Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 … 14 15 Next

Topic: "Aggressive spiritual predators."
sweetestgirl11 Joined Fri 09/12/08 Posts: 30087	Sun 11/13/11 07:28 PM
Not true. You specifically do not "question" the belief. You belittle it, jump to conclusions over one or two verses, you take things out of context, and you refuse to listen when someone tries to explain. This is the typical lie put forth by religious proselytizers. I do indeed "question" the belief, and I have questioned it for many years. I have also come to many "conclusions" concerning the questions that I've had. You totally LIE when you imply that I "jump to conclusions over one or two verses". That a total misrepresentation of what I do. I point out huge contradictions with the overall big picture of the entire cannon of stories. I point out why it clearly makes absolutely no sense to believe that the things held out in many of the biblical stories could not possibly have come from any all-wise, all-powerful, omniscient being because they simply are neither wise, powerful, nor suggest that any omniscience is involved. I also DO NOT "refuse to listen" when other people claim to have explanations for my objections. I simply don't accept their explanations and I even point out why their explanation have no merit. ~~~~ This claim that people are "refusing to listen" when they don't buy into religious proselytizing is itself just yet another technique that the proselytizers use in an attempt to make it appear that they actually have valid explanations, when in fact they don't. ~~~~ You yourself tried to "explain" to me how blood sacrifices were required by God as a means of people "proving their sincerity" to God, because you claim that words are cheap, and people need to prove themselves to God via actions. Well, on the surface that might sound good, but with just a very slight bit of analysis that "explanation" can easily be shown to have absolutely no merit at all. First off, a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would have absolutely no need to require people to "prove their sincerity" via any physical actions or rituals. Such an omniscient God would already know whether a person is sincere of heart or not. So you're so-called "explanation" already falls apart and cannot possibly have any validity. Moreover, when applied to the crucifixion of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God to end all sacrifices it fails again. What sense would it make for Jesus to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices if the whole idea of a sacrifice was for the purpose of having men prove their sincerity to God? ~~~~ The bottom line for me Cowboy is that your so-called "explanations" for these ancient superstitious beliefs never make any sense, and can never hold up to even the slightest analysis. So it's not that I'm "not listening". I hear your excuses for these fables, I just don't see them as having any merit. If anything, all you continually do is prove to me that even the believes of this religion have no clue how to explain the contradictions and absurdities that it is riddled with. ~~~~ So your "accusation" that I refuse to listen is baloney! I just don't by into your explanations. They simply don't hold water, IMHO. First off, a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would have absolutely no need to require people to "prove their sincerity" via any physical actions or ritual It wasn't necessarily to "show" it. It was more or less a punishment. They did something they weren't suppose to, they lost something valuable eg., their biggest lamb, ect. It was to put a bit of consequence on their actions they took. Moreover, when applied to the crucifixion of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God to end all sacrifices it fails again. What sense would it make for Jesus to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices if the whole idea of a sacrifice was for the purpose of having men prove their sincerity to God? The sacrificing and the crucifixion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Jesus was here to fulfil the old covenant which required blood sacrifices, why would he then be acting accordingly to the old covenant? sacrifice was carried out for different reasons by pagans - fertility rites, forgiveness, protection and by old jews also - but it was needless waste & practice he wanted to end Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin so that we may be forgiven & have everlasting life - even he did not understand the full measure of his death "father why have you forsaken me? "were his last words - a question, not a statement of understanding his death was the ultimate sacrifice to end human sacrifice, a practice he abhored. God the Father sacrificing his only son so that we may live - symbolic in the thief who was spared at the time of crucifixion and actual in that the 12 relinquished their beloved. he came and died to end the old way of sacrifice & retribution - the only covenant of import is the commandments - God set aside human sacrifice at the time of Abraham. It was a practice of man, not God, and in that sense does have nothing to do with the crucifixion - that was punishment for a crime he did not commit - not a religious sacrifice - the largess of which was not apparent until the resurrection. It is the resurrection - not the crucifixion that establishes faith in forgiveness of sin and everlasting life until the resurrection, the crucifixion was nothing more than another drifter getting the shaft to please the masses

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 11/13/11 07:28 PM
If God is all powerful and if God loves everyone, then he will save everyone. Even if they don't believe. Eternal life is earned through faith and actions. We as the people of this Earth have shown to be disobedient as a whole and have lost eternal life. So God offers eternal life once again to everyone that wishes to redeem themselves and show that they are not disobedient. Preaching. No, just sharing my religious beliefs on such, which is again what this forum is for. No, you were preaching. Learn the difference. Do I have to point each and every mistake out to you?

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 07:31 PM
If God is all powerful and if God loves everyone, then he will save everyone. Even if they don't believe. Eternal life is earned through faith and actions. We as the people of this Earth have shown to be disobedient as a whole and have lost eternal life. So God offers eternal life once again to everyone that wishes to redeem themselves and show that they are not disobedient. Preaching. No, just sharing my religious beliefs on such, which is again what this forum is for. No, you were preaching. Learn the difference. Do I have to point each and every mistake out to you? You are doing the same then. My belief: Jesus is Lord and Saviour, he offers eternal life. You're belief: No he isn't. We are merely sharing our beliefs with one another, not preaching. So please quit your hatred and just enjoy the forum that is open to ALL beliefs for EVERYONE to SHARE what they believe.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 07:36 PM
Not true. You specifically do not "question" the belief. You belittle it, jump to conclusions over one or two verses, you take things out of context, and you refuse to listen when someone tries to explain. This is the typical lie put forth by religious proselytizers. I do indeed "question" the belief, and I have questioned it for many years. I have also come to many "conclusions" concerning the questions that I've had. You totally LIE when you imply that I "jump to conclusions over one or two verses". That a total misrepresentation of what I do. I point out huge contradictions with the overall big picture of the entire cannon of stories. I point out why it clearly makes absolutely no sense to believe that the things held out in many of the biblical stories could not possibly have come from any all-wise, all-powerful, omniscient being because they simply are neither wise, powerful, nor suggest that any omniscience is involved. I also DO NOT "refuse to listen" when other people claim to have explanations for my objections. I simply don't accept their explanations and I even point out why their explanation have no merit. ~~~~ This claim that people are "refusing to listen" when they don't buy into religious proselytizing is itself just yet another technique that the proselytizers use in an attempt to make it appear that they actually have valid explanations, when in fact they don't. ~~~~ You yourself tried to "explain" to me how blood sacrifices were required by God as a means of people "proving their sincerity" to God, because you claim that words are cheap, and people need to prove themselves to God via actions. Well, on the surface that might sound good, but with just a very slight bit of analysis that "explanation" can easily be shown to have absolutely no merit at all. First off, a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would have absolutely no need to require people to "prove their sincerity" via any physical actions or rituals. Such an omniscient God would already know whether a person is sincere of heart or not. So you're so-called "explanation" already falls apart and cannot possibly have any validity. Moreover, when applied to the crucifixion of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God to end all sacrifices it fails again. What sense would it make for Jesus to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices if the whole idea of a sacrifice was for the purpose of having men prove their sincerity to God? ~~~~ The bottom line for me Cowboy is that your so-called "explanations" for these ancient superstitious beliefs never make any sense, and can never hold up to even the slightest analysis. So it's not that I'm "not listening". I hear your excuses for these fables, I just don't see them as having any merit. If anything, all you continually do is prove to me that even the believes of this religion have no clue how to explain the contradictions and absurdities that it is riddled with. ~~~~ So your "accusation" that I refuse to listen is baloney! I just don't by into your explanations. They simply don't hold water, IMHO. First off, a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would have absolutely no need to require people to "prove their sincerity" via any physical actions or ritual It wasn't necessarily to "show" it. It was more or less a punishment. They did something they weren't suppose to, they lost something valuable eg., their biggest lamb, ect. It was to put a bit of consequence on their actions they took. Moreover, when applied to the crucifixion of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God to end all sacrifices it fails again. What sense would it make for Jesus to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices if the whole idea of a sacrifice was for the purpose of having men prove their sincerity to God? The sacrificing and the crucifixion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Jesus was here to fulfil the old covenant which required blood sacrifices, why would he then be acting accordingly to the old covenant? sacrifice was carried out for different reasons by pagans - fertility rites, forgiveness, protection and by old jews also - but it was needless waste & practice he wanted to end Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin so that we may be forgiven & have everlasting life - even he did not understand the full measure of his death "father why have you forsaken me? "were his last words - a question, not a statement of understanding his death was the ultimate sacrifice to end human sacrifice, a practice he abhored. God the Father sacrificing his only son so that we may live - symbolic in the thief who was spared at the time of crucifixion and actual in that the 12 relinquished their beloved. he came and died to end the old way of sacrifice & retribution - the only covenant of import is the commandments - God set aside human sacrifice at the time of Abraham. It was a practice of man, not God, and in that sense does have nothing to do with the crucifixion - that was punishment for a crime he did not commit - not a religious sacrifice - the largess of which was not apparent until the resurrection. It is the resurrection - not the crucifixion that establishes faith in forgiveness of sin and everlasting life until the resurrection, the crucifixion was nothing more than another drifter getting the shaft to please the masses that was punishment for a crime he did not commit - not a religious sacrifice - the largess of which was not apparent until the resurrection. It is the resurrection - not the crucifixion that establishes faith in forgiveness of sin and everlasting life until the resurrection, the crucifixion was nothing more than another drifter getting the shaft to please the masses yes true, the crucifixion wasn't a "sacrifice". Jesus came to fulfil the old covenant which required sacrifice for redemption of sins. He fulfilled the prophecies of the old covenant, which fulfilled the old covenant. So now with the old covenant being fulfilled he gave us a new to replace the old cause God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is.

sweetestgirl11 Joined Fri 09/12/08 Posts: 30087	Sun 11/13/11 07:57 PM
Not true. You specifically do not "question" the belief. You belittle it, jump to conclusions over one or two verses, you take things out of context, and you refuse to listen when someone tries to explain. This is the typical lie put forth by religious proselytizers. I do indeed "question" the belief, and I have questioned it for many years. I have also come to many "conclusions" concerning the questions that I've had. You totally LIE when you imply that I "jump to conclusions over one or two verses". That a total misrepresentation of what I do. I point out huge contradictions with the overall big picture of the entire cannon of stories. I point out why it clearly makes absolutely no sense to believe that the things held out in many of the biblical stories could not possibly have come from any all-wise, all-powerful, omniscient being because they simply are neither wise, powerful, nor suggest that any omniscience is involved. I also DO NOT "refuse to listen" when other people claim to have explanations for my objections. I simply don't accept their explanations and I even point out why their explanation have no merit. ~~~~ This claim that people are "refusing to listen" when they don't buy into religious proselytizing is itself just yet another technique that the proselytizers use in an attempt to make it appear that they actually have valid explanations, when in fact they don't. ~~~~ You yourself tried to "explain" to me how blood sacrifices were required by God as a means of people "proving their sincerity" to God, because you claim that words are cheap, and people need to prove themselves to God via actions. Well, on the surface that might sound good, but with just a very slight bit of analysis that "explanation" can easily be shown to have absolutely no merit at all. First off, a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would have absolutely no need to require people to "prove their sincerity" via any physical actions or rituals. Such an omniscient God would already know whether a person is sincere of heart or not. So you're so-called "explanation" already falls apart and cannot possibly have any validity. Moreover, when applied to the crucifixion of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God to end all sacrifices it fails again. What sense would it make for Jesus to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices if the whole idea of a sacrifice was for the purpose of having men prove their sincerity to God? ~~~~ The bottom line for me Cowboy is that your so-called "explanations" for these ancient superstitious beliefs never make any sense, and can never hold up to even the slightest analysis. So it's not that I'm "not listening". I hear your excuses for these fables, I just don't see them as having any merit. If anything, all you continually do is prove to me that even the believes of this religion have no clue how to explain the contradictions and absurdities that it is riddled with. ~~~~ So your "accusation" that I refuse to listen is baloney! I just don't by into your explanations. They simply don't hold water, IMHO. First off, a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men would have absolutely no need to require people to "prove their sincerity" via any physical actions or ritual It wasn't necessarily to "show" it. It was more or less a punishment. They did something they weren't suppose to, they lost something valuable eg., their biggest lamb, ect. It was to put a bit of consequence on their actions they took. Moreover, when applied to the crucifixion of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God to end all sacrifices it fails again. What sense would it make for Jesus to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices if the whole idea of a sacrifice was for the purpose of having men prove their sincerity to God? The sacrificing and the crucifixion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Jesus was here to fulfil the old covenant which required blood sacrifices, why would he then be acting accordingly to the old covenant? sacrifice was carried out for different reasons by pagans - fertility rites, forgiveness, protection and by old jews also - but it was needless waste & practice he wanted to end Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin so that we may be forgiven & have everlasting life - even he did not understand the full measure of his death "father why have you forsaken me? "were his last words - a question, not a statement of understanding his death was the ultimate sacrifice to end human sacrifice, a practice he abhored. God the Father sacrificing his only son so that we may live - symbolic in the thief who was spared at the time of crucifixion and actual in that the 12 relinquished their beloved. he came and died to end the old way of sacrifice & retribution - the only covenant of import is the commandments - God set aside human sacrifice at the time of Abraham. It was a practice of man, not God, and in that sense does have nothing to do with the crucifixion - that was punishment for a crime he did not commit - not a religious sacrifice - the largess of which was not apparent until the resurrection. It is the resurrection - not the crucifixion that establishes faith in forgiveness of sin and everlasting life until the resurrection, the crucifixion was nothing more than another drifter getting the shaft to please the masses that was punishment for a crime he did not commit - not a religious sacrifice - the largess of which was not apparent until the resurrection. It is the resurrection - not the crucifixion that establishes faith in forgiveness of sin and everlasting life until the resurrection, the crucifixion was nothing more than another drifter getting the shaft to please the masses yes true, the crucifixion wasn't a "sacrifice". Jesus came to fulfil the old covenant which required sacrifice for redemption of sins. He fulfilled the prophecies of the old covenant, which fulfilled the old covenant. So now with the old covenant being fulfilled he gave us a new to replace the old cause God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is. we are in agreement I believe - even though I take a more practical view and see it from the POV of Abraham's sacrifice and God teaching the end to sacrifice then. God saw fault in the old long before Jesus was born. Jesus ministered well to that. I prolly tend more than most to view things in an historic context. thank you for the nice comment.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Sun 11/13/11 08:12 PM
"...God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is." this fits not with 'god' as a truth. God would not make covenent that had a 'fault'. Sand within the Gem. Discard it and see the true Wonder of the one called Jesus.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 11/13/11 08:24 PM
Cowboy wrote: Please explain where you said that flies in the face of what I just said. The soldiers example was PURELY an expression of one type of sacrifice. Was just pointing out that "sacrifice" in itself does not have be burnt offers and such. Was explaining how Jesus' sacrificed his entire life. Not particularly just on the cross. Are you blind? Read the words below in underline and bold: Cowboy wrote: Soldiers killed in action are often described as sacrificing their lives for their country. In this sense, one may speak of Jesus sacrificing his life for his passion, namely, for his advocacy of the kingdom of God. In this sense,.... You just said that Jesus was sacrificing his life for mankind in the same sense that a solider sacrifices his life for his country. But a solider basically has no choice (other than to surrender to the enemy and refuse to fight the war all together). Solider have to sacrifice their life because mortal men are powerless to deal with threats in any other away. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. Therein lies the folly of your comparison.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 08:30 PM
"...God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is." this fits not with 'god' as a truth. God would not make covenent that had a 'fault'. Sand within the Gem. Discard it and see the true Wonder of the one called Jesus. Isaiah 59 1Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. ----- Hebrews 8 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 08:36 PM
Cowboy wrote: Please explain where you said that flies in the face of what I just said. The soldiers example was PURELY an expression of one type of sacrifice. Was just pointing out that "sacrifice" in itself does not have be burnt offers and such. Was explaining how Jesus' sacrificed his entire life. Not particularly just on the cross. Are you blind? Read the words below in underline and bold: Cowboy wrote: Soldiers killed in action are often described as sacrificing their lives for their country. In this sense, one may speak of Jesus sacrificing his life for his passion, namely, for his advocacy of the kingdom of God. In this sense,.... You just said that Jesus was sacrificing his life for mankind in the same sense that a solider sacrifices his life for his country. But a solider basically has no choice (other than to surrender to the enemy and refuse to fight the war all together). Solider have to sacrifice their life because mortal men are powerless to deal with threats in any other away. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. Therein lies the folly of your comparison. A soldier does have a choice. That person isn't forced into the military. He isn't forced to go fight for his country. They sacrifice their lives so you can keep yours. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. The sacrifice is not specifically in the crucifixion. It's in the way he lived his life as well. He didn't live for himself, he lived his entire life to give the new covenant and to spread the word of God. The "in this sense" comment, Satan is the "enemy", Jesus gave his life fighting Satan for you. He spent his ever waking hour spreading the gospel and teaching the gospel so you could gain the knowledge needed to achieve eternal life.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 08:37 PM
Cowboy wrote: Please explain where you said that flies in the face of what I just said. The soldiers example was PURELY an expression of one type of sacrifice. Was just pointing out that "sacrifice" in itself does not have be burnt offers and such. Was explaining how Jesus' sacrificed his entire life. Not particularly just on the cross. Are you blind? Read the words below in underline and bold: Cowboy wrote: Soldiers killed in action are often described as sacrificing their lives for their country. In this sense, one may speak of Jesus sacrificing his life for his passion, namely, for his advocacy of the kingdom of God. In this sense,.... You just said that Jesus was sacrificing his life for mankind in the same sense that a solider sacrifices his life for his country. But a solider basically has no choice (other than to surrender to the enemy and refuse to fight the war all together). Solider have to sacrifice their life because mortal men are powerless to deal with threats in any other away. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. Therein lies the folly of your comparison. A soldier does have a choice. That person isn't forced into the military. He isn't forced to go fight for his country. They sacrifice their lives so you can keep yours. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. The sacrifice is not specifically in the crucifixion. It's in the way he lived his life as well. He didn't live for himself, he lived his entire life to give the new covenant and to spread the word of God. The "in this sense" comment, Satan is the "enemy", Jesus gave his life fighting Satan for you. He spent his ever waking hour spreading the gospel and teaching the gospel so you could gain the knowledge needed to achieve eternal life. And again God has no "threat". Satan will be destroyed in the end. All these things must come to pass first.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 11/13/11 08:37 PM
Cowboy wrote: No, just sharing my religious beliefs on such, which is again what this forum is for. If that's true Cowboy then why to you accuse me of "bashing" your religion? It's my belief that the old testament is nothing more than Zeus-like fables. That's my belief and I'm just sharing it. Why do you try to make out like I'm attacking your beliefs just because I hold different beliefs? I believe that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist who actually rejected the immoral teaching of the Torah. Why should it upset you that this is my belief? I believe that the New Testament is nothing more than superstitious rumors that have no merit whatsoever. Again, why should you be upset about that in anyway if you claim that all we are doing is SHARING our beliefs? ~~~~~ I have no problem with sharing beliefs. I accept that you are paranoid that the Hebrew God will hurt you if you fail to confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior of all mankind. And you have a very deep-seated fear that this God will hurt a whole lot of people if you don't convince them to believe like you. So that's what you believe. Fine. ~~~~~ I don't believe that. I don't believe that any God is out to harm me if I fail to buy into a bunch of Hebrew rumors and gossip. I see no good reason to have any fear of that. And I most certainly have to reason to believe in such a dismal tale based on pure faith. So the whole thing seems totally unproductive to me. It's just a fear-based religion that clearly has cause you to have great fear, not only for yourself, but for others as well. Trust me Cowboy, you don't need to have any fear of any God being mean to me for any reason. That very notion right there is totally unwarranted, I can absolutely assure of that with complete confidence. So your extreme fear of God based on these ancient fables is simply unwarranted as far as I can see. Hopefully someday you'll get over that fear. In the meantime, you aren't doing anyone any favors by preaching it as though it's some sort of absolute truth. Like Jeanniebean has been suggesting for over a year now, why don't you just state things as "I believe this" or "I believe that". Why do you keep stating your beliefs as though you are delivering a sermon to a congregation?

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Sun 11/13/11 08:51 PM
"...God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is." this fits not with 'god' as a truth. God would not make covenent that had a 'fault'. Sand within the Gem. Discard it and see the true Wonder of the one called Jesus. Isaiah 59 1Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. ----- Hebrews 8 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. First you give me a sand that sits upon the Gem... When I point this out... You dump more sand. Wipe it away and see the Gem.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 08:53 PM
Cowboy wrote: No, just sharing my religious beliefs on such, which is again what this forum is for. If that's true Cowboy then why to you accuse me of "bashing" your religion? It's my belief that the old testament is nothing more than Zeus-like fables. That's my belief and I'm just sharing it. Why do you try to make out like I'm attacking your beliefs just because I hold different beliefs? I believe that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist who actually rejected the immoral teaching of the Torah. Why should it upset you that this is my belief? I believe that the New Testament is nothing more than superstitious rumors that have no merit whatsoever. Again, why should you be upset about that in anyway if you claim that all we are doing is SHARING our beliefs? ~~~~~ I have no problem with sharing beliefs. I accept that you are paranoid that the Hebrew God will hurt you if you fail to confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior of all mankind. And you have a very deep-seated fear that this God will hurt a whole lot of people if you don't convince them to believe like you. So that's what you believe. Fine. ~~~~~ I don't believe that. I don't believe that any God is out to harm me if I fail to buy into a bunch of Hebrew rumors and gossip. I see no good reason to have any fear of that. And I most certainly have to reason to believe in such a dismal tale based on pure faith. So the whole thing seems totally unproductive to me. It's just a fear-based religion that clearly has cause you to have great fear, not only for yourself, but for others as well. Trust me Cowboy, you don't need to have any fear of any God being mean to me for any reason. That very notion right there is totally unwarranted, I can absolutely assure of that with complete confidence. So your extreme fear of God based on these ancient fables is simply unwarranted as far as I can see. Hopefully someday you'll get over that fear. In the meantime, you aren't doing anyone any favors by preaching it as though it's some sort of absolute truth. Like Jeanniebean has been suggesting for over a year now, why don't you just state things as "I believe this" or "I believe that". Why do you keep stating your beliefs as though you are delivering a sermon to a congregation? It's my belief that the old testament is nothing more than Zeus-like fables. That's my belief and I'm just sharing it. Why do you try to make out like I'm attacking your beliefs just because I hold different beliefs? You do attack the belief at times. Not all the time, but the way you word things are offensive. I accept that you are paranoid that the Hebrew God will hurt you if you fail to confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior of all mankind. And you have a very deep-seated fear that this God will hurt a whole lot of people if you don't convince them to believe like you. So like this post goes along with what I'm saying in the first quote. You're statement of paranoia. I even specifically stated in a previous post I'm not paranoid about anything. And there is no fear, one has to believe first before there could be any form of fear, which again there's not. And God will hurt no one. Death is the end of life unless one wishes to receive the gift of eternal life. No threat, no hurting, just fact being at the end of life comes death. I don't believe that any God is out to harm me if I fail to buy into a bunch of Hebrew rumors and gossip. He's not. He's not out to hurt anyone. He's out to save us. He's out to love us. Trust me Cowboy, you don't need to have any fear of any God being mean to me for any reason. That very notion right there is totally unwarranted, I can absolutely assure of that with complete confidence. I have no fear, no worries, no anything of such. What will be, will be. Don't know where you get off with your presumptions of paranoia, fear, worry, ect. Like Jeanniebean has been suggesting for over a year now, why don't you just state things as "I believe this" or "I believe that". Because this is a religion forum. Everything shared in this forum is an "I believe this" or "I believe" that form of knowledge.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 11/13/11 08:53 PM
Cowboy wrote: A soldier does have a choice. That person isn't forced into the military. He isn't forced to go fight for his country. They sacrifice their lives so you can keep yours. I already acknowledge that. Is said that a soldier could refuse to go to war and allow his enemies to overwhelm him. But that's not much of a "choice". A solider does not have a "choice" if he wants to protect his family from the enemy because there exists an enemy who will indeed harm him if he doesn't go to war. You can't compare that with Jesus unless you give Jesus an enemy that actually POSES a threat to him. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. The sacrifice is not specifically in the crucifixion. It's in the way he lived his life as well. He didn't live for himself, he lived his entire life to give the new covenant and to spread the word of God. The "in this sense" comment, Satan is the "enemy", Jesus gave his life fighting Satan for you. He spent his ever waking hour spreading the gospel and teaching the gospel so you could gain the knowledge needed to achieve eternal life. Well, there you go Cowboy. You've just given Satan the POWER to be a threat to Jesus and God. I've considered that scenario too, and I reject that whole idea for many reasons. Again, you're just over-reacting with extreme FEAR. You have a FEAR that the boogieman is out to get you and that you need a savior to save you from the boogieman. ~~~~~~ That can't work either in this religion. ~~~~~~ Besides have you ever given any serious thought to this? Why should Satan be the automatic DEFAULT? If humans are supposed to have a FREE WILL choice and they must make a choice, then they would need to CHOOSE Satan. The Christian myth is entirely one-sided. It claims that you need to "choose" God and if you fail to choose God then you will automatically be handed over to Satan whether you like it or not. No "choice" required. That's nonsense. In fact, why isn't this religion the entire other way around? Why isn't the default choice God? Why aren't people assumed to have chosen God unless they proclaim to have made a FREE WILL CHOICE to chose this demonic Satan? It's utter nonsense Cowboy. I never chose to serve any demons. That's a LIE. And therefore I would have no FREE WILL CHOICE in the matter if I was handed over to one. If Christians want to preserve the idea of FREE WILL CHOICE then the only people who could be handed over to Satan would need to be those who FREELY CHOSE to worship Satan. I certainly never made any such FREE WILL CHOICE. Therefore this Hebrew religion violates FREE WILL CHOICE. It spits in the face of one of its very own premises. ~~~~~~ So trust my Cowboy, there is nothing to fear. No demonic boogieman is going to come and take you away if you haven't freely chosen to serve him. You don't need a "Savior". Just don't choose to follow any demons and you won't need to worry about them. The only way you would need to be "Saved" is if you had already chosen to serve the boogieman. Then you might need to get out of your predicament. I have never chosen to serve any boogiemen in my entire life. So I have no fear of having to be saved from them. ~~~~ You really need to get past this extreme fear of the boogieman.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 08:54 PM
"...God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is." this fits not with 'god' as a truth. God would not make covenent that had a 'fault'. Sand within the Gem. Discard it and see the true Wonder of the one called Jesus. Isaiah 59 1Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. ----- Hebrews 8 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. First you give me a sand that sits upon the Gem... When I point this out... You dump more sand. Wipe it away and see the Gem. There is no sand on the gem. It is all perfectly clear.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 11/13/11 08:58 PM
Cowboy wrote: I have no fear, no worries, no anything of such. What will be, will be. Don't know where you get off with your presumptions of paranoia, fear, worry, ect. Well you keep talking about people having a need to be 'saved'. If there is nothing to 'fear' then what would anyone need to be 'saved' from. You can't be 'saved' if there is no threat to be 'saved' from. So obviously you must have at least had a fear about something before you felt that you were 'saved' from it. You must also believe that other people have something that they need to 'fear' since you keep talking about a need for them to be 'saved'. If there is nothing to fear, then it's meaningless to speak about a need to be 'saved'.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 08:59 PM
Cowboy wrote: A soldier does have a choice. That person isn't forced into the military. He isn't forced to go fight for his country. They sacrifice their lives so you can keep yours. I already acknowledge that. Is said that a soldier could refuse to go to war and allow his enemies to overwhelm him. But that's not much of a "choice". A solider does not have a "choice" if he wants to protect his family from the enemy because there exists an enemy who will indeed harm him if he doesn't go to war. You can't compare that with Jesus unless you give Jesus an enemy that actually POSES a threat to him. An all powerful God would never need to "sacrifice" his son to anyone unless he was being threatened in a way that required a sacrifice. The sacrifice is not specifically in the crucifixion. It's in the way he lived his life as well. He didn't live for himself, he lived his entire life to give the new covenant and to spread the word of God. The "in this sense" comment, Satan is the "enemy", Jesus gave his life fighting Satan for you. He spent his ever waking hour spreading the gospel and teaching the gospel so you could gain the knowledge needed to achieve eternal life. Well, there you go Cowboy. You've just given Satan the POWER to be a threat to Jesus and God. I've considered that scenario too, and I reject that whole idea for many reasons. Again, you're just over-reacting with extreme FEAR. You have a FEAR that the boogieman is out to get you and that you need a savior to save you from the boogieman. ~~~~~~ That can't work either in this religion. ~~~~~~ Besides have you ever given any serious thought to this? Why should Satan be the automatic DEFAULT? If humans are supposed to have a FREE WILL choice and they must make a choice, then they would need to CHOOSE Satan. The Christian myth is entirely one-sided. It claims that you need to "choose" God and if you fail to choose God then you will automatically be handed over to Satan whether you like it or not. No "choice" required. That's nonsense. In fact, why isn't this religion the entire other way around? Why isn't the default choice God? Why aren't people assumed to have chosen God unless they proclaim to have made a FREE WILL CHOICE to chose this demonic Satan? It's utter nonsense Cowboy. I never chose to serve any demons. That's a LIE. And therefore I would have no FREE WILL CHOICE in the matter if I was handed over to one. If Christians want to preserve the idea of FREE WILL CHOICE then the only people who could be handed over to Satan would need to be those who FREELY CHOSE to worship Satan. I certainly never made any such FREE WILL CHOICE. Therefore this Hebrew religion violates FREE WILL CHOICE. It spits in the face of one of its very own premises. ~~~~~~ So trust my Cowboy, there is nothing to fear. No demonic boogieman is going to come and take you away if you haven't freely chosen to serve him. You don't need a "Savior". Just don't choose to follow any demons and you won't need to worry about them. The only way you would need to be "Saved" is if you had already chosen to serve the boogieman. Then you might need to get out of your predicament. I have never chosen to serve any boogiemen in my entire life. So I have no fear of having to be saved from them. ~~~~ You really need to get past this extreme fear of the boogieman. If humans are supposed to have a FREE WILL choice and they must make a choice, then they would need to CHOOSE Satan They do choose. We choose with our actions. We do God's will, we are being obedient to God, we are worshipping and praising God. If one does the will of Satan, they are being obedient to Satan, they are worshipping Satan. That is where the choice is made. You have a FEAR that the boogieman is out to get you and that you need a savior to save you from the boogieman. No sir. No demonic boogieman is going to come and take you away if you haven't freely chosen to serve him. You don't need a "Savior". Just don't choose to follow any demons and you won't need to worry about them. Just wish to point out what I'm saying with you belittling people's beliefs. The "demonic boogieman" comments.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Sun 11/13/11 09:03 PM
Cowboy wrote: I have no fear, no worries, no anything of such. What will be, will be. Don't know where you get off with your presumptions of paranoia, fear, worry, ect. Well you keep talking about people having a need to be 'saved'. If there is nothing to 'fear' then what would anyone need to be 'saved' from. You can't be 'saved' if there is no threat to be 'saved' from. So obviously you must have at least had a fear about something before you felt that you were 'saved' from it. You must also believe that other people have something that they need to 'fear' since you keep talking about a need for them to be 'saved'. If there is nothing to fear, then it's meaningless to speak about a need to be 'saved'. You have a strange fear fetish? I said I fear nothing, because I have faith in the Lord. I have faith in his everlasting love and forgiveness. Saved from death. And again, I never said I feel other people should be in fear, or anything of such. We're here again just expressing and sharing beliefs. Not preaching. I am here for the community, the conversation, and to gain general knowledge of other people's beliefs. Why you so caught on fear?

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Sun 11/13/11 09:07 PM
"...God saw fault in the old. And in the new covenant no sacrifice(s) are require. Faith in Jesus Christ is." this fits not with 'god' as a truth. God would not make covenent that had a 'fault'. Sand within the Gem. Discard it and see the true Wonder of the one called Jesus. Isaiah 59 1Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. ----- Hebrews 8 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. First you give me a sand that sits upon the Gem... When I point this out... You dump more sand. Wipe it away and see the Gem. There is no sand on the gem. It is all perfectly clear. there was no 'fault' with Gods covenant. (such a concept fits not God)... The 'fault' is then a sand upon that Gem. For a 'fault' to exist it must have been place there by man. Sands upon the Gem. When one follows the sand one misses the footsteps.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 11/13/11 09:10 PM
Cowboy wrote: You do attack the belief at times. Not all the time, but the way you word things are offensive. I won't hesitate in the least to point out TRUTHS about the Hebrew fables, including that it's fear-based. Including the FACT that Jesus is portrayed as being a demigod, conceived by a mortal woman who was impregnated by a God. And so on and so forth. As long as you are going to continually argue with me trying to convince me that the story has merit I'll point out the absurdities that I see in these fables without the slightest hesitation. The more you argue to support the story the more arguments I'll give to reveal why it's totally without any merit at all. That harder you PUSH, the harder I'll PUSH BACK. I'm not about to cave into your religious proselytizing. You keep refusing to confess that the Christian religion is fear based, yet you truly have no choice in that at all. It's totally meaningless to speak about being 'saved' from something that doesn't pose a threat that needs to be 'feared'. So Christianity is absolutely a fear-based religion. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, it won't do you any good. There would be no need for a "savior" in a religion where no threat was being posed. Christianity is necessarily a fear-based religion. There's just no getting around that one.