God does not condemn anyone.

Neither does God reject anyone.

Man condemns himself ....by rejecting God.

Cowboy wrote:

There is no such thing as "condemned" or anything as such.

Cowboy wrote:


In the Garden of Eden there was no such thing as death. We were kicked out for disobedience/sin. So now we do have death. And how does it not show a trustworthy God? God didn't unjustifiably kick them out of the Garden. They were kicked out for disobedience. The only reward for sin/disobedience is death. There was no death inside of the Garden, thus they were kicked out, eg., the only reward for sin is death. And that's fine if YOU don't believe in the religion. That was my entire reasoning for that post. Christianity doesn't suite YOU. That was purely my entire reasoning, for people to find ones THEY feel is the truth, not cause someone said it or it's popular or anything of that nature.

And how does it not show a trustworthy God? God didn't unjustifiably kick them out of the Garden. They were kicked out for disobedience.

Christianity doesn't suite YOU. That was purely my entire reasoning, for people to find ones THEY feel is the truth, not cause someone said it or it's popular or anything of that nature.

Cowboy wrote:

So bare carefully in life no matter the belief you choose to follow, I ask you ensure if there is a "right" belief, to choose the "right" one. Weather you find this belief in the Christian faith, the Muslim faith, or any other faith possible. I plead that you please make sure it is the right one for sure without a doubt.

Cowboy wrote:

There is no such thing as "condemned" or anything as such.

So, you're saying that you reject the Christian New Testament gospels?


John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It makes absolutely no sense to me for someone to constantly be trying to support and defend a doctrine when they themselves do not even believe what the doctrine has to say.

You should make up your mind. Either support what the doctrine says, or reject it. Trying to support it whilst simultaneously disagreeing with it makes no sense.

You just said yourself there there can only be one "absolute truth".

So who's telling the TRUTH? You? Or the Christian gospel of John?

Clearly you can't BOTH be right!




WE weren't kicked out of anywhere. If anything, our extremely ancient ancestors were.



Well, IMHO, it's totally unjustifiable to hold the children of those criminals to be as "guilty" as their parents.

You're the one who is always using human analogies to try to justify this God's behavior. Well, would humans do this? No they wouldn't. Say a woman is in jail for murder and she's been sentenced to death. She has a baby whilst waiting for her sentence to be carried out on death row. Do humans automatically kill the baby too? Do they charge it with murder too? Do they demand that it show remorse for the fact that it's mother had committed murder?

No, humans would deem such behavior to be totally unjustifiable.

So there you go, buy human standards the biblical story of a God is totally unjustifiable.



I already have found a religion that makes far more sense than the biblical picture. And I've explained that many times. The Eastern Mystical view of God makes far more sense. It's a picture of a truly righteous God that you can indeed TRUST. This God does not judge or harm anyone for any reasons that they do not personally deserve. And God does this through a process explained as "karma".

No one is ever "damned" by a judgmental God, especially for merely not believing in the religion.

So if I were to have to chose between a religion that has a god that does indeed "condemn" people for mere disbelief (as the actual Christian doctrines claim), versus a religion where the God concept is truly rational, righteous and benevolent, then yes, I will most certainly choose the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, if a creator exists, it is only worthy of worship if it is indeed truly benevolent.

A jealous creator that condemns people for merely not believing in it would not be benevolent, trustworthy, or righteous at all, IMHO, and therefore it would be a demon.

This is why I'm convinced that the Hebrew doctrines must necessarily be false. They must necessarily be a religion created by mankind for the purpose of trying to scare people into obeying the opinions and desires of the authors of these texts.

Moreover, we must ultimately understand and accept that to believe in them is entirely a matter of FAITH. A person should never place their faith in something that they don't wish to be true, that would be foolish. And I certainly have no desire to believe in a God who condemns people for merely not believing in him. Not to mention all the other gory stuff involved with that religion with blood sacrifices, and crucifixions etc.

Why would I want to believe that my creator had to sacrifice his son to a bloody crucifixion to pay for my "rejection of God" when I know that there isn't even any truth to that claim to begin with?

I've never rejected "God". But I most certainly do reject absurd religions that try to make God out to be an unreasonable bully.

You said before,



You make this sound so grave and solemn, like if a person should happen to believe in the wrong thing they might be condemned or something.

Yes, it's TRUE that I believe that Eastern Mysticism is probably the most intelligent and benevolent picture of a spiritual entity that mankind has yet come up with.

But so what? There is nothing in that belief system that required that I believe it. It's NOT and EXCLUSIVE belief system that threatens that if people don't believe in it they will be condemned.

On the contrary, it claims that even if you don't believe it karma will still treat you precisely as it treats everyone else.

Jeanniebean's "Law of Attraction" is basically the SAME type of belief. It just says that this is the way things are. An actual belief in the philosophy is not even remotely required.

These religions are like GRAVITY. They are true whether you believe in them or not. Step off a cliff and you're going to fall regardless of what you might believe.

But the religion that you try to support (even though you constantly reject its doctrine), will condemn a person for merely not believing in the religion.

So from your perspective it's extremely important to place your faith in the correct version of a particular religion. You have apparently chosen to believe in one of the many Christian versions of the Abrahamic religion. And on top of that you even reject that doctrine (rejecting John 3:18).

Just for clarity let me post that again:




John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So do you believe and support these Christian gospels or not?

However, most churches.(well all that I have been to so far)
Pick pieces our of the bible and seem to take them out of context, then they shut it in and wont listen to any ones opinion, they get insulted if you dont agree and tell you , that you are wrong to question.

Josie said:




Yes that's why I don't go to church. I would be disruptive.

I would probably interrupt the Sunday sermon.

I know I hate it , I would sit then and be thinking hey what is this..
Even my children when they started school got into trouble for questioning their school minister, as they told him he was wrong in how he was explaining things..
For some reason an adult minister does not like to be questioned by 10 and 12 year olds. But they wherent rude they just didnt realise they shouldn't question him in front of people..They had been taught at home until then so where always allowed to question if they thought there was a mistake in something I said.
Actually i still dont know why it was wrong, if he was wrong, which he was then he should have corrected it not taught it to children.

Well Cowboy I hope you find it.

not questioning elders is an old school philosophy Josie.

The way I think is best is for elders to always take time to ask what is not understood so that it doesnt set up a habit in children to question what they are told but instead to discuss (when invited to) their questions.


In a school setting though, I think it would be proper for a child to raise their hand and respectfully explain that they are confused about something, instead of 'correcting' the adult.

Its Ok Harmony my children are not heathens, they have been taught to behave correctly,
They did raise their hand and asked politly what he meant as they thought that it was something else, He was a little abrupt and told them that if thought they knew the answer to get up and tell the class themselves..
They had never been faced with anyo0ne who was critical and so they did get up and they did explain it. I was there and was proud of them as they did a fantastiic job, however, he had meant to belittle them.
But you see their entire schooling had been from the bible and from an American Christian program. So everything they had ever been taught was directly from the bible, every story they read, their maths, science, history everything was Bible stories and they knew it backwards and forwards.
he was almost rude to them afterwards and I specifically told the school that I didnt want him teaching my children again.

In the 7 years my children have been at school I have never had a teacher complain about their manners, they have recieved awards for their behaviour, and are always respected by their teachers for their maturity.
They would never ever disrespect an elder as they have grown up being taught that it is wrong..

So, you're saying that you reject the Christian New Testament gospels?


John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It makes absolutely no sense to me for someone to constantly be trying to support and defend a doctrine when they themselves do not even believe what the doctrine has to say.

You should make up your mind. Either support what the doctrine says, or reject it. Trying to support it whilst simultaneously disagreeing with it makes no sense.

You just said yourself there there can only be one "absolute truth".

So who's telling the TRUTH? You? Or the Christian gospel of John?

Clearly you can't BOTH be right!




WE weren't kicked out of anywhere. If anything, our extremely ancient ancestors were.



Well, IMHO, it's totally unjustifiable to hold the children of those criminals to be as "guilty" as their parents.

You're the one who is always using human analogies to try to justify this God's behavior. Well, would humans do this? No they wouldn't. Say a woman is in jail for murder and she's been sentenced to death. She has a baby whilst waiting for her sentence to be carried out on death row. Do humans automatically kill the baby too? Do they charge it with murder too? Do they demand that it show remorse for the fact that it's mother had committed murder?

No, humans would deem such behavior to be totally unjustifiable.

So there you go, buy human standards the biblical story of a God is totally unjustifiable.



I already have found a religion that makes far more sense than the biblical picture. And I've explained that many times. The Eastern Mystical view of God makes far more sense. It's a picture of a truly righteous God that you can indeed TRUST. This God does not judge or harm anyone for any reasons that they do not personally deserve. And God does this through a process explained as "karma".

No one is ever "damned" by a judgmental God, especially for merely not believing in the religion.

So if I were to have to chose between a religion that has a god that does indeed "condemn" people for mere disbelief (as the actual Christian doctrines claim), versus a religion where the God concept is truly rational, righteous and benevolent, then yes, I will most certainly choose the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, if a creator exists, it is only worthy of worship if it is indeed truly benevolent.

A jealous creator that condemns people for merely not believing in it would not be benevolent, trustworthy, or righteous at all, IMHO, and therefore it would be a demon.

This is why I'm convinced that the Hebrew doctrines must necessarily be false. They must necessarily be a religion created by mankind for the purpose of trying to scare people into obeying the opinions and desires of the authors of these texts.

Moreover, we must ultimately understand and accept that to believe in them is entirely a matter of FAITH. A person should never place their faith in something that they don't wish to be true, that would be foolish. And I certainly have no desire to believe in a God who condemns people for merely not believing in him. Not to mention all the other gory stuff involved with that religion with blood sacrifices, and crucifixions etc.

Why would I want to believe that my creator had to sacrifice his son to a bloody crucifixion to pay for my "rejection of God" when I know that there isn't even any truth to that claim to begin with?

I've never rejected "God". But I most certainly do reject absurd religions that try to make God out to be an unreasonable bully.

You said before,



You make this sound so grave and solemn, like if a person should happen to believe in the wrong thing they might be condemned or something.

Yes, it's TRUE that I believe that Eastern Mysticism is probably the most intelligent and benevolent picture of a spiritual entity that mankind has yet come up with.

But so what? There is nothing in that belief system that required that I believe it. It's NOT and EXCLUSIVE belief system that threatens that if people don't believe in it they will be condemned.

On the contrary, it claims that even if you don't believe it karma will still treat you precisely as it treats everyone else.

Jeanniebean's "Law of Attraction" is basically the SAME type of belief. It just says that this is the way things are. An actual belief in the philosophy is not even remotely required.

These religions are like GRAVITY. They are true whether you believe in them or not. Step off a cliff and you're going to fall regardless of what you might believe.

But the religion that you try to support (even though you constantly reject its doctrine), will condemn a person for merely not believing in the religion.

So from your perspective it's extremely important to place your faith in the correct version of a particular religion. You have apparently chosen to believe in one of the many Christian versions of the Abrahamic religion. And on top of that you even reject that doctrine (rejecting John 3:18).

Just for clarity let me post that again:




John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So do you believe and support these Christian gospels or not?

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So do you believe and support these Christian gospels or not?

Well, actually if no one is being condemned for not believing in the right one, then clearly there's not somber grave need to get it right anyway.

The only reason it would be important to get it right would be if something horrible was going to happen to you if you got it wrong.

The whole "urgency to believe" is an Abrahamic concept to begin with.

And the very concept that causes that somber urgency is the idea that if you fail to believe you will risk "condemnation".

Other spiritual philosophies aren't demanding in this way.

Eastern Mysticism at its core does not care what you believe. You beliefs are totally unimportant, you could be an atheist. The truths of Eastern Mysticism still hold true for you just as gravity does.

The philosophy of the "Law of Attraction", is the same way. No need to believe in it. It's going to hold true in any case. It's just another perspective of "karma". And karma is like gravity, it acts on you whether you believe in it or not.

Also, my "version" of Wicca is totally compatible with the truths of karma or the law of attraction. All that Wicca does is help you to consciously control your very own karma. That's all it does.

If Buddhism is the "philosophy" of Karma, then Wicca is a "tool" that helps you to best maintain your karma. So these spiritual philosophies and rituals can go hand-in-hand quite harmoniously and they can BOTH be simultaneously TRUE. Especially if the practitioner of Wicca, recognizes the psychic nature of spirit.

People who think that only one religion or philosophy can be true are only limiting themselves. Of course if they believe in a jealous God who will condemn everyone who refuses to cower down to his wishes, then it's no wonder they think that only one religion can be true, because they view religion in terms of a jealous egotistical Godhead.

Cowboy wrote:

I renounce my statement no one is "condemned" now that I am thinking clearly in the morning, and I am absolutely sure that "condemnation" is a verdict of a JUDGMENT.

i wouldnt imagine you would teach them any differently

So now we're right back to square one. You confess that your religion condemns people for not believing in it. Clearly this weighs heavily on your mind and your choices. You FEAR that this might be true so rather than to chance condemnation for disbelief, you choose to believe.

That's the scam.

Believe or be damned.

And we can know that it's a man-made scam because no truly "righteous" God would condemn people for merely not believing in something.

Other spiritual philosophies don't use that kind of tactic to try to get people to believe in them. They offer more divine wisdom that can be true for everyone without a need to "believe" in any particular thing. And that is far more righteous and wise.

An egotistical jealous God who condemns people for merely not believing in him is unrighteous, and unwise. Which flies in the face of what God is supposed to be in the first place.

So the Hebrews shot themselves in their own foot when they wrote their doctrines.

One would have believe first before they could be "scared" into ummm, believing. Because if it was a "scare" tactic, it would obviously not work. You for instance, you believe they are fables, so it holds no grounds that one is condemned for not believing. So again, this would not work as a "scare tactic". So again, no one could truly be "scared" into believing and or believe out of being scared and or worried.

Cowboy wrote:

One would have believe first before they could be "scared" into ummm, believing. Because if it was a "scare" tactic, it would obviously not work. You for instance, you believe they are fables, so it holds no grounds that one is condemned for not believing. So again, this would not work as a "scare tactic". So again, no one could truly be "scared" into believing and or believe out of being scared and or worried.

Cowboy wrote:

And God "condemns" no one for not believing. It would be you condemning yourself as you already have the knowledge of the reaction to the action of disbelief. So you are choosing to condemn yourself in an essence.

*not making a judgment, just using you as an example to explain, hope that is alright*

Jeanniebean wrote:

I don't believe in a God that condemns or passes judgement on anyone.
The laws of the universe take care of all of that automatically.

People are thinking centers and they create their own heaven and hell. They imagine and create gods or they worship beings that appear to be gods. It is a universe of thinking centers and thought creates the dream we live in.

So don't worry, be happy.

Jeanniebean wrote:

I don't believe in a God that condemns or passes judgement on anyone.

In the top religions of the world god is perceived as a spoiled male of the human species. I wonder why that is? Rhetorically asking of course.