Christianity doesn't support pantheism. Jesus and God are one, yes. That doesn't mean you, me, and God are one.

Cowboy wrote:

If one knows of the punishment of a crime, then wouldn't it be the person that allows them self to be tortured forever?

If you know that if you slide a knife on your skin it will cut you. So you slide this knife on your arm. Did the knife cut you? Or in reality did you not cut yourself?

Ridiculous. There is nothing in Christianity which opposes pantheism - the idea that God and the Universe are one and the same.

Ridiculous. There is nothing in Christianity which opposes pantheism - the idea that God and the Universe are one and the same.

But your analogy here doesn't fly Cowboy because no human being can possible know that the Hebrew claims have anything to do with any real God.

On the contrary we have extremely powerful reasons to believe that they don't.

The claims that you are attempting to hold out in the name of a "God" are extremely lame, ignorant, and outright hateful. They simply don't represent what a supposedly sane and benevolent God would ever have as a moral value. And thus they simply aren't believable.

In order for us to believe in your claims about a "God" we would need to believe that God is utterly stupid an has no moral values at all.

Since there is no reason to believe in such nonsense, then we have no reason to believe that it should be a "crime" to reject such nonsense.

On the contrary I personally feel that it's a "crime" to support such nonsense and/or even suggest that it represents the ideals of any supposedly all-wise or all-benevolent "God".

Therefore, your continued claim that we should accept the nonsense that you preach as the "Laws of God", is itself without merit.

This is precisely what we are trying to explain to you, but apparently your aren't capable of comprehending anything anyone tells you. You're too busy preaching your religious bigotries to even consider the depth of the ideas that are being expressed to you.

The picture of a "God" that you create Cowboy is simply an untenable picture. You're picture of God is necessarily wrong. It has to be because the portrait of the "God" that you paint is an unrighteous ignorant God that can't possibly be "all-wise" or "benevolent".

So you picture of a "God" doesn't satisfy the criteria of what your "God" is supposed to be like.

But your analogy here doesn't fly Cowboy because no human being can possible know that the Hebrew claims have anything to do with any real God.

On the contrary we have extremely powerful reasons to believe that they don't.

The claims that you are attempting to hold out in the name of a "God" are extremely lame, ignorant, and outright hateful. They simply don't represent what a supposedly sane and benevolent God would ever have as a moral value. And thus they simply aren't believable.

This is precisely what we are trying to explain to you, but apparently your aren't capable of comprehending anything anyone tells you. You're too busy preaching your religious bigotries to even consider the depth of the ideas that are being expressed to you.

No kidding?

That's precisely the point I was making Cowboy. It makes no sense to even try to converse with you because every point I ever make goes right over your head.

It's was precisely your sarcasm that I was referring to. The POINT that you made with your sarcastic remark also applies to the Bible.

In other words your "FAITH" in the Biblical stories has absolutely no more merit than someone's "FAITH" that Sasquatch exists.

The fact that you were being sarcastic doesn't change the FACT that the very same thing applies to your "FAITH" in totally unsupportable stories of supernatural superstitious events that have been claimed by the authors of the Bible, yet have absolutely NO independent historical evidence beyond that.

In fact, rumors of the Sasquatch probably have more independent historical evidence simply because more independent people have reported seeing one. However, even with that we don't give the Sasquatch much merit. The reason being that the reports simply aren't consistent enough nor high enough in number to be consider anything more than people's own superstition, imagination, and/or possible fraud.

So is we actually apply your "sarcastic" remark to the Bible we can see the parallel. The Biblical writings don't even have as much independent historical background confirmation as do things like the Sasquatch or say the Loch Ness or UFOs and alien abductions.

Yet most people do not believe in the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness, or UFOs and alien abductions.

I'm just pointing out that your very own sarcasm actually applies to the very fables that you are attempting to claim must be true.

Yet you have no more 'evidence' for the things that you claim "must be true" than exists for these other things that you sarcastically scoff at.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I'm quite sure that if any God exists he/she/it/them does not hate anyone. However, that's irrelevant to the hateful picture of a fascist hateful God that YOU PAINT.

The first thing you need to realize is that the so-called "God" that you create exist only in YOUR MIND.

Just like Slowhand pointed out, you're not speaking of any actual "Jesus". All you're doing it creating your very own "Jesus" and trying to sell that marionette doll to everyone.

Even if there were some truth to the writings of the Bible, many people (including many denominations of Christianity) would totally reject your personal extremist interpretations of those texts.

So you have a very long way to go.

First, you'd need to so convincing evidence that the biblical writings are even worthy of consideration as written (which no human being has ever been able to do to date), but then even that would only be a STARTING point for you. Then you'd be in the truly impossible position of having to convince everyone that Jesus thinks like YOU do when you decide to interpret those scriptures!

I personally don't think you'd convince very many people of any such thing. I'm certain that you'd never convince me. Even if I had reasons to actually give those fables any merit (which I don't) I still wouldn't agree with YOUR interpretations. I personally feel that your interpretations are basically driven by your own personally need to make it appear that Jesus hates everyone who refuses to cower down to YOUR personal opinions.

I've already shown where, even according to those texts themselves, Jesus himself would NOT support your views. So even if those stories were true, I would still hold out that you are an abomination to the very message that Jesus himself was attempting to teach.

I disagree with your interpretations of these stories whether they are true or just fables. It's makes absolutely no difference at all. I still disagree with your obsession to use the Jesus character to support your religious bigotries and prejudices.

Just like Slowhand pointed out, the Jesus that "You Create" is not the same Jesus that other people see in those same stories.

You're "Jesus" is YOUR VERY OWN CREATION, whether he was a real character or not. So you have nothing going in your favor at all.

That's precisely the point I was making Cowboy. It makes no sense to even try to converse with you because every point I ever make goes right over your head.

It's was precisely your sarcasm that I was referring to. The POINT that you made with your sarcastic remark also applies to the Bible.

In other words your "FAITH" in the Biblical stories has absolutely no more merit than someone's "FAITH" that Sasquatch exists.

Cowboy writes:

Christianity believes God to be a separate being from the human race, pantheism believes the human race is God. God is with us yes, but we are not God himself as pantheism believes.

Cowboy wrote:

Yes again, everything is taken on faith. All knowledge except knowledge that effects you directly from a first-person point of view is taken on faith. Again, no one's trying to convince another that it's true. You make me laugh m8. We are again after again, just merely having a discussion on our different beliefs. No one's trying to change another's beliefs. Just here for conversation.

i often think of a german concentration camp guard escorting jews to their deaths in the gas chambers of aushwitz in 1944. among the jews is a family with two young children the ages of his own. now he's a "good christian" who takes his family to church every sunday and otherwise teaches his kids the "family values" that all "good christians" teach their kids. here's where it gets weird for me. this nazi will be able to ask forgiveness for his sins during the war, will live his life out, enjoy his grandchildren and great grandchildren and when he dies will dwell in heavenly bliss forever. the jewish family having had their lives cut mercilessly short, however, because they do not believe precisely as this scumbag believes, will burn in hell for eternity. that's just sick people.

If you're not attempting to try to convince people that your views are true, then why to constantly claim that they are "truths".

But I'm glad that you confess that you have no grounds for your faith based speculations and that you are just here for conversation.

In that case, I'll just say that the picture you paint of a "God" makes absolutely no sense to me. It's a direct violation of the idea that such a God is supposedly wise, or benevolent.

And since you also recognize and confess that it is indeed something that must be taken on 'faith' then my response to that is I see absolutely no value in placing any 'faith' in such an absurd and useless picture of a God who hates people who don't believe in him.

Why would anyone want to place their faith in such an idea?

Why would anyone want to place their faith in the idea that they are in hot water with their creator and the only way to get back in good with him is to condone the crucifixion of his son on their behalf, and appease a bunch religious bigots by supporting their religious bigotry?

Why would anyone want to place their faith in the idea that our creator is a Zeus-like ignorant jerk?

Can you answer me that?

If you're not attempting to try to convince people that your views are true, then why to constantly claim that they are "truths".

In that case, I'll just say that the picture you paint of a "God" makes absolutely no sense to me. It's a direct violation of the idea that such a God is supposedly wise, or benevolent.

And since you also recognize and confess that it is indeed something that must be taken on 'faith' then my response to that is I see absolutely no value in placing any 'faith' in such an absurd and useless picture of a God who hates people who don't believe in him.

Why would anyone want to place their faith in the idea that our creator is a Zeus-like ignorant jerk?

All that Christianity amounts to is a glorified version of Zeus. You've got an egotistical judgmental Godhead who demands to be appeased or he'll hurt people.

You claim that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" from this God. But that would imply that God wasn't smart enough to have gotten his first covenant correct. All you're doing when you make that claim is to try to claim that this God isn't omniscient nor all-wise. He makes mistake and can't even design an initial covenant that can stand the test of time.

The reason the Christianity needs a "New Covenant" is precisely because they are basically trying to steal the religion from the Jews and change it into something different.

These are clearly just Zeus-like fables created by men for the purpose of trying to out-do each other in a race to hold the "Copyright" on God via their particular religion. Christianity represents mankind's most arrogant attempt in these on-going religious battles.

You claim that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" from this God. But that would imply that God wasn't smart enough to have gotten his first covenant correct. All you're doing when you make that claim is to try to claim that this God isn't omniscient nor all-wise. He makes mistake and can't even design an initial covenant that can stand the test of time.

yes it is, I dont believe in an eternal hell, I believe that those left behind will be consumed by fire,
'ashes to ashes, dust to dust'


I also dont believe people are condemned for not believing, unless they are given the information and REJECT it

condemnation comes from not keeping the laws, much like our justice system works,,

I do believe rejecting Gods greatness and denying Gods mercy, will prevent one from being 'forced' to spend an eternity with such an otherwise 'average' and 'merciless' figure,,

and of course, if one believes God to be anything so terrible, why would they WANT to have to spend eternity with him

there have been many mortal men who have been assassinated trying to do good, Martin Luther King comes to mind

I accept(aknowledge)that his death was a result of his attempt to make things 'better', this is different than condoning the fact he was killed...

I dont condone what MEN did to Christ, but I do accept that (although his faith could have easily wiped men out at that point), he permitted such a sacrifice as validation of how much he believed in man,,,,,I understand that its hard to wrap our heads around biblical customs and the idea of a man being crucified, but I dont see this as proof of Gods ignorance at all

anymore than its Gods ignorance that is responsible for our modern 'death penalties'

Cowboy wrote:

God hates no one.

I have no problem with believing that Jesus was a mortal man who was indeed killed as he tried to do good.

However, this idea becomes extremely problematic when Jesus is claimed to be a purposeful incarnation of God.

It fails miserably in this latter case.

God sends Jesus to bring humanity a "New Covenant", and then doesn't even protect Jesus from the hands of men?

Sorry, but that will NEVER fly for me.

What would be the purpose of allowing men to kill God's messenger?

Well, Christianity holds out the notion that Jesus had to "pay" for our sins. I say hogwash to that. That very notion is a sick perverted notion right there.

That would imply that this God can't even forgive people unless he is first appeased by a violent crucifixion to PAY for his forgiveness.

That very idea is sicker than sick right there.

There would be absolutely no reason for a God to allow his "son" or "messenger" to be crucified by men. On the contrary, to even allow such a thing to happen to his messenger implies that God has no control over anything (either that, or like I said above, he's some kind of sick sadist that requires that sort of thing himself).

I would have been far more impressed by a story of a Jesus who came to Earth, preached his "New Covenant" and pissed off the Pharisees, but no matter what they tried to do to Jesus he kept slipping through their fingers, getting out of seemingly impossible predicament for the rest of his life, living to become an extremely old man until every pharisee who ever opposed him had died.

Now THAT would be an impressive God!

A God who is cut short and crucified by the pharisees so easily is not impressive to me at all.

There's no way that I can even begin to imagine an all-powerful all-wise God allowing the story of Jesus to unfold the way that this story unfolds. This story is basically mundane and totally uninteresting actually.

It also requires that God somehow required the crucifixion which, as I say, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. There is no way that I can justify such an act with respect to a supposedly all-wise, all-benevolent God. It's just doesn't fly as far as I'm concerned.

~~~~

But yes, Jesus as a mortal man who was just trying to do a good thing, it makes perfect sense, as you have pointed out. And this is why I believe that Jesus was a pantheistic-minded Jew who tried to teach better moral values than had previously been taught in their Torah.

And as a mortal man he was crucified for his opposition to the Phraisees. Like you say, basically a religious-political assassination.

Now THAT makes sense!

Actions speak louder than words Cowboy.

If your God condemns non-believers, then his actions are hateful toward non-believers. Period.

It doesn't even matter if this is merely a consequence of his "Master design". He would have still been the "person" or entity that designed things to be this way, and thus his very design itself is a hateful design.

There's no getting around it Cowboy. Any God who condemns people for merely not believing in something is a hateful God.

Period. There is no way of getting around it.

These kinds of religions can only be the creation of men who are attempting to create a religion that holds the copyright and patent rights on God.

That's all they can possibly amount to.

There's no way that a truly righteous and divine being could be associated with these kinds of exclusive religions that condemn non-believers.

It's simply not a tenable concept no matter how you try to market it. This very concept automatically turns your supposed "God" into a selfish demon.

There's no getting around it.

~~~~~~~~~~

By the way, Zeus was allowed to hate people for whatever reason he so choose. If he didn't like the way you looked at him he could strike you dead with a lightening bolt and too bad for you.

But the Biblical God is held out to be "all-righteous", therefore this God cannot just decide to hate people for arbitrary reasons, like if they merely don't believe in him. That is an "unrighteous" reason, and therefore it's a contradiction to the very notion of this God.

This is why the whole biblical account of God is an oxymoron. It can't possibly be true because it simultaneously tries to claim that this God is both "righteous" and free like Zeus to do whatever the hell he likes without needing to justify himself.

The whole religion is based on this foundational contradiction.

There's no way that a truly righteous and divine being could be associated with these kinds of exclusive religions that condemn non-believers.

MsHarmony wrote:

I guess we keep getting lost in translation here,,lol

I dont believe Jesus was a mortal man, I believe him to be the son of God, the word, which was with God from the beginning. I was making a comparison to clear up the difference between accepting Christ died and condoning the actions of his killers.

the rest we will never agree upon, I think because of the difference in how we view Jesus and crucifixion....

But that's the whole basis of Christianity.

We must condone the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for our sins!

Therefore we must condone the very idea of God condoning this act.

And that is an absolute impossible thing for me to do. I could never condone such an act in the name of a God. And thus I cannot condone a God who would condone such an act.

So accepting that this 'sacrifice' was made on my behalf is a impossibility as a matter of PRINCIPLE.

I would need to drastically LOWER my values and standards of what I believe to be righteous and just in order to condone the actions of this God.

Plus the whole thing stems from the original idea that this God is appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place which is just a hangover from the Greek mythology of Zeus.

Why should the "real creator" of this universe just happen to be so much like "Zeus" when everyone recognizes and accepts that the fables of Zeus are ridiculous.

How are these tales of Yahweh any less ridiculousness?

They aren't. They are just as ridiculous, IMHO.

And that is an absolute impossible thing for me to do. I could never condone such an act in the name of a God. And thus I cannot condone a God who would condone such an act.