Two major points:
First - God is not ALL loving....God HATES some men.
Second - His love and hatred have NOTHING to do with what we do.


ROMANS
9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done ANY good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;
9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

MALACHI
1:2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.



Clearly in Romans 9:11 God is saying...before they were born...before they had the chance to do any good or evil...I loved Jacob and hated Esau.

WOW. To believe God created both Jacob and Esau, and hated one and loved the other BEFORE they were born...suggests God's SOLE PURPOSE for creating Esau was to hate, torture, kill, and damn the man's spirit for all eternity.

What a dick of ungodly proportions. Can anyone find fault in this? Also, can anyone present me with a better example of assholery on God's part?

Greater Assholery = Thinking he exsists

Greater Assholery = Thinking he exsists, and forcing others to follow your pure imagination by affecting legislation in a secular society.

fixed.

Yet another argument against the religion you once practiced?

Yet another argument against the religion you once practiced?

Attack the argument and not the person who presents it please.

Attack the argument and not the person who presents it please.

That is not an argument against God, it is an argument against the Christian conception of God.

That is not an argument against God, it is an argument against the Christian conception of God.

LOL.

Then attack the argument against the Christian conception of God BASED on the PRINCIPLE book of the religion itself, and (if you believe) God's OWN words, and not the person presenting the argument, please.

Then attack the argument against the Christian conception of God BASED on the PRINCIPLE book of the religion itself, and (if you believe) God's OWN words ...

Why? I agree with you. The Christian conception of God is wrong. The Christian religion itself is clearly based much more on fear then on love.

... and not the person presenting the argument, please.

But making you mad is so fun.

I agree with you.

Awesome :)

However, I disagree with your belief that the Christian God is all that God can be.

So you don't dig the xian God. We get it.

That is not an argument against God, it is an argument against the Christian conception of God.

To put it simply: when it comes to theology, define things, not words. Now it is clear to anyone with a brain that BrokeProphet is speaking of a specific concept, that is, the Christian deity. There was no need, then, for you to point that out; unless, of course, you are up to your old tricks again, and are trying to move the conversation over to your "god".

I believe God to be the oneness of all.

I believe God to be the oneness of all.

Yes, we know, dear, and no one cares.

Now it is clear to anyone with a brain that BrokeProphet is speaking of a specific concept, that is, the Christian deity.

It should be equally obvious that this 'proof' that a Christian conception of God would not love everyone, is in no way proof of anything about God. Unless the person believes the Christian conception to be the absolute definition of what God could be. Apparently BP believes that, as he always uses these arguments against Christianity as arguments against God.

There was no need, then, for you to point that out

The reasons are clear. I believe that the Christian conception is clearly wrong and does not represent what I believe God is. I wanted to let this be known. And its fun to fuck with him.

unless, of course, you are up to your old tricks again, and are trying to move the conversation over to your "god".

No, why try to teach someone who doesn't want to learn? And I certainly don't want to converse my concept with you ... you refuse to write an argument which I can understand.

Obbe :)

Your concept of God isn't threatening or vengeful. It doesn't isolate certain groups of people. It hasn't affected public policy, and it hasn't raised billions of dollars to see to it that it's message gets across to every human being on this planet.

It's still unnecessary to cling to, too obscure to mean anything, and has certain qualities that might require one to take a small vacation from their senses in order to be able to hang with it...

But all in all, it's pretty safe to assume that when people are disagreeing with the concept of God, it's probably not your version that they're speaking out against, unless they're responding directly to something you wrote.

It should be equally obvious that this 'proof' that a Christian conception of God would not love everyone, is in no way proof of anything about God. Unless the person believes the Christian conception to be the absolute definition of what God could be. Apparently BP believes that, as he always uses these arguments against Christianity as arguments against God.

Obviously it doesn’t prove anything about any religious concept but the Christian deity. I have seen no evidence to indicate BrokeProphet believes otherwise, either, and it is entirely possible that he is just using “God” as a shorthand for “Christian deity”. Therefore your accusations are moot.

I believe that the Christian conception is clearly wrong and does not represent what I believe God is.

Yes, we all know that you do not believe in the Christian deity. And we all know that you use the same signifier ("God"), but link it to a different signified. But there was no need for you to indicate such trivia, when it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that BP was talking about the Christian deity, not your notion of unity and Being.

I wanted to let this be known.

Maybe you should make your own thread about why you do not believe in the Christian deity, then, instead of taking other people’s threads off topic (as you have a habit of doing). Come to think of it, I believe that you did, and that you got your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

And its fun to fuck with him.

I am glad to see you admit when you are trolling for once.

you refuse to write an argument which I can understand.

It is not my fault that you are retarded.

I am glad to see you admit when you are trolling for once.

This.

Obbe if you want to argue your theories again might I suggest starting a thread on it. Perhaps one where you and Hare or whomever can debate.....shit, that was already tried wasn't it?

Start a thread and get your bullshitter ready, I started this thread for a different sort of discussion. Your beliefs YET AGAIN hold no sway over the arguments or points I have presented here, and if you like I will argue IN A DIFFERENT thread how they hold sway over nothing at all.

I have seen no evidence to indicate BrokeProphet believes otherwise, either, and it is entirely possible that he is just using “God” as a shorthand for “Christian deity”.

My point being that the Christian conception of God is not the only concept, and should for no reason be used as the absolute definition of God, especially by someone who lacks any belief what-so-ever in that particular concept. Perhaps he is just using 'God' as shorthand for the Christian conception, but he states this no where, so it is justifiable to point out that 'God' can represent much more then the limits of the Christian conception.

Hell, if it were not for his obvious disbelief in the existence of God, I would think he were a Christian. Thats the only God he constantly refers to.

But there was no need for you to indicate such trivia, when it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that BP was talking about the Christian deity, not your notion of unity and Being.

Sure there is. Because no where does BP say that the Christian deity is not the absolute definition of God. And there are plenty of other possible conceptions beyond my own which could come into question. Don't imply that I was implying anything about my own concept while conversing with BP, I did not mention it until you quoted me and said things should be defined, before editing the post further.

Maybe you should make your own thread about why you do not believe in the Christian deity, then, instead of taking other people’s threads off topic (as you have a habit of doing). Come to think of it, I believe that you did, and that you got your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

Why? I don't feel the same need to beat the dead horse that is the Christian conception of God that BP does. And again, don't imply I was directing the thread towards my concept; it did not come up until you quoted me, and the current discussion including my concept is not about its plausibility.

It is not my thought that you are retarded.

That sentence is retarded.

... all in all, it's pretty safe to assume that when people are disagreeing with the concept of God, it's probably not your version that they're speaking out against, unless they're responding directly to something you wrote.

AngryFemme :)

Please copy the text I posted which led you to believe I was under the impression that BP was disagreeing with my concept in particular.

The way I see it, one unspoken premise in your argument is that hate is mutually exclusive with being all loving.

'Hate' and 'Love' are emotions, and what grounds are there to say how emotions would work with the Christian god? We may notice that humans are incapable of loving and hating at the same time (this notion is easily shown to be false, but let's momentarily assume it is true), but God is not a human.

In fact, the record of the Christian God (the bible), provides the only data points we have that allow us to try to understand how emotions would work with said God. Furthermore, according to you, this record clearly states that God is capable of being totally loving and yet hating some people. So in fact, for the God of the bible, hatred and total love are not mutually exclusive. So, your proof fails.

This.

Obbe if you want to argue your theories again might I suggest starting a thread on it. Perhaps one where you and Hare or whomever can debate.....shit, that was already tried wasn't it?

Start a thread and get your bullshitter ready, I started this thread for a different sort of discussion. Your beliefs YET AGAIN hold no sway over the arguments or points I have presented here, and if you like I will argue IN A DIFFERENT thread how they hold sway over nothing at all.

I never posted to argue my concept. Just to point out, that this in no way proves anything about God. The Christian conception is false ... most people on &totse agree with that. Yet you cling to it as if it is the absolute definition.

AngryFemme :)

Please copy the text I posted which led you to believe I was under the impression that BP was disagreeing with my concept in particular.

Well, I was mid-post and got interrupted by a phone call and then two hungry cats, but I was responding to this:

The reasons are clear. I believe that the Christian conception is clearly wrong and does not represent what I believe God is. I wanted to let this be known. And its fun to fuck with him

And I didn't mean that BP was disagreeing with your concepts in this thread, or that you were under that impression - just that you were bringing your own God into his thread about the Christian God, and goading him to refute it. I guess my point was: If he isn't arguing about your God, why rope him into it?

All in good fun, I suppose! But like you said: Why teach someone something that they don't want to learn?

Hell, if it were not for his obvious disbelief in the existence of God, I would think he were a Christian. Thats the only God he constantly refers to.

Perhaps that is because it is the predominant "god" in the west and the one most commonly discussed in TOTSE. How many threads do you see about eastern gods? I only see one on the front page.

Sure there is. Because no where does BP say that the Christian deity is not the absolute definition of God.

Again, he did not have to, because anyone with a brain will know that BrokeProphet's arguments apply to no concept but the Christian deity.

That sentence is retarded.

Which is why I corrected it. I can admit when I make mistakes. :)

When we strip away the religious and denominational distinctions of various belief systems on the planet and try to weave a single thread through their teachings, we are left with the simple fact that the fundamental nature of God’s Energy is Love and Light.

Since its nature is loving, we are told that it seeks to have everyone else feel the same way; it is continually striving to have each conscious life form in the Universe reunite with that Love and Light as much as possible. Hence, Jesus taught us to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” We are told that God is evolving, through the free-will decisions of its apparently separate participants. The whole universe changes as we choose to reunite in Oneness.

You can read more about this at DivineCosmos. (http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=36)

... I didn't mean that BP was disagreeing with your concepts in this thread, or that you were under that impression - just that you were bringing your own God into his thread about the Christian God, and goading him to refute it. I guess my point was: If he isn't arguing about your God, why rope him into it?

Why teach someone something that they don't want to learn?

I see. There I was using my concept as an example of another concept of God. If a Muslim was pointing out that any sort of 'proof' against the Christian God does not prove anything about God because there is no reason that concept is absolute, perhaps he would have used Allah as an example of another possible concept. That is all I was doing there.

Perhaps that is because it is the predominant "god" in the west and the one most commonly discussed in TOTSE. How many threads do you see about eastern gods? I only see one on the front page.

Why do you imply God must be confined to the definitions of organized religions?

Why was it so horrible of me to attempt introduce the possibility of other concepts in a thread authoritatively titled "Proof God does not love everyone", and which only addresses a single concept?

Again, he did not have to, because anyone with a brain will know that BrokeProphet's arguments apply to no concept but the Christian deity.

Yes, it is obvious what with the references and all. So why do you think it was so wrong of me to attempt to bring to BP's attention that God does not have to begin and end with Christianity?

Yes, it is obvious what with the references and all. So why do you think it was so wrong of me to attempt to bring to BP's attention that God does not have to begin and end with Christianity?

That is not the intention of this thread......whether or not you THOUGHT it was is irrelavent. You know now.

If you wish for me to indulge your concepts of God...yet again...I would be more than happy to do so...start a THREAD about it and I will discuss it with you.

That is not the intention of this thread......whether or not you THOUGHT it was is irrelavent. You know now.

Devils advocate, eh? Guess thats actually pretty literal when doing so to denounce Christianity. A hardcore Christian might just think you've been led down the wrong path.

If you wish for me to indulge your concepts of God...yet again...I would be more than happy to do so...start a THREAD about it and I will discuss it with you.

I never implied that I did. And you didn't include yourself in the last thread I made ...

I never implied that I did. And you didn't include yourself in the last thread I made ...

Well I will this one......only if you stop emptying your diaper on my thread :)

[...]

If god is nothing but a sound-pattern that can be applied to numerous concepts, which I think is a very distinct possibility (see here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2092333) for why), then what you are doing is effectively like saying fluffy animals may not exist, but they are not the only thing the sound-pattern sheep can indicate. Indeed, the sound-pattern can also conventionally refer to a submissive person. But for the sake of argument, that concept is entirely unrelated to the former. So when it is quite clear which the discussion is about, to mention the other is pointless, just as it is absurd to change the question from whether fluffy animals can love to whether submissive people can love, simply because they share the same signifier.

I will no longer respond to any of your replies within this thread: we have taken it off topic for long enough.

Well I will this one......only if you stop emptying your diaper on my thread :)

Hahaha, but I'm afraid that the only responses I would get from you would be the usual child-related insults having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Damn that razor sharp wit of yours, damn!

Edit - Oh, and if the point of your thread was that the Christian deity is not the absolute definition of God, then why did you continue to argue with me after this (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9487358&postcount=6) post?

So when it is quite clear which the discussion is about, to mention the other is pointless, just as it is absurd to change the question from whether fluffy animals can love to whether submissive people can love, simply because they share the same signifier.

Pointless? But apparently, that was the entire point of this thread!!!

Further proof: feral children.

Further proof: feral children.

How do you mean?

Esau was probably a cool dude, but since god isn't cool, he got jealous, so he condemned Esau to a bunch of bullshit because of his own insecurities.

Oh come on, that was just God being angsty before he got laid.

Note how after he got laid and Jesus was born he began to say how he loves everyone and everything.

Christianity does make sense, if you think about it.

not sure if anyone has said this before (didnt read replies)

but if you believe God exists, then it is easy why he hated Esau.

God is all knowing.
If God is all knowing, then everything is already on a set path, or God already knows what will happen to all of us.

God knows that Esau will do something worthy of hate.


That is if you believe in God.

not sure if anyone has said this before (didnt read replies)

but if you believe God exists, then it is easy why he hated Esau.

God is all knowing.
If God is all knowing, then everything is already on a set path, or God already knows what will happen to all of us.

God knows that Esau will do something worthy of hate.


That is if you believe in God.

Actually, that is a good point.

Technically, omniscience should allow one the ability to predict the future, otherwise it wouldn't be all knowing. I mean, if you plotted every known fact about the universe into a computer with infinite computing capacity, it could predict the future.

That's a lot of fucking shit to know, though. Damn. I wonder if 'god' ever gets headaches... :p

Technically, omniscience should allow one the ability to predict the future, otherwise it wouldn't be all knowing. I mean, if you plotted every known fact about the universe into a computer with infinite computing capacity, it could predict the future.

Do you think so?

What about the sporadic movements of particles? Do you believe they are deterministic? Do you think humans are deterministic?

E.g. imagine if 2 identical human brains were fed 2 identical pieces of information.. Will the output be identical?
If we are in fact deterministic, then what's the use of our "consciousness"?

Do you think so?

What about the sporadic movements of particles? Do you believe they are deterministic? Do you think humans are deterministic?

E.g. imagine if 2 identical human brains were fed 2 identical pieces of information.. Will the output be identical?
If we are in fact deterministic, then what's the use of our "consciousness"?

I have no idea what the Christian view is on determinism.

Personally, I have no idea if we have free will. I don't have an opinion on it as it's really way too complicated to even consider, in my opinion. Plus, everything on the matter is just conjecture anyway. The way I see it, there are more important things to dwell on. At least to be practical. Not that I see philosophical debate as pointless.

I'd just rather not get into the whole free will debate.

not sure if anyone has said this before (didnt read replies)

but if you believe God exists, then it is easy why he hated Esau.

God is all knowing.
If God is all knowing, then everything is already on a set path, or God already knows what will happen to all of us.

God knows that Esau will do something worthy of hate.

That is if you believe in God.

I don't believe in God. Any God.

It still shows that God is not an all loving God. It is still proof that God does not love everyone. What would one say of a father who hates his son? Who neglects and ignores his children? Whose deaf ears pleas fall upon? Why should God (if he exists) be exempt from our dissapointment, our anger, our own hatred? If he is fallible enough to fill his heart with hate, then he is not worth the praise we lavish upon him.

I digress.

What does it say of free will? If God knows everyone, present and future until the end of the human drama, who will go to heaven and hell, then what is the point of the drama? If one is predestined to go to hell, it will NOT matter how pious they become, there fate is already decided.

Why waste my time and his, with this charade? Why not put all past, present, and future sinners in hell and the righteous in heaven and be done with it? I know why. B/C it is poorly written fiction used for social control. A cult too big for it's own good. Plain and simple.

it is poorly written fiction used for social control. A cult too big for it's own good. Plain and simple.

QFT..

I don't believe in God. Any God.

It still shows that God is not an all loving God. It is still proof that God does not love everyone. What would one say of a father who hates his son? Who neglects and ignores his children? Whose deaf ears pleas fall upon? Why should God (if he exists) be exempt from our dissapointment, our anger, our own hatred? If he is fallible enough to fill his heart with hate, then he is not worth the praise we lavish upon him.

I digress.

What does it say of free will? If God knows everyone, present and future until the end of the human drama, who will go to heaven and hell, then what is the point of the drama? If one is predestined to go to hell, it will NOT matter how pious they become, there fate is already decided.

Why waste my time and his, with this charade? Why not put all past, present, and future sinners in hell and the righteous in heaven and be done with it? I know why. B/C it is poorly written fiction used for social control. A cult too big for it's own good. Plain and simple.

I agree with you
it is just plain foolish to believe that God is "all loving", that God is there for our benefit.

We really didn't have to go through any of this you know...
The guy sends about 60 million people to hell every year
how "all loving" can he be?

of course thats coming from an raging atheist soooo...
bite me

The Bible is not an authoritative source for information about God.

The paranoid and petty deity portrayed therein is nothing like the infinite and loving consciousness which is the God I know.

God loves and creates, and neither judges nor punishes.

It seems to be that we associate the Christian God as God... The Jewish God that everyone seems to pick on... always referring to the Old Testament... Here is a link that some wrote up describing the Contrast between the OT God and NT God. They say Maricon's Gnostic but thats up for debate in the Gnostic Community.

Here is the link:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm

It seems to be that we associate the Christian God as God... The Jewish God that everyone seems to pick on... always referring to the Old Testament... Here is a link that some wrote up describing the Contrast between the OT God and NT God. They say Maricon's Gnostic but thats up for debate in the Gnostic Community.

Here is the link:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm

The contrast between the OT God and the NT God can be explained that shortly before the NT God got laid. And got a son.

If you think about it, it all makes sense.

The Bible is not an authoritative source for information about God.

It seems to be that we associate the Christian God as God...

How come a gang of atheists haven't dog piled on these comments, but jumped all over me when I said the same?

How come a gang of atheists haven't dog piled on these comments, but jumped all over me when I said the same?

Trying to entice a dispute, Obbe? I understand... misery loves company :)

Trying to entice a dispute, Obbe? I understand... misery loves company :)

No, just pointing out that people will judge you according to what they believe about you and believe you will say, not the actual words coming out of your mouth.

Kinda like you just did.

No, just pointing out that people will judge you according to what they believe about you and believe you will say, not the actual words coming out of your mouth.

Kinda like you just did.

You are a known troll. You shit on every thread you can. Your pantload consists of a "philosophy" that can be dreamed up by any 10 year old. It is simple. It is useless. And so are you.

That is why.

You offer nothing to this forum, or any thread you post in. Stick your head underwater until the bubbles stop coming up.

You are a known troll. You shit on every thread you can.

How much of 'my shit' is in any of threads in My God which I have recently participated in? How much shit would be in this thread, had you not jumped on my comment in the manner you did and assumed so much about what it meant, simply because of the name attached to it?

Attack the argument and not the person who presents it please. ;)

How much of 'my shit' is in any of threads in My God which I have recently participated in? How much shit would be in this thread, had you not jumped on my comment in the manner you did and assumed so much about what it meant, simply because of the name attached to it?

Attack the argument and not the person who presents it please. ;)

Go back and re-read your fucking posts. You admit your intentions of aggravating me with your posts. You were told time and time again that you were off-topic and just kept-a-trollin.

This is what my commentary was directed at....
How come a gang of atheists haven't dog piled on these comments, but jumped all over me when I said the same?

What argument are you referring to that I should be attacking rather than the presenter?

I can appreciate you TRYING to act like a big boy and say something clever like the above, but don't cry when the adults place you back in your sandbox.

Go back and re-read your fucking posts. You admit your intentions of aggravating me with your posts. You were told time and time again that you were off-topic and just kept-a-trollin.

Yeah, pissing you off by pointing out that God is not limited to the Christian conception. Not by bringing up my concept of God.

What argument are you referring to that I should be attacking rather than the presenter?

God is not limited to the Christian conception.

I understand you do not wish to discuss that in this thread so leave it as this if that what you wish. But simply telling me that would have been much nicer then the onslaught of atheists accusing me hijacking a thread.

And really, why all the ad hominem?

No, just pointing out that people will judge you according to what they believe about you and believe you will say, not the actual words coming out of your mouth.

Kinda like you just did.

Actually, Obbe-

In this case, I was judging the actual text that came forth from your fingers. I was judging your comment: "why aren't the atheists dog-piling the OP" - and it was clear that you felt it was unusual that a huge, heated debate wasn't started - such as the ones you've participated in. Did you think it was unfair that people weren't ripping on the OP?

I don't actually believe that YOU think the OP would appreciate something like that, but that you would like to see someone else get "dogpiled" for asserting something you might have said before - thus, my misery loves company remark.

Get it now?

Actually, Obbe-

In this case, I was judging the actual text that came forth from your fingers. I was judging your comment: "why aren't the atheists dog-piling the OP"

I think you need your vision checked.

Go back and re-read it before you start fucking accusing me again.

and it was clear that you felt it was unusual that a huge, heated debate wasn't started - such as the ones you've participated in. Did you think it was unfair that people weren't ripping on the OP?

Actually, if can go back and re-read that dog-piling comment, its referring to two other posters who brought up the same point that I did, but who did not get the same onslaught of atheists accusing them of hijacking the thread and being too stupid to realize that the thread was aimed specifically at the Christian conception. I said nothing about the OP.

I don't give a fuck if people rip on Broke or not, I never said anything to imply that I did either. My only fucking intention in this thread was to bring up the same point that the two posters which I quoted in that "dogpile" comment also brought up.

I don't actually believe that YOU think the OP would appreciate something like that, but that you would like to see someone else get "dogpiled" for asserting something you might have said before - thus, my misery loves company remark.

Get it now?

No, I don't get what you are talking about, because I don't know where you're pulling this shit about how "atheists should be attacking the OP" from - your ass? I think you're the one who mixed up here. I never said I wanted to see anyone get dogpiled.

Nobody appreciates being 'dogpiled', especially when its simply because of the name connected to the comment. If one of the two posters who I quoted above had come to this thread before me, and made the same point, I doubt they would have had to deal with the same onslaught that I did.

It wasn't my comment that derailed this thread. It was because I was the one who said it.

Go back and re-read it before you start fucking accusing me again.

It wasn't an accusation, it was merely an observation, from my point of view.

Touchy?

Actually, if can go back and re-read that dog-piling comment, its referring to two other posters who brought up the same point that I did....

I said nothing about the OP.

You're right, my bad. It wasn't the OP. It was the two other posters. Here, I'll amend my comment right before your very eyes. You'll notice that the point still stands:


In this case, I was judging the actual text that came forth from your fingers. I was judging your comment: "why aren't the atheists dog-piling the two other posters" - and it was clear that you felt it was unusual that a huge, heated debate wasn't started - such as the ones you've participated in. Did you think it was unfair that people weren't ripping on the two other posters?

I don't actually believe that YOU think the two other posters would appreciate something like that, but that you would like to see someone else get "dogpiled" for asserting something you might have said before - thus, my misery loves company remark.

See? The point still stands.

My only fucking intention in this thread was to bring up the same point that the two posters which I quoted in that "dogpile" comment also brought up.

And my only fucking intention with my comment was to point out how you got your feelings hurt that people were dogpiling YOU, and not those who made comments that were similar to yours. And let's not forget, that wasn't your only intention in this thread. Don't you just like to piss BrokeProphet off?

But making you mad is so fun.

Clearly there were mixed intentions from the get-go.

I don't know where you're pulling this shit about how "atheists should be attacking the OP" from - your ass? I think you're the one who mixed up here.

Not my ass, my tired mind. I made the mistake of thinking that (at least one) of the two posters was the OP. I thread-hop. There's lots to read. I'm human. It happens.

I mistakenly typed "OP" instead of the two posters ... the two posters you felt didn't get accused of derailing, although YOU did, and it's not surprising that they chose you over the two other posters, because they don't have quite the track record that you do of arguing a point into the ground until people either tire of debating with your vacuous arguments or the thread dies, because the topic has been ruined by four or five pages of shit that is far, far removed from the original point of the thread.

I never said I wanted to see anyone get dogpiled.

Yet you wondered Why, Oh Why do they always pick on me ... what about them???

Nobody appreciates being 'dogpiled', especially when its simply because of the name connected to the comment. If one of the two posters who I quoted above had come to this thread before me, and made the same point, I doubt they would have had to deal with the same onslaught that I did.

It wasn't my comment that derailed this thread. It was because I was the one who said it.

The moral of this story: Your reputation often precedes you.

Unfortunately, there was a time in here when just about every thread in here, regardless of topic, received an "onslaught" from Obbe, where your concepts were inserted - and inserted, and inserted, and inserted ... until people began to realize that you did a pretty good job of getting them wound up, just because you enjoyed circular arguments, and especially enjoyed getting under BrokeProphet's nails.

Yet you wondered Why, Oh Why do they always pick on me ... what about them???

Yes, because they implied the same thing as me, proving my point; it wouldn't have mattered if someone else said the exact same thing as me, everyone got their panties in a knot over Obbe, not the comment.

That doesn't mean that I would like to see the same thing happen to them. It means, "Your thread went to shit because of your reaction to the person who made the comment, BP, not the comment itself.".

The moral of this story: Your reputation often precedes you.

Unfortunately, there was a time in here when just about every thread in here, regardless of topic, received an "onslaught" from Obbe, where your concepts were inserted - and inserted, and inserted, and inserted ... until people began to realize that you did a pretty good job of getting them wound up, just because you enjoyed circular arguments, and especially enjoyed getting under BrokeProphet's nails.

And I still enjoy pissing him off; he's such an angry person.

Things change.

I could pinpoint exactly where this thread went to shit, but there's no sense kicking a dead horse, is there?

I could pinpoint exactly where this thread went to shit.

Where Hare joined by asking for definitions, and then editing his post further prompting me to reply twice? When you joined the brigade, and began talking about my concept, under the impression that I was pushing the topic that way?

That was when I began to feel like shit, anyways.

... but there's no sense kicking a dead horse, is there?

Apparently there is ... was that not the initial intention of this thread?

I think Christianity is a pretty dead horse as far as the majority of totse members are concerned.

Where Hare joined by asking for definitions, and then editing his post further prompting me to reply twice?

I promised myself that I would not post in My God, but this is too much. Either you cannot read properly, or you are misconstruing what I said, because nowhere did I ask for definitions.

Hare.

When you had originally responded to my comment : "That is not an argument against God, it is an argument against the Christian conception of God."

with : "define things, not words"

I wasn't exactly sure WTF you meant by that. So I typed a definition for my concept of God.

Where Hare joined by asking for definitions, and then editing his post further prompting me to reply twice? When you joined the brigade, and began talking about my concept, under the impression that I was pushing the topic that way?

That was when I began to feel like shit, anyways.

The "brigade". :D You slay me, Obbe.

I hate it that an internet thread made you feel like shit. Y'oughta find that warm fuzzy spot outside of this illusion and contemplate the alternative realities you have at your fingertips in an effort to make yourself feel better than shit.

was that not the initial intention of this thread?

You'll have to ask BrokeProphet, since he made the thread. But I'm guessing his answer will be: No

I think Christianity is a pretty dead horse as far as the majority of totse members are concerned.

But since it's a pretty live horse outside the confines of this forum, discussing it here (even more than a few times) is the same as discussing any current, observable event. And like any thread, in any forum, in ALL of totse ... participation is not mandatory. If anyone feels the topic is a tired one, they can always opt to just pass it over.

I hate it that an internet thread made you feel like shit. Y'oughta find that warm fuzzy spot outside of this illusion and contemplate the alternative realities you have at your fingertips in an effort to make yourself feel better than shit.

It did make me feel better. :)

Something about The Letters of Paul Romans onward until Revelations. They have been rephrased and revamped many times, in the beginning during the canonization process Paul was written by many men.

The Valentinians a bunch of Gnostics loved Paul however, they would not agree with some of the things supposedly written by Paul in today and probably even the king james bible either. They make Paul sound different than what The valentinians say he was.

Something about The Letters of Paul Romans onward until Revelations. They have been rephrased and revamped many times, in the beginning during the canonization process Paul was written by many men.

The Valentinians a bunch of Gnostics loved Paul however, they would not agree with some of the things supposedly written by Paul in today and probably even the king james bible either. They make Paul sound different than what The valentinians say he was.

What exactly are you suggesting?
That God does love everyone and Paul just made up that he hated Esau?

This answer is a double edged sword to a theist. If it is not the infallible work of God and divinly inspired....then it is useless as a moral guidebook to heaven.

Example: Perhaps during the revamping process the vampers decided Jesus should come back after three days of death (like the sun on the 25th of December). Perhaps it was in 324 A.D. at the behest of the Roman Constantine to pool pagans, sunworshiper's and christians together.

What exactly are you suggesting?
That God does love everyone and Paul just made up that he hated Esau?

This answer is a double edged sword to a theist. If it is not the infallible work of God and divinly inspired....then it is useless as a moral guidebook to heaven.

Example: Perhaps during the revamping process the vampers decided Jesus should come back after three days of death (like the sun on the 25th of December). Perhaps it was in 324 A.D. at the behest of the Roman Constantine to pool pagans, sunworshiper's and christians together.

I hope everyone here would agree that you don't need some book to tell you what to do. You either know right from wrong, or you don't. It has nothing to do with what happens after death, and whether God exists or not.

In fact, if you think about it, most "religious" people only come to God when things start to go wrong. Or when they want to find an excuse for doing something wrong.

In fact, if you think about it, most "religious" people only come to God when things start to go wrong. Or when they want to find an excuse for doing something wrong.

I agree.

I hope everyone here would agree that you don't need some book to tell you what to do. You either know right from wrong, or you don't. It has nothing to do with what happens after death, and whether God exists or not.

In fact, if you think about it, most "religious" people only come to God when things start to go wrong. Or when they want to find an excuse for doing something wrong.

Thank you, for the help. Let break this down to further my reply to what you replied to.

> Your right the books arent living you are. "During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive." - Excerpt from the 11th Saying of The Gospel of Thomas.

It means we consume things that are inanimate and have no value until we give it value. I don't value the book the book values me, I give it a purpose I don't need it to tell me what to do I can get advice from it but it doesn't tell me what to do.

> Just another thing to mention: "His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"

Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed."" - Gospel of Thomas 6th Saying

This answers the morality questions pretty good. The Disciples are asking about moralities, doctrines, dogmas, procedures. Jesus says Be true to yourself, don't do things your going to regret. Because, everything will become known in heaven. Heaven to the Gnostic meant the highest aspect of the mind in the Psychological interpretation. So basically you already know the things your going to regret and how many times you been dishonest with yourself.


> Sadly this is a fact that most people only turn to God when bad things happen. However, even Jesus said you must be an active practitioner of his teachings so you will understand the reason why bad things happen to you and what you can learn from it.

I remember that song Kanye West made "Jesus Walk" at the time I think he was going through hard times but than when his hard times are over he is back to sing about the usual shit that he sings about sex, lies and all that stuff THE WORLD values Not JESUS. Most people are fakes some even in the areas where we turn to for help and truth. A great example are those Evangelist who Preach a message and yet own a Mega church and are making Mega-$$$. These people are SICKENING HYPOCRITES!


That God does love everyone and Paul just made up that he hated Esau?

No the whole Pure Christian Message of Christ has been corrupted since day one of its Institutionalizations. And I am suggesting God loves everyone... I don't agree the OT God is the NT God. There separate in my books!

Perhaps during the revamping process the revamper's decided Jesus should come back after three days of death (like the sun on the 25th of December). Perhaps it was in 324 A.D. at the behest of the Roman Constantine to pool pagans, sun worshiper's and Christians together.

The Resurrection is a theme from Mithraism. The Christian message all and all has become diluted from many other schools of thought before it. Christianity has become compromised since Day One of Institutionalizing it. Before it however, the Christians were killed for there message, they were dangerous to Rome so Rome adopts and alters Christianity and if no one agreed with the instituted version they were heretics, who were going to suffer in a Pit of Fire for Eternity. If your an atheist, gnostic, freethinker, pagan you are a heretic because you think differently from the established rule of law AKA The Status Quo AKA The Orthodoxy.

So thank you... Thank you for proving my point that some atheist have not rejected God but the way God has been presented to them.

Most people are fakes some even in the areas where we turn to for help and truth. A great example are those Evangelist who Preach a message and yet own a Mega church and are making Mega-$$$. These people are SICKENING HYPOCRITES!

Are they sickening hypocrites because they've acquired wealth capitalizing on the popular demand for a Mega Church, or are they sickening hypocrites because they are imperfect Christians, leading other imperfect Christians?

Are they sickening hypocrites because they've acquired wealth capitalizing on the popular demand for a Mega Church, or are they sickening hypocrites because they are imperfect Christians, leading other imperfect Christians?

Let reply to both those statements:

Wealth and Mega church > America is a largely capitalist society to capitalize on anything is just the American way of life. But when you begin to capitalize on a religious message that talks about giving, sharing and living a humble lifestyle and than make a profit that starts to get on the lines of an extravagant lifestyle. Yeah, it becomes hypocritical and to me a bit sickening.

Imperfect Christian Leading Others > In the Gospel of Thomas there is a saying "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Basically, that is what these mega church and televangelist characters have become. They preach and preach, they don't follow the message but expect you to and than to top it off they think God wants them to live that way. They have become so ignorant that their message being preached is quite essentially a message of ignorance and they preach it in one very large area the size of I believe the biggest mega church is the size of a football stadium.

Religion today has become something you do for an hour before you get back to your big Flat Screen TV and BMW. either way most people will not get much out of it. They run to God only in bad times and when everything is all good again they say "God who needs God... Look what I got now!" Yet despite all of this hypocrisy and contradiction God still loves them, even when I and others don't understand why.

Let reply to both those statements:

Wealth and Mega church > America is a largely capitalist society to capitalize on anything is just the American way of life. But when you begin to capitalize on a religious message that talks about giving, sharing and living a humble lifestyle and than make a profit that starts to get on the lines of an extravagant lifestyle. Yeah, it becomes hypocritical and to me a bit sickening.

It's not that they are making profit, it's God's way of rewarding them for what they do.

Or I bet so they would say.

LOL.

Then attack the argument against the Christian conception of God BASED on the PRINCIPLE book of the religion itself, and (if you believe) God's OWN words, and not the person presenting the argument, please.

John 1:5 (New King James Version)
"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

1 Timothy 4: 1-3(NKJV)
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Taken as metaphor or analogy, the first quote indicates that those who do not understand the message of the Gospel can not change it because they do not comprehend it! The second quote says that there will be those who will attempt to use the gospel for their own warped agendas and we see that the 'principle religion' thru the ages did ban marriage by forbidding it's clergy to marry and commanded abstinence from certain foods at certain times.

Further delving into the history of that religion, and its cults, reveals a nasty littany of lies, deception and all kinds of unsavoury activities including some very dodgy interpretations of the "PRINCIPLE book of the religion". One can be a 'christian' without believing in the commonly held concepts preached by religions calling themselves 'christian', and without believing their version of the bible!

Matt. 7:7 "Seek and you will find" "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-33

Cheers:)

It's not that they are making profit, it's God's way of rewarding them for what they do.

Or I bet so they would say.

God does not reward you with material satisfaction. God rewards you with some spiritual gift. Sadly, Christianity follows the society model of religious worship which basically says that god is lord and as lord rewards and punishes. To me its not God rewarding them but there rewarding themselves by paying lip service to Christianity -- Nothing more, Nothing Less. Hypocrites thats what they are...

God does not reward you with material satisfaction. God rewards you with some spiritual gift. Sadly, Christianity follows the society model of religious worship which basically says that god is lord and as lord rewards and punishes. To me its not God rewarding them but there rewarding themselves by paying lip service to Christianity -- Nothing more, Nothing Less. Hypocrites thats what they are...

I agree with you.

Why do I need another man, as human as I am, to talk to God?

I'd much rather learn from the people that I can judge by their actions, not words. The most holy people never advertise their holiness, anyway.

Further delving into the history of that religion, and its cults, reveals a nasty littany of lies, deception and all kinds of unsavoury activities including some very dodgy interpretations of the "PRINCIPLE book of the religion". One can be a 'christian' without believing in the commonly held concepts preached by religions calling themselves 'christian', and without believing their version of the bible!

Matt. 7:7 "Seek and you will find" "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-33

Cheers:)

One CANNOT be a christian without believing in certain events as layed forth in the bible. You have to believe a man can die, be dead for three days and come back to life, in order to be a christian.

THAT IS ALL IT TAKES TO BE CHRISTIAN!

Now that being said......if you choose to disbelieve that the bible is divinely inspired and that it is God's own word.......which parts do you choose to disbelieve? Which one has more proof for being the unaltered divinely inspired written word of God?

Whatever part suits you, that is what. This book is useless. It cannot even preform it's most basic function of social control, if people pick and choose what they want. A failure.

Let reply to both those statements:

Wealth and Mega church > America is a largely capitalist society to capitalize on anything is just the American way of life. But when you begin to capitalize on a religious message that talks about giving, sharing and living a humble lifestyle and than make a profit that starts to get on the lines of an extravagant lifestyle. Yeah, it becomes hypocritical and to me a bit sickening.

But if they're Christians, encouraging others to live a Christian lifestyle and the Mega Church they attend and built with their own generous donations is where they gather to worship God... why is that sickening or hypocritical? Sounds like you're saying that if they're rich, American, can afford a HUGE church - then they're hypocrites. You must be loathing of their social status, because not once did you mention their level of faith or loyalty to the God they worship being a factor.


Imperfect Christian Leading Others > In the Gospel of Thomas there is a saying "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Basically, that is what these mega church and televangelist characters have become. They preach and preach, they don't follow the message but expect you to and than to top it off they think God wants them to live that way.

If perfection were a pre-requisite to spreading the word, would there be many qualified people to do it? Remember, we're "man", sinful by our very nature, imperfect to the core because we are not God-like, and to think we are is a blasphemy! Point is, we're all imperfect. But lucky for those crooked televangelists, the Christian God is pretty darned forgiving.

Yet despite all of this hypocrisy and contradiction God still loves them, even when I and others don't understand why.

Maybe it's not for us to understand, like many other things God supposedly influences that is somehow beyond our comprehension. So if you believe preaching the gospel is only reserved for those who practice it to the letter, then I bet those people are very few and far between.

Case in point:


"I have sinned against you, my Lord, and I would ask that your precious blood would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God's forgiveness... If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart#Sex_scandals) - Jimmy Swaggart.

And all he had to do was a little bit of this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/AngryFemme/_38691859_swaggart238.jpg


:o


Religion today has become something you do for an hour before you get back to your big Flat Screen TV and BMW. either way most people will not get much out of it.

Can only the penniless, poor and perfect get into heaven?

One CANNOT be a christian without believing in certain events as layed forth in the bible. You have to believe a man can die, be dead for three days and come back to life, in order to be a christian.

THAT IS ALL IT TAKES TO BE CHRISTIAN!

Now that being said......if you choose to disbelieve that the bible is divinely inspired and that it is God's own word.......which parts do you choose to disbelieve? Which one has more proof for being the unaltered divinely inspired written word of God?

Whatever part suits you, that is what. This book is useless. It cannot even preform it's most basic function of social control, if people pick and choose what they want. A failure.

Hear what you are saying, however you seem to be making some unfounded assumptions. Christian means a follower or student of Christ, one does not have to believe in the religious doctrines you have mentioned, check out John Spong's books for example. Followers of 'the way' were first called christians in Antioch, seemingly a derisive term applied by their opponents. At that time their was no 'official' bible, church, or New Testament. Why does one need to believe in divine inspiration for all scripture? Especially being familiar with the history and knowing how subjective the interpretation of ancient language is. Why cannot one simply trust to one's intuition? Should one just accept the RC version of the bible or shall we include the gnostic scriptures as well? When was it decided that the basic function of the bible is "social control"? Seems everyone picks and chooses as to what to believe, perhaps better to keep an open mind and allow things to be revealed as context and experience lead.

Example: the commonly held xian doctrine is that god gave the law on Sinai whereas it's clear from Hebrews, and the remaining context of the Old Testament, that the god of Sinai was an angel chosen for that task because of the wishes of the people(whether a 'real' angel or not matters little when the story is seen as myth and analogy intended to illustrate a point rather than literal history and as such could still be divinely inspired). They chose to have a 'god' make laws for them rather than follow the path of love which is what Jesus answered when asked what were the greatest laws. He quoted the Old Testament speaking of love for the divine and one's fellow. A fair reading of all the bible shows that there was always given a choice between living by law or love. Nobody truly loving their neighbour will need to be told not to steal from them!

OT god = living by laws.
NT god = living by love.

Think of god as 'spirit' that is incorporeal being, formless, and; god as the highest or controlling spirit or principle. Apply this to one's own mind. What is your controlling principle? Do you live according to law or by love?
Always relevant to now for each of us.

Cheers:)

The fact that humans exist, is proof that "god" is nothing but a sadist.
Humans inflict and experience suffering, any truly benevolent god would not allow that to happen, and would not even create life in the first place.

The fact that your "god" has created life that can suffer, means he is an evil and sadistic cunt who deserves nothing but hatred.

The fact that people believe in non-existent entities is just about understandable, but the fact that they love these things, even though all of their own "evidence" points to their god/s being repulsive things, is a testament to the sheer stupidity and pathetic masochistic nature of the human race.

.....

I thought the only thing one needed to believe in to be a christian was the life, death and ressurection of christ. So you can believe Moses was a myth if you want, as long as you believe in christ.

The bible is, on it's most basic level, an instrument for social control. Before it is a guidebook for the soul, or an ancient history book, it is an instrument for social control.

Just as the God Hates Fags folks use the proclamation of homosexual sex's status as sin as a means to propel and justify their hatred towards gays, others attempt to manipulate a book that speaks Truth and Love for the means of dishonest hatred. They manipulate the Book by taking a verse in its sole context and entirely striking from the process of understanding verses as such, "Resist not the evil man..." "Judge not lest ye be judged." "Love the Lord with all your heart. And love your neighbor as yourself." "Forgive them for they know not what they do." "Do not correct the fool for it invites only wrath." "Why do you seek to remove the speck in your brother's eye, while ignoring the beam in your own?" And so on.

If you read the Bible with the intent to understand its message, you will find understanding and satisfaction. If you read it with the intent to satisfy your arrogance, you will find neither satisfaction or understanding.

Good posts by godfather and redzed there....

*pats Obbe* Don't worry man, they're just hot for you :D

The fact that humans exist, is proof that "god" is nothing but a sadist.
Humans inflict and experience suffering, any truly benevolent god would not allow that to happen, and would not even create life in the first place.

The fact that your "god" has created life that can suffer, means he is an evil and sadistic cunt who deserves nothing but hatred.

The fact that people believe in non-existent entities is just about understandable, but the fact that they love these things, even though all of their own "evidence" points to their god/s being repulsive things, is a testament to the sheer stupidity and pathetic masochistic nature of the human race.

Since when has pain been the sum of life?

If you can experience a life of misery it is also possible to live a life of happiness (Note: Happiness, not pleasure). As it is most of us live a life that is a combination of pain and happiness.

If life were a non-stop ride of pain and suffering, then I would agree with you. But life is not non-stop pain, I happen to be happy most of the time, and those times I am unhappy I respect them as neccesary.

What you are doing is colouring the conclusion with your own experiences and feelings, not stating the truth. I can say that God is loving, because I am mostly happy, and so it seems that God has given me a great life. Judging from your post you seem to see a lot of pain, and so you make the conclusion that God is a cocksucker. This doesn't mean that either of us are right. Maybe Good and Evil aren't truly applicable to God *Shrugs*

Also you seem to be touching on somthing similar to saying that it is God's fault if we suffer. Personally I belive that no matter who created us, we are responsible for our selves. Let's suppose that a woman falls pregnant, and then gives away her child up to adoption, the child is adopted, and 20 years later turns into a rampant murderer, or a successful buisinessman, or a maybe a priest, or is dead. Let's finish this off by saying that the child has no knowledge of being adopted although they might sometimes have the feeling that they are.

Anyway, to the point, are the biological parents responsible for their offsprings actions? Is it the 'fault' of the biological parents for anything that occurs in the child's life? Surely the child is influenced by his surroundings and upbringing, and everything is a product of that and if so, surely we wouldn't then prosecute or praise the parents for something that they have no hand in.

Similarly, God is not responsible for our actions, we fully have the power to make this world pure bliss, we also have the power to make it hell. I fully believe the natural state of the world to be neutral, not Good, not Bad, Neutral. WE make the world how it is, we make others lives how they are, and to an extent how our lives are.

God generally leads to the Soul belief, and to an immortal soul how much does a single lifetime of pain affect the whole? If the soul is immortal then mortal suffering becomes almost meaningless.

Of course, I have to agree that a tradtional Christian God kinda fucks all this.

I thought the only thing one needed to believe in to be a christian was the life, death and ressurection of christ. So you can believe Moses was a myth if you want, as long as you believe in christ.

The bible is, on it's most basic level, an instrument for social control. Before it is a guidebook for the soul, or an ancient history book, it is an instrument for social control.

That is the common belief, yes. It is the dogma of the priests and their organisations, yes. The bible does appear to have been used as an instrument of social control, yes. However, I am one who was raised in a fundamentalist xian way and was liberated from it by actually reading the bible for myself. Through understanding that the message that is conveyed in the words are gateways to higher understanding.

It is generally acknowledged that Jesus spoke in parables which were not meant to be taken literally, he is spoken of as The Word, and fundamental xian doctrine identifies Jesus as the source of all scriptural inspiration. Is it unreasonable then to find that much of the old and new testaments have the nature of parables?

For a parallel, check out Yoganandas version of the Baghavad Gita in comparison to the Hare Krishna version. Yogananda treats it as metaphor, myth and analogy and brings out some great psychological illustrations of the human struggle, whereas the Hare Krishna version seems 'dark' and legalistic. In a similar way one can apply something like Yogananda's methodology to the bible.

For example if the creation story of Genesis is taken literally it does not add up! However if taken as myth the story can be understood as the struggle that can occur in one's mind between recognising reality and being deceived by delusions. The story goes that Spirit creates a world from darkness and on each subsequent day of creation, afterward, Spirit surveys it's creation and declares it as 'good'. Finally Spirit completes the task and declares everything as 'good'. Where then does the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil come from? Everything created is good remember? Besides when was the last time you saw a tree bearing fruits like good and evil? that's a dead giveaway of the metaphorical nature of the story. Seems the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is like a 'Family Tree'! Understood that way one can cognise the story as more metaphor and/or analogy.

All that 'is', is good, simply because it 'is'. Good is what exists, bad is an illusion one creates in one's mind when an ill informed human judgement is made. Human minds create evil, it is a delusion created in the mind thru a denial of the reality in which we find ourselves and our lack of understanding of the true nature of life and existence. To illustrate: There was a chinese farmer who found a horse in his field, his neighbours came by and said 'what good luck, now you can plow your fields and become rich.' The farmer said 'who can tell if it's good luck or not?'. That afternoon his grown son tried to ride the horse fell off and broke his leg. The neighbours seeing this said 'so it was bad luck then'. The farmer replied 'who can tell?'. Next day the Chinese army came to town and press-ganged all the grown young men into the army and took them away to war, except the farmers son!

Of course none of this makes sense if you continue to think of 'christian' in the fundamentalist way. This was predicted in the verse quoted from 1 Timothy. Read the Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi Library. The Roman Church tried to obliterate the Gnostic Christians and their texts, but they failed. Preserved in an earthen jar, buried for near on two thousand years, the voice of the persecuted speaks louder than that of the persecutors. No mention of crucifixion or resurrection in the G of Thomas. Read it and perhaps you will understand how one can be a christian without believing in unsubstantiatable claims for miraculous happenings.

Cheers:)

So you are saying someone can be a Christian without believing in magic? Just following the philosophy of Jesus, minus the parts that call for faith (God, Walking on Water, Ressurection, etc.)

I agree with you.

Why do I need another man, as human as I am, to talk to God?

I'd much rather learn from the people that I can judge by their actions, not words. The most holy people never advertise their holiness, anyway.

Hence, why Roman Catholicism was rejected by Protestants (although it be fair to say Protestantism has been the leading force on Fundamentalism), why do I need another human to forgive me of my sins who only acts as Jesus when Jesus says I'm with you always? Thats when I came to the conclusion I don't need anyone but God to seek a better life, no priest, no bishop, no pope, no doctrine should get in the way of my work with God.

Now Am I rejecting Priesthood and a Congregation based on similar views? No, I have known some priest to be very wise, humble and helpful that haven't touched little boys. Its what the role is in the church that bothers me not them being there. But I reject a hierarchy of control. The Gnostic's would let one person be a bishop one day and than it be someone else's turn the next, this made sure any position or hierarchal title didnt have some type of power structure just a role to play. But even William Shakespeare said: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts..."

But if they're Christians, encouraging others to live a Christian lifestyle and the Mega Church they attend and built with their own generous donations is where they gather to worship God... why is that sickening or hypocritical? Sounds like you're saying that if they're rich, American, can afford a HUGE church - then they're hypocrites. You must be loathing of their social status, because not once did you mention their level of faith or loyalty to the God they worship being a factor.

Its sickening because, when you compare the person(s) who own the mega church lifestyle to the generous benefits of the people who seek an actual spiritual or Christian life, keep in mind the less you have and the more you give the more true in the eyes of God value the donation is. Meanwhile a person leading an extravagant lifestyle of that generous donation is taking advantage of the situation... To me its utterly sickening IMO.

---------------------------------------

If perfection were a pre-requisite to spreading the word, would there be many qualified people to do it? Remember, we're "man", sinful by our very nature, imperfect to the core because we are not God-like, and to think we are is a blasphemy! Point is, we're all imperfect. But lucky for those crooked televangelists, the Christian God is pretty darned forgiving ......... Maybe it's not for us to understand, like many other things God supposedly influences that is somehow beyond our comprehension. So if you believe preaching the gospel is only reserved for those who practice it to the letter, then I bet those people are very few and far between ....... Can only the penniless, poor and perfect get into heaven?

Listen, I'm not sure what your belief is Atheist or Christian but if your an atheist using Christian doctrine than all you have done is prepared an argument based off of Dogma. My view will contradict or seem Heretical because, I consider myself a Gnostic and because of that I will according to most Church Officials "Burn in a Pit of Fire" for my heresy.

Is it so wrong to think for myself and be my own unique self than go with the flow of the Ecclesiastic demand for sameness? In the Bible the Scribes, Men of the Law and Priest all challenge Jesus. This is representative today for people held in religious power who dictate to you what you need to believe in order to get salvation. This is not God's will this is the will of men.

Exactly the point that those who actually follow the Gospel not word for word (trust theres many of those called fundamentalist) rather who seek to understand Christ message not the dogmatics of a religious authority which Christ challenge frequently, these people are rare, the ones who seek God, to be with God and Know God. I remember frequently being told God seeks to have a relationship with you... In order to have a relationship you need to KNOW the person, essentially what people are saying is that "God Seeks to Know You and You To Know Him."

Let me give an example of the "very few and far between." At work I know this person says she is religious just doesn't go to church. Yet this particular person gets their way with the manager all the time and others have suffered for it and this person knows that yet does nothing about it, yet continues to say "I am religious." Now, I say no your a hypocrite but God transcends my own understanding of love and when the time comes will be forgiven, a true Christian is very hard to find. Everything else is conjecture... An attempt to understand the non-understandable because, it transcends the very meaning of our usual ways to understand.

Look at The Sermon on the Mount, all those he blesses will get to heaven. But I tell you that; thats all of us... We are the poor, the persecuted, the hated, the despised, the mourning... We will all return to God.

-------------------------------------------------------------
[END :) ]

Its sickening because, when you compare the person(s) who own the mega church lifestyle to the generous benefits of the people who seek an actual spiritual or Christian life, keep in mind the less you have and the more you give the more true in the eyes of God value the donation is. Meanwhile a person leading an extravagant lifestyle of that generous donation is taking advantage of the situation... To me its utterly sickening IMO.

I agree that televangelists are sickening, but for entirely different reasons. I don't get sickened by them because they take advantage of complete nutjobs who throw their cash at institutions they believe are funding the temple or church they worship in. I get sickened because it's hard watching one disingenuous person lead a large mob of gullible people into believing in a Pie in the Sky. That they manage to swindle them out of money is secondary to the fact that they're swindling them out of control of their own minds! They over promise and can't deliver. When they do, it's trickery and suggestion. That's when the parishioners start losing their money - after they've already lost their common senses.


Listen, I'm not sure what your belief is Atheist or Christian but if your an atheist using Christian doctrine than all you have done is prepared an argument based off of Dogma.

I'm not a believer in God. My argument was not dogmatic, except in the sense of describing the pastor/parishioner relationship. The paragraph you quoted me on was illustrating how a televangelist can easily justify to the congregation that whatever sinful acts they're caught doing is forgivable in the eyes of the Lord, and if the congregation subscribes to the idea that God is All-Forgiving, then they MUST excuse and forgive their wayward pastor, because that's WJWD, and that's who they're trained to model their lives after.

Good post by you Godfather:) it inspired an interpretation - God is such a loaded word ... and ... God is Spirit;) Please appreciate it in the 'spirit' in which it is given:D

"why do I need another human to forgive me of my sins who only acts as Jesus when Jesus says I'm with you always? Thats when I came to the conclusion I don't need anyone but 'Spirit' to seek a better life, no priest, no bishop, no pope, no doctrine should get in the way of my work with 'Spirit'."

TRUE!
......................


"Is it so wrong to think for myself and be my own unique self than go with the flow of the Ecclesiastic demand for sameness?" NO, not wrong at all, rather -- yours sounds like a path of life!

"In the Bible the Scribes, Men of the Law and Priest all challenge Jesus. This is representative today for people held in religious power who dictate to you what you need to believe in order to get salvation. This is not 'Spirit's' will this is the will of men.

Exactly the point that those who actually follow the Gospel not word for word (trust theres many of those called fundamentalist) rather who seek to understand Christ message not the dogmatics of a religious authority which Christ challenge frequently, these people are rare, the ones who seek 'Spirit', to be with 'Spirit' and Know 'Spirit'. I remember frequently being told God seeks to have a relationship with you... In order to have a relationship you need to KNOW the person, essentially what people are saying is that "God is 'Spirit' Seeking to Know You and You To Know 'Spirit'."

..........'Spirit' transcends my own understanding of love .............. Everything else is conjecture... An attempt to understand the non-understandable because, it transcends the very meaning of our usual ways to understand.

Look at The Sermon on the Mount, all those he blesses will get to heaven. But I tell you that; thats all of us... We are the poor, the persecuted, the hated, the despised, the mourning... We will all return to 'Spirit'."

What is Spirit? "Incorporeal Being" says a dictionary, meaning apparently: without form, formless. What kind of being could that be? Formless, not material or made of matter, or maybe matter in an alternate state -- like energy? Spirit=Energy?

"We will all return to Energy"?

Cheers:)

So you are saying someone can be a Christian without believing in magic? Just following the philosophy of Jesus, minus the parts that call for faith (God, Walking on Water, Ressurection, etc.)

Sort of. I don't call myself a christian but would not be insulted if someone did. As for magic ... sure I believe in talking donkeys, axes that float on water and flaming chariots carrying prophets away to heaven ........... not! But magic? Magic is when I see someone helping out another person with no thought of reward. Magical to see, feel and give love, to truly love. Not sentimental, not sexual, but the pure unconditional love I see when humans help each other out, especially in times of dire need! It used to be called charity, in fact if you read the famous 'love' chapter - 1 Corinthians 13, in an old KJV the word charity is used in place of love! Charity = proactive love, love in action!

The best of humanity comes to the fore when help is needed; and when I see that, the word of the Tirkanthas makes sense. God is Spirit, god is the spirit, the energy that reaches out to help, without thought of reward -- selfless, sacrificing even one's self to save another. The Tirkanthas taught that the highest expression of God/Spirit is reflected in an enlightened human being, the person we all truly are! That aspect of a human being which sometimes comes to the fore when called upon in extreme circumstance. The spirit/energy that gives tremendous courage, and sometimes superhuman strength.

"Love is unchanging and permanent. It does not fluctuate, because it's source within the person who loves is not dependant on external factors. Loving is a state of being. It is a way of relating to the world which is forgiving, nurturing, and supportive.

Love is not intellectual and does not proceed from the mind; love emanates from the heart. It has the capacity to lift others and accomplish great feats because of its purity of motive. Love takes no position and thus is global, rising above the seperation of positionality. It is then possible to be 'one with another' as there are no longer any barriers. Love is therefore inclusive and expands the sense of self progressively.

Love focuses on the goodness of life in all it's expressions and augments that which is positive. It dissolves negativity by recontextualising it rather than by attacking it." David R Hawkins

Love is magic, i believe in that!;) The only god/divine/controlling principle i could ever accept would need to measure up. I believe, like Thomas, I have a right to see the scars before believing in miraculous happenings.:D The God described in the bible is IMHO myth and metaphor, human thoughts, human descriptions of that which is ineffable. How does one describe an incorporeal being? What form of image could be made that pictures the formless?

Cheers:)

I believe the basic humanistic philosophies and ideas in the bible are good. I also know the book has many things in it that are simply not good.

"you take the good,
you take the bad,
you take them both,
and there you have."

I think the book is filled with too much foolishness. I believe the few who find something useful (as you seem to have done) are grossly out numbered by biblical literalist or other foolish theists who believe it is right to force their "humanistic" views down a nations throat.

I believe the bad things that this book spawns out weighs the good things it has spawned. I believe the book to be more about social control than about being a good person.

In Reply to Redzed:

First off thank you for the compliment...

Secondly, theres two subtle bible verses that I want to bring to mind. The First is when Jesus says: "to you the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given but to them it is only in parables and sayings." The Second is when Jesus tells Peter to: "Lead his sheep."

- Interpreting the first: Jesus says that he gave the disciplines the knowledge of heaven, this is deep and very important and most likely esoteric teachings. But to everyone else they have only received, just the face value... What was literally being said, this is at large institutionalized Christianity especially the aspect of Christianity that takes the Bible Literally and the adherents to the literal line of thought are fundamentalist. Thus, theres more to Spirit more to even the major world religions than just what is being said and what meet the eye.

- Interpretation of the Second: Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, what are sheep but herd animals? They follow the Shepard. Its been said Peter founded Christianity as it is today. So therefore, we have to believe that Orthodox Christianity has this Evangelizing Sameness (with help of Paul) and lack of uniqueness and individuality within it. However, what of the other disciples like Thomas, Matthew, Phillip? Surely they to must have taught the word to others however Jesus told Peter only to lead his sheep. From this I concluded that there needs to be more than just one "type" or "form" of Christianity.

Thirdly, I can agree and stop saying God but rather Spirit or The Sustaining Life-Force that keeps everything moving and living that transcends even the physical but has parts of itself in the physical. The point is nonetheless I still feel and believe in something that transcends what we see around us and we are part of that transcending principle.

------------------------------------------------------------

In Reply to BrokeProphet:

If what your saying in regards to:

"you take the good,
you take the bad,
you take them both,
and there you have."

Than everything whether theistic or not is the same. I can agree with this little rhyme, because, I completely agree we live in a compromised society where everything around us is the will of ideologies that erode away the "original" version of [any social / Political / Economic idea].

Theres a saying regarding the nature of those who have found something useful V. those who have not, that saying is "Many have been called but few are chosen." Ultimately we all have been called but few have chosen to actually follow the path of life. We are all given the call again and again throughout life but we either never hear it or we never "respond" or the most obvious one is we chose not to.

Jesus' parable of how a Prominent Man invites other prominent people to his party, all decline. They represent those who busy themselves with there various concerns and their "places to go, things to do, people to see" type attitude. Than all of a sudden the Prominent Man says forget them take whoever off the streets and let them come along, these people are more likely to come to such a prominent party because, they are very likely more humble and gracious for the act of being invited to such a Prominent party. These "off the streets people" are the opposite they are those who don't busy or worry themselves about the world and they are of course most likely those Jesus blesses at the Sermon on the Mount.

One more thing to say, I have said it in the past that it is up to us (individually speaking) to decide right or wrong. I to am disgusted with how people impose their beliefs on others. Its one thing to create an interest in a view its another to shove it down your throat. However, we as human beings do that religion or no religion.

How about you learn greek, and read the original texts. Not all words can be translated form language to language and still consist of the same meaning.

Well I know that in Greek the word "Sin" meant something different that what it means today.

Todays definition of "Sin"- You defied God! You are a blasphemer and will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity! *Crazy Maniacal Laughter* In other words we see sin (largely in a fundamentalist view) that it is unforgivable or you need to hold yourself to very high and almost impossible standards to be absolved for them.

Original definition of "Sin"- Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) or "missing the mark" which implies a more forgiving and less damning position on sin. When you miss the mark / fall short you get up and try again and try not to do it again next time.