LIKE. I pass no judgments on you!

So you need to give me the same respect and recognize that my views and beliefs are valid for ME.

But you can't do that because you want to be the POPE.

I personally don't believe that any child of mind would steal a car. Because I would have brought them up to have more respect for other people's property than that.

Quit calling me a "Liar" just because I have different interpretations from yours. That's just arrogance and ignorance on your part.

Cowboy wrote:

We've not came across any supposed "contradictions" in this discussion. So I don't know what you're talking about

I don't know what you speak of with the protestantism. I'm not a protestant, nor am I preaching. This is a religion discussion, thus I come to discuss the Christian faith with others. Not trying to convert, make you believe, or anything of such. Merely not allowing others to spread lies, misunderstandings or anything of such about the bible.

Cowboy wrote:

Well what you were saying in this specific incident was a lie. Because Greek Mythology is absolutely NOTHING like Christianity.

You're denials are not my concern.

If a little child places their hands on their ears and starts screaming to avoid hearing the truths that you speak does that change the fact that you speak the truth?

I think not.



Denial again.

You are indeed "preaching". In fact you are "DEMANDING" that only your interpretations and beliefs associated with Jesus and the Biblical fables be accepted as the only correct and true interpretations of these fables.

That's preaching Cowboy.

And listen to your very own words, "Merely not allowing others to spread lies, misunderstandings or anything of such about the bible."

I spread no lies. I speak solely of the truth. It's my conclusions that you do not like. By I offer my conclusions as my own personal views. Thus for you to even suggest that they are lies, is a lie on your part.

Truth #1

In the biblical stories the Hebrews accuse the Canaanites and Egyptians of rejecting God and refusing to obey God.

Truth #2

In the biblical stories the Hebrews confess that the Canaanites were actually sacrificing their own babies to the Gods, and that Egyptians also worshiped Gods.

So these are Truths Cowboy, I spread no lies.

From these truths I offer my personal observations and conclusions:

Clearly neither the Canaanites, nor the Egyptians had rejected the creator of this universe, nor had they refused to obey any such creator since they were clearly abiding by the things they believe the Gods expected from them. Gee whiz, even the Hebrews confess that the Canaanites were so dedicated to serving God that they were willing to sacrifice their own children to God.

So the very notion that either the Canaanites, or the Egyptians were "rejecting God" is clearly nothing more than a lie made up by the Hebrews.

Had the Bible been the genuine inspired word of a truly all-wise God, then these stories would have been quite different. The Canaanites and Egyptians would not have been worshiping any God concepts because they supposedly REJECTED God knowing-fully and using their own FREE WILL CHOICE.

The mere fact that these cultures were worshiping Gods only proves that they were not rejecting God.

So the Hebrews are caught red-handed with their hand in the cookie jar. They are making up lies about a fictitious God that can't possible have been true.

That, Mr. Cowboy, is my honest sincere evaluation of these ancient stories. They amount to nothing more than one human culture pointing fingers at other human cultures for simply having different religious views (just like you do to me). Evidently you not only condone this type of behavior but you try to emulated it using the original Hebrew fables to support your tactics.

It's obvious to me that the Hebrews were lying. Neither the Canaanites, nor the Egyptians had knowingly and willfully rejected God. They simply had a different understanding of God via their own religious beliefs.

So this religion that claims that we have "FREE WILL CHOICE" falls flat on its face. If the Canaanites and Egyptians had chosen using "FREE WILL CHOICE" to reject God, then they wouldn't be trying to appease God or worship God.

So I caught the Hebrews dead-to-rights in their lies. Their biblical fables are necessarily nothing more than one human culture making false accusations toward other human cultures.

The Bible is a lie. Caught red-handed in the midst of it.

This is my personal conclusion Cowboy. So you can't say that I'm "spreading lies". On the contrary, I'm spreading my TRUTH!

This is my sincere and honest evaluation and conclusion. And there is no lie associated with it at all.

None whatsoever.

If you disagree with my conclusion, so be it.

But don't be calling me a "liar" for offering an honest opinion.

That's just downright ignorance on your part.

Acknowledge my opinion for what it is, and just let it be known that you disagree with it.

It's not a problem. I'm sure that I'll disagree with your excuses for these fables as well.

And that's where we'll stand, simply having to agree to disagree.

No sense in name-calling. That's not going to be fruitful.

You are indeed "preaching". In fact you are "DEMANDING" that only your interpretations and beliefs associated with Jesus and the Biblical fables be accepted as the only correct and true interpretations of these fables. whoa

Truth #1

In the biblical stories the Hebrews accuse the Canaanites and Egyptians of rejecting God and refusing to obey God.

Truth #2

In the biblical stories the Hebrews confess that the Canaanites were actually sacrificing their own babies to the Gods, and that Egyptians also worshiped Gods.

Had the Bible been the genuine inspired word of a truly all-wise God, then these stories would have been quite different. The Canaanites and Egyptians would not have been worshiping any God concepts because they supposedly REJECTED God knowing-fully and using their own FREE WILL CHOICE.

Clearly neither the Canaanites, nor the Egyptians had rejected the creator of this universe, nor had they refused to obey any such creator since they were clearly abiding by the things they believe the Gods expected from them. Gee whiz, even the Hebrews confess that the Canaanites were so dedicated to serving God that they were willing to sacrifice their own children to God

So this religion that claims that we have "FREE WILL CHOICE" falls flat on its face. If the Canaanites and Egyptians had chosen using "FREE WILL CHOICE" to reject God, then they wouldn't be trying to appease God or worship God.

But don't be calling me a "liar" for offering an honest opinion.

That's just downright ignorance on your part.

Acknowledge my opinion for what it is, and just let it be known that you disagree with it.

It's not a problem. I'm sure that I'll disagree with your excuses for these fables as well.

And that's where we'll stand, simply having to agree to disagree.

No sense in name-calling. That's not going to be fruitful.

No, there's no lie at all. I sincerely don't see much difference between the God depicted in the Biblical myths versus the God depicted in the Greek myths.

They are both "male", they are both supposed to be the "God of Gods", or potentially the only real "God".

They are both appeased by blood sacrifices.

I agree that the biblical God is more jealous, and more male-chauvinistic. There are many differences in the details of the myths as they unfold, but the basic patriarchal Male Godhead who can be appeased by blood sacrifices is the same general idea.

I just see no reason why the "Real Creator of the Universe" would just coincidentally happen to be a spitting image of Zeus who was supposedly nothing more than pure man-made myth.

From my point of view these mythologies are almost identical.

In fact, if you look at the bigger picture of spiritual ideas from around the world you'll see ideas that are radically different from a male-patriarchal godhead image of God. Like take Eastern Mysticsm for example, that a radically different idea of spiritually.

When comparing Eastern Mysticism, with both the Biblical picture of God and the Greek picture of Zeus, both Yahweh and Zeus appear to be virtually identical in contrast to the Eastern Mystical view.

The same could be said when comparing them with a Moon Goddess, etc. Again the Biblical Picture and the Greek Picture would be virtually indistinguishable in comparison with a Mood Goddess.

So yes, it's my sincere and honest view that Zeus and Yahweh stem from the same mentality and are obviously both equally made-up folklore, from the same basic region of the world.

How can you call that a "lie"?

It's an opinion. An opinion cannot be a "lie", it's just an opinion.

I would actually have to lie, to say that I don't see them as being virtually the same mythological views just taking slightly different directions as they evolved.

So once again I speak the "TRUTH".

It's true that this is my honest sincere assessment and view.

To call it a "lie" is to deny me my perspective on things.

They are both appeased by blood sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

He's appeased by them? I can show you other times it is said that our father is not appeased with blood sacrifices and burnt offerings.

Cowboy wrote:

I'm not preaching nor am I demanding my interpretation and belief to be absolute fact and all others false. I have said this to you even specifically you many of times, if anyone else has a different interpretation of the scriptures to confront me about it and we would discuss why we interpret it the certain ways we do.

Truth one would be correct. For the simple fact that sacrificing a "baby" would be killing a person. God has instructed us not to do this, even one of the direct commandments. So how could it be a pleasurable sacrifice to our father if it is going against what he has told us to do?

You speak as if the things in the bible was written just for the bible, just stories made up. These things actually happened, this is all history. So therefore how could the stories have been quite different? That's impossible, the only way for them to have been different is if these things that happened would have happened differently.

Again they were not abiding by the things that God had instructed us to do, again they were killing, they were murdering, they were taking the life of another. This is in total disagreement with what our father has told us to do or not do.

If one worships say Zues as God, as father of the planet they then are rejecting that God our father in heaven is father of the planet. If one worships Zeus sending thanks to him for the blessings, they have worshiped a false God and is again saying that Zeus is real thus rejecting our father in heaven.

I didn't call you a liar for anything along your beliefs. I said you were lying about Greek mythology being the same as Christianity. They are absolutely nothing alike. That is where the lie was.

Cowboy wrote:

Hebrews 10:4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

He's appeased by them? I can show you other times it is said that our father is not appeased with blood sacrifices and burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11-13

"The multitude of your sacrifices - what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I cannot bear your evil assemblies."

But there you go with that request that they "Confront you about it"

And who are YOU again? The Pope or something?

Why should anyone need to "confront you" about their interpretations and beliefs concerning the biblical stories.

From whence does your "authority" to be the spokesperson for the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, or God arise?

I don't feel a need to "confront you". I don't recognize your authority in the matter.

You're nothing more than a pesty nobody as far as I can see. I disagree with many of your interpretations and have explained why.

I disagree with your rejection of the hell concept. And, as I've said, it's crystal clearly the the Catholic Church and the Pope would also disagree with you.

So why bother "confronting you" about the Bible, you clearly have it all wrong anyway.

Sounds to me like you need to "confront the Pope".




That's totally irrelevant. Clearly the Canaanites were under the honest sincere belief that God requires the blood sacrifices of babies. If that's was wrong God should have cleared up that misunderstanding.

If there is a misunderstanding between a creator and the created it's entirely the responsibility of the creator to clear up the misunderstanding because obviously he's the only entity in a position to do so.

You apparently miss the major point here. The Canaanites cannot be said to have refused to worship and obey "God" if they were sacrificing babies to honor, appease, and worship "God".

So there's a major contradiction in these myths that you have not sufficiently resolved. You're claim that "God doesn't want them to do that" is quite frankly lame.

If that were true then it would be up to God to communicate that to them. They can't be under the "Belief" that they are honoring a God whilst doing it all wrong. This flies in the face of the idea that it is their FREE WILL CHOICE to reject God.

If they are under the "belief" that they are worshiping God, then clearly they cannot have made a "FREE WILL CHOICE" to refuse to worship God.

This is an extremely simple concept to comprehend Cowboy, if you can't handle it, it's not my problem.

In the meantime, you lame "excuses" for the fables don't stand up to reason.



Again, Cowboy you're just not comprehending the core issues here.

Of course, these stories reflect history. The Hebrews really did accuse the Canaanites of "rejecting God", and being disobedient of God, and they really did use God as an "excuse" to murder all the Canaanites without mercy. That most likely actually happened and was indeed a real historical event.

When I say that the stories would have been different, I actually mean that history would have been different TOO!

If the stories were actually from a genuine God. Several things would have to be different.

First off, if the Canaanites and Egyptians had truly rejected God and refused to worship him, they wouldn't have any religion at all!

That would be the first change right there. They also couldn't even be atheistic societies. They would actually need to believe in the Biblical God and acknowledge that they refuse to worship and obey him.

But that now how these stories go.

So yes, they reflect TRUE HISTORY. And the TRUTH is that the Hebrews just used a God concept to justify murdering other cultures so they could move onto their land.

So yes, the stories probably do reflect the TRUTH of history, but they also show that no God could be associated with these stories because the stories are seriously flawed and reveal the fact that they are based on lies.




Again you're in denial that these cultures had RELIGION!

They could not have blatantly and knowingly refused to worship and obey God if they still had RELIGION.



No, if a person honestly and sincerely believes in their heart that Zeus represents God then they are doing their best to honor and worship God. If they have it WRONG, then the "real creator" needs to step in and show them where they have misunderstood.

You can't accuse people who "misunderstand" something of knowingly and willfully CHOOSING to reject God or disobey.

This is a fundamental flaw in this whole mythology.

A flaw that you can't even seem to comprehend.




No I didn't say that Greek mythology and Christianity are the same. Not at all.

I said that the biblical GOD and Zeus are too much alike to have been a mere coincidence.

These two mythologies clearly started from the same "seed vision" of what certain cultures felt a God might be like. Sure they evolved along different paths and became different religions over all, but in both cases they have a male Godhead who is the "God of Gods", or "King of Kings" and who is appeased by blood sacrifices.

That part of the core superstition is indeed the same.

But there you go with that request that they "Confront you about it"

And who are YOU again? The Pope or something?

Why should anyone need to "confront you" about their interpretations and beliefs concerning the biblical stories.

From whence does your "authority" to be the spokesperson for the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, or God arise?

I don't feel a need to "confront you". I don't recognize your authority in the matter.

You're nothing more than a pesty nobody as far as I can see. I disagree with many of your interpretations and have explained why.

I disagree with your rejection of the hell concept. And, as I've said, it's crystal clearly the the Catholic Church and the Pope would also disagree with you.

So why bother "confronting you" about the Bible, you clearly have it all wrong anyway.

Sounds to me like you need to "confront the Pope".

That's totally irrelevant. Clearly the Canaanites were under the honest sincere belief that God requires the blood sacrifices of babies. If that's was wrong God should have cleared up that misunderstanding.

If there is a misunderstanding between a creator and the created it's entirely the responsibility of the creator to clear up the misunderstanding because obviously he's the only entity in a position to do so.

You apparently miss the major point here. The Canaanites cannot be said to have refused to worship and obey "God" if they were sacrificing babies to honor, appease, and worship "God".

First off, if the Canaanites and Egyptians had truly rejected God and refused to worship him, they wouldn't have any religion at all!

Again you're in denial that these cultures had RELIGION!

They could not have blatantly and knowingly refused to worship and obey God if they still had RELIGION.

No, if a person honestly and sincerely believes in their heart that Zeus represents God then they are doing their best to honor and worship God. If they have it WRONG, then the "real creator" needs to step in and show them where they have misunderstood.

I said that the biblical GOD and Zeus are too much alike to have been a mere coincidence.

All you're doing here is confirming the fact that these myths are indeed filled with contradictions. In early books of the Bible God instructs people to give him burnt offerings of rams, lambs, and bulls to make atonement for their sins.

Then later in the Bible we see this same God supposedly refuting his own directives.

So there you go, either these stories are totally inconsistent and filled with contradictions, or the God in these fables has Alzheimer's disease and can't even remember his own previous instructions.

So I rest my case that these fables are riddled with self-contradictions.

Cowboy wrote:

It is not God's responsibility. Is it your government's responsibility that you understand the law completely 100% and don't have some misunderstanding, why of course it's not. It is your responsibility to learn and know the law of your land. Same would apply to God, it is not his responsibility to make sure you know and understand the law he has given. You're continuously trying to find some form of scapegoat just so you won't be responsible for something you've either done or didn't do.

How do you get as much? I can worship a chicken as my religion. If I do that would I then not be rejecting our father in heaven? If a child praises and treats someone like he was their dad while ignoring their real dad, is that child not rejecting that child's real dad?

What's your point? So what if they had religion, whoopy. God doesn't want us to just specifically have religion. That has almost nothing to do with anything and everything. Just because someone has a “religion” and worships what they think to be a god doesn't mean they are worshipping the one and only God, our father in heaven.

How much more do you wish for our father to do? He even allowed his only begotten child to be crucified for you. What more could he really do?

And again that is a lie. Zeus and our father have absolutely nothing to do with each other, no similarities, nothing.

You continually compare God to things like human parents, or human governments, etc. In doing so you are asking me to believe that God is every bit as lame and restricted as these mortal conditions.

You're the one who is continually trying to find a scapegoat for the failings of your God.

You have more excuses for your God than anything else. It's the most "excused" God on the planet.

No, I don't accept any of your analogies that compare a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God with mundane imperfect mortal human failings.

If your God is so inept that his only excuse is that he can't do any better than mortal human parents or mortal human governments then he's not much of a God.

So you continual use of human analogies to try to make excuses for the failings of your God only serve to imply that your God is himself truly inept and has not more wisdom or abilities than mere moral humans.




If you genuinely believe in your heart that the chicken is the creator of all that exists, then you are worshiping what you believe to be "God".

You keep coming up with these utterly insane analogies. You use the analogy of worshiping a chicken, because you're trying to set an example where a person would clearly need to be an utter FOOL to believe that a chicken is God.

So you are purposefully building strawman analogies that you already know have no merit and can easily be blown away like a house of cards.

Moreover, in your second example, if a child believes that someone is their father and that child is trying to love that person, then clearly they are not rejecting their true parent since they obviously can't even know that the true parent even exists.

In fact, you've just supported my view using that example. If the Canaanites were sacrificing their very own babies to a God, then they most surely were under the sincere belief that the God they are worshiping is REAL. People aren't going to sacrifice their Babies to "false Gods" that they know are false.

Thus the Canaanites were clearly sincere in their attempt to worship God.

Like I say, if there was a misunderstanding there, it would be the responsibility of the God to correct that misunderstanding.

You previously used the analogy of Governments and the fact that they require that citizens become aware of the laws on their own. They don't do this because it's the MORAL thing to do. On the contrary, they do it because it's the only thing makes practical sense in their LIMITED and very RESTRICTED situation. They simply don't have the ability to know who is ignorant of the law and they also don't have the ability to educated people who are ignorant of the law.

But and all-powerful creator does have those abilities, so there's no excuse for an all-powerful creator to allow anyone to be confused about who God is or what he wants from them.

You are basically demanding that God is totally free from having any responsibility toward his human pets. But that's not true. Especially if he's going to be passing dire judgments on them based on their FREE WILL CHOICES. The only way that is going to work is if he makes sure they know what it TRUE and what is not TRUE. He can't be blaming people for believing in false things. Especially if he himself requires PURE FAITH WITHOUT PROOF. He just opened the door right there for all visions of God to have equal merit.

That would be a God who is utterly foolish and stupid, not wise at all.




You're missing the whole point.

If they believe that they are indeed worshiping the true creator of the universe, then in their heart they are sincerely trying to do the right thing. For any God to condemn such sincere and decent people simply because HE FAILED to make clear precisely who he is and what he wants, would be foolish on the part of God, and certainly totally unrighteous.

So you're asking me to believe in a foolish unrighteous God.



I don't believe those rumors have anything to do with any God Cowboy.



It's an OPINION Cowboy. And opinion cannot be a "lie".

As far as I'm concerned, in character, there is very little difference between Zeus and Yahweh. They are both depicted as being male godhead who are seen as the "God of Gods" or "King of Kings" and they are both appeased by blood sacrifices, etc.

I will grant you that the Biblical God is not quite as nice as Zeus was. At least Zeus wasn't a self-proclaimed jealous God, nor did he appear to be nearly as male-chauvinistic as the biblical God.

So my apologies to Zeus for making this comparison, but still, I feel that these God images have much in common in terms of man-made mythologies. I mean just from a practical point of view, it's clear to me that this was the basic foundational mindset that gave rise to the Biblical fables.

And that's not a "lie", it's an opinion. Opinions cannot be "lies" they are just a personal perspective is all.

You continually compare God to things like human parents, or human governments, etc. In doing so you are asking me to believe that God is every bit as lame and restricted as these mortal conditions.

You're the one who is continually trying to find a scapegoat for the failings of your God.

You have more excuses for your God than anything else. It's the most "excused" God on the planet.

No, I don't accept any of your analogies that compare a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God with mundane imperfect mortal human failings.

If your God is so inept that his only excuse is that he can't do any better than mortal human parents or mortal human governments then he's not much of a God.

So you continual use of human analogies to try to make excuses for the failings of your God only serve to imply that your God is himself truly inept and has not more wisdom or abilities than mere moral humans.

You keep coming up with these utterly insane analogies. You use the analogy of worshiping a chicken, because you're trying to set an example where a person would clearly need to be an utter FOOL to believe that a chicken is God.

If they believe that they are indeed worshiping the true creator of the universe, then in their heart they are sincerely trying to do the right thing. For any God to condemn such sincere and decent people simply because HE FAILED to make clear precisely who he is and what he wants, would be foolish on the part of God, and certainly totally unrighteous.

I don't believe those rumors have anything to do with any God Cowboy.

As far as I'm concerned, in character, there is very little difference between Zeus and Yahweh. They are both depicted as being male godhead who are seen as the "God of Gods" or "King of Kings" and they are both appeased by blood sacrifices, etc.

Cowboy wrote:

No contradiction. Just because one isn't appeased by them doesn't mean he didn't allow them to happen. All god was doing was giving us a way to show our sincerity in our asking of forgiveness. He wasn't appeased by these burnt offerings, but he made a way so people could show in action that they are remorseful for their actions eg., actions speak louder then words. God just wanted us to just be obedient and not have to sacrifice something for forgiveness, he wanted our obedience but he would settle for the burnt offerings for showing of remorse and in asking forgiveness.

I'm sorry Cowboy, but I don't see where you even have a coherent picture of this religion yourself.

We've been through this before but you can't seem to grasp the basic concepts.

Here you are again, trying to claim that these blood sacrifices were done to show our sincerity in our asking for forgiveness.

But then you go on to claim that Jesus represents the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

So you're saying that we no longer need to demonstrate our sincerity in our asking for forgiveness? All we need to do now is just ask, and Jesus has removed any need for us to demonstrate our sincerity?

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me Cowboy.

You keep demanding that people should "confront you" if they have any questions concerning interpretations of these scriptures, but your explanations and excuses don't make any sense.

You've been trying to convince me of your views for several months now and you haven't convinced me of anything. On the contrary you keep verifying and confirming that my original views are indeed standing on solid ground.

You keep trying to make excuses for God by comparing him to helpless inept humans. You keep trying to find scapegoats for this God by coming up with truly lame analogies of people supposedly worshiping chickens, or a child thinking that "a box" is it's dad.

You keep grasping for the most extremely absurd analogies to try to justify the biblical fables, because no decent analogies can justify them.

And like I say, all for what?

To try to convince me to accept your picture of God?

You don't need to do that.

You have your picture of God, and I have mine. And that's the way it should be.

Have I ever suggested that you should "confront me" when you have spiritual questions?

No, of course I haven't. You seek my approval all on your own.

I don't need your approval for my beliefs. Thank you very much.

I started this thread to discuss the issue of how Protestantism can only lead to arguments between Paper Popes and the general public, between Paper Popes themselves.

I don't care what you believe Cowboy.

I respect YOUR VIEW FOR YOU!

If you want to believe in the biblical picture of God and that Jesus died to pay for your sins, and that you'll be one of the FEW who makes into the eternal paradise of heaven, and that there is no such place as hell, then so be it. I Respect your right to view God and spirituality in that way. And you do not need to confront me about it.

Now if you could offer me the same respect, peace, and tranquility, then the world could be a better place, and instead of being part of the problem you could become part of the solution to a better world.

But instead, you choose to continually argue that your views should trump mine, and you continue to demand that I "confront you" when it comes to spiritual beliefs in God.

Like I say Cowboy, you are just a perfect example of precisely what Protestant Fundamentalism and Paper Popes bring into this world.

Your force spirituality to be a confrontation by your simple demand that everyone must confront you on spiritual matters especially if they pertain to the biblical fables in particular.

Where's your authority to speak for Jesus, God, the Bible, or Christianity in General?

Are you even ordained at all by anyone?

Why should anyone need to "confront you" on spiritual matters? And why should spirituality even need to be a "confrontation" in the first place.

Shouldn't spirituality be a Personal Walk with God?

Why should I need to confront YOU to get to God?

This is precisely what I'm saying about Protestant Fundamentalism.

Too many Paper Popes!

So you're saying that we no longer need to demonstrate our sincerity in our asking for forgiveness? All we need to do now is just ask, and Jesus has removed any need for us to demonstrate our sincerity?

You've been trying to convince me of your views for several months now and you haven't convinced me of anything. On the contrary you keep verifying and confirming that my original views are indeed standing on solid ground.

Have I ever suggested that you should "confront me" when you have spiritual questions?

Yes we still need to. Accepting Jesus as lord and savior isn't just saying you have. If someone is your lord you do as they tell you to. Thus we obey Jesus' commandments he gave to us, that is a sacrifice in it's own. We won't be the one's out at the party's doing drugs, if we marry we are not to divorce no matter how bad the marriage ends up *Jesus does not offer divorce, it is till death do us part* and we are only to marry once even if you and your wife split up. And many many more different things we are to do or not to do. That is why we will have a "judgment" on how well we obeyed.



The only one that can convince you of anything is yourself.



I did not say this. I said if they have a different interpretation. For I know my interpretation may not be correct and I could learn from them or they could learn from me. I don't know it all lol. You're the one with the ego thinking he knows it all. I know one thing and that is Jesus is lord.

Shouldn't spirituality be a Personal Walk with God?

Why should I need to confront YOU to get to God? huh

This is precisely what I'm saying about Protestant Fundamentalism.

Too many Paper Popes! pitchfork

Cowboy wrote:

The only one that can convince you of anything is yourself.