I'm talking about religious divisiveness and religious bigotries.

Clearly you are on an entirely different page altogether.



No Jesus is not Christianity. Christianity is basically based on a belief that the hearsay rumors about Jesus in the New Testament are to be taken as the "Gospel Truth".

Once that ideal is rejected, the historical man named Jesus still remains.

And "Christ" was not Jesus' name.

Everyone refers to "Jesus Christ", but that's just laziness over the centuries. It's really "Jesus THE Christ".

Christ is not Jesus' name.

The term "Christ" comes from a belief that Jesus was a demigod, born of a virgin woman. It's a religious "belief".

You can indeed separate Jesus from this religion very easily.

You say, "Jesus is our Christ". Well, you're speaking as someone who believes that. But for someone who doesn't believe that, Jesus becomes a mere mortal man in a historical context.

I certainly don't believe that Jesus was "The Christ". I don't believe there is any such things as "A Christ".

I don't believe in the Old Testament either.

So for me Jesus was just a man, not unlike Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, etc. The existence of Jesus does not support Christianity in any way, IMHO. Especially once the New Testament stories have been rejected as nothing more than superstitious exaggerations, or potentially even religious propaganda created expressly for the purpose of trying to hold Jesus up as a demigod.

Demigods were popular back in those times and people believed in those kinds of things quite easily.

I don't believe in demigods. I also don't believe in any gods that deal in blood sacrifices.

So for me, removing Jesus from Christianity is trivial.

Christianity is the mistaken "fable", IMHO.

And that's all there is to that.

Jesus was no more, or less "divine" than anyone else. What he might have been was a very wise mystic who tried to teach his community better morals than they had been taught by the Torah. Unfortunately he seems to have failed miserably in that attempt, and even at the cost of his very own life in a very brutal way.

It's a sad story even historically speaking.

Yeah really.

You can talk about Jesus without Christianity. But it's pointless to speak about Christ without Christianity.

Christianity is not about Jesus. Christianity is about using Jesus to support a much larger dogma and superstitious view, IMHO.

I have no problem with Jesus. But I have huge problems with Christianity.

Kind of like Mahatma Gandhi, "I like your Christ, but I don't care much for your Christians".

Even that was a slip of the tongue on Gandhi's behalf. He should have said, ""I like your Jesus, but I don't care much for your Christians".

Because to even refer to Jesus as "Christ" implies that this is what he was.

~~~~~

On a very interesting historical note, does anyone even know what Jesus' real last name was?

Mary and Joesph who?

Is the last name of Jesus even known?

In the Bible they claim that Jesus was a decedent of King David and they cite a whole bloodline from King David down to Joseph. But are any last names even mentioned?

Also, if Joseph wasn't Jesus' blood father then why would his bloodline even matter?

Only Mary would need to be a descendant of King David. So why even mention the bloodline of Joseph?

I wasn't talking about that kind of "judgment" Cowboy.

If there exists a judgmental God who passes final judgments on the fate of human souls, then only that God could make such judgments. No human would have that authority no matter how arrogant they might be.

So that's not the kind of "judgment" that I'm talking about.

I'm simply talking about religious people passing personal (and social) "judgments" on other people's spirituality simply because they refuse to accept Christian dogma.

That's the only kind of "judgment" that I'm concerned with here.

Clearly this religion does indeed have you passing this sort of "judgment" on others. You hold out that Jesus is the only way to God and that anything short of accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior would be the same as "rejecting God".

So therefore you are "passing judgment" on other people based on your religious beliefs. You aren't judging whether or not they will go to heaven or hell. That's ridiculous. I don't think you need to worry about anyone believing that you could even make such a judgment. But you are clearly "judging" them to have rejected the religion, and thus to have "rejected" the "Word of God" as you believe it to be.

So this has absolutely nothing to do with you "knowing" whether someone would go to heaven or hell. You're way off in dreamland if you think anyone would think that you could have such authority.

I'm taking about judging other people's character in general. The problem with people believing that Jesus was "The Christ" and that they are somehow aligned with that, is that this very notion tends to make them "judge others" (in a social sense) to be "without Christ", or "Without God", or "Rejecting God", if they don't also acknowledge and believe that Jesus was "The Christ".

This religious belief becomes fodder for social judgments.

Judging others to be "Not of Christ", or "Not in harmony with God" is a very derogatory and unhealthy judgment right there, IMHO.

That is the kind of "judgment" I'm talking about Cowboy.

Judgments that mortal men can and do indeed make.

You're talking about judging the eternal fate of individual souls. That's something entirely different. Forget about thinking that people are worried about you deciding, or even knowing, whether or not they are going to heaven or hell. I'm sure that no one is about to give you that kind of power.

So getting back to the topic, "And the Lord said,..."

I have a book on "Modern Magick", written by a Jewish man. Or at least he was raised into the Jewish Religion. And I'm assuming that he was also considered to be a "Jew" in other ways as well, such as nationality, or whatever.

In any case, he writes in his book that as a young boy he was taught many Jewish rituals. He would ask where these rituals came from because he wanted to gain a better understanding of why he was performing them. What was their ultimate purpose?

He was totally dissatisfied with the explanations given to him by the rabbis, etc. They basically just referred to scriptures and replied with things like, "And the Lord said,....".

So he began a life-long quest to investigate the origin of these rituals. Over the course of his life he discovered that these rituals actually had their beginnings in the practice of magick.

He now teachings the Kabbalah from a perspective of magick rather than from the traditional views of Judaism. His teachings are still very "Hebrew-oriented" though. He believes that the very ancient Hebrews were actually magi who practiced magick. This then later became contorted to become what is now modern Judaism.

I've read these kinds of things many times. I've read that in the days of Jesus, there were as many "Mystical Jews" that had a very pantheistic view of "god" as there were Jews who viewed God as a personified male Godhead.

So even in the days of Jesus there was much confusion and disagreement among the Jews themselves concerning the nature of "God" and the meanings and purpose of various ceremonies and traditions.

I have quite a bit to say on this issue because this is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart.

Let me begin by responding to the thread title.

Christ without Christianity

From my perspective it's meaningless to speak of a "Christ" without Christianity. The Christians (i.e. the authors of the New Testament) are the ones who are making the claim that Jesus was "The Christ". And what they mean by that is indeed that Jesus was divine. Christianity claims that Jesus was the "only" begotten son of God and that he came with a message that came from God specifically.

Moreover, many of the teachings that are associated with Jesus via this image of Jesus as being "The Christ" are associated with what's going to happen to a person after they did. In other words, they are either going to be cast into a place of eternal punishment, or they will be granted the "gift" of eternal in some heavenly place called "The Kingdom of God".

Take away the idea that Jesus was divine and had special divine knowledge and all of the teachings concerning the fate of a human spirit would instantly be reduced to nothing more than a mortal man's opinion, or merely superstitions hearsay that had been attributed to the man named "Jesus".

In fact, this brings me to the very next point:

Whether one believes in the divinity of Jesus - can we all agree that the message in the myth is good?

Evidently we can't agree.

No two people agree on precisely what that "message" was even about precisely. The mere fact that there are so many different denominations of Christianity is proof positive of this. Even people who claim to be "Christians" in the sense of being "followers" of the Christ" do not all agree on what actually constitutes "following" these teachings.

As I mentioned above, part of the "message" is about what happens to a human spirit after the body dies. Many "Christians" or followers of Christianity do not even agree on what is required to achieve entrance into this heavenly world.

Moreover, on a personal note, I think it's quite clear from these writings that it has clearly been attributed to Jesus to have said that the path is straight and the gate is narrow to the Kingdom of God and only few will make it.

Well, if Jesus truly was "divine" and this is "divine knowledge" then clearly only few people will achieve this end result and therefore the vast majority must fall into the state of eternal damnation.

So from my point of view, that particular message is "not good".

Who would want to believe that the vast majority of humans are bound to suffer everlasting punishment? There's certainly nothing "good" about that.

So, IMHO, if Jesus truly was divine, then the message is "not good".

It's not good at all, on the contrary it would be an extremely sad state of affairs, IMHO.


Whether one believes in the divinity of Jesus?

As soon a person accepts that Jesus may not have been "divine" then the entire biblical cannon of scriptures comes into question. If Jesus was not divine, then why bother believing anything that is written in the Bible at all?

The authors of the New Testament claim that Jesus was born of a virgin woman, and that he resurrected from his death along with a multitude of saints. And that God spoke from a cloud saying, "This is my beloved son, hear him".

As soon as a person rejects the divinity of Jesus, all of these outrageous claims become nothing more than fictitious mythology.

Also, there would be no reason to believe that the Old Testament was the "Word of God" either. Moreover, there would be no reason at all to pay any attention to the writings of Paul, which constitute about 75% of the New Testament scriptures.

There is far more in the New Testament about Paul's opinions than there is about the teachings of Jesus.

So as soon as a person accepts that Jesus might have been a mere mortal man, the entire biblical cannon loses all credibility. Especially considering that it claims that Jesus was divine, etc.


Moral Values - can we all agree that the message in the myth is good?


Well, now are we just speaking to the issues of the moral values that these stories attribute to Jesus? And perhaps even ignore the writings of people like Paul, etc?

I personally have no problem with the moral teachings that have been attributed to Jesus. I would personally say that they are good moral values, if taken reasonably and not twisted into extremism.

According to these stories of Jesus, he rejected many of the moral teachings that had been laid out by the Torah (or Old Testament)

Jesus renounced the judging of others (which is absolutely necessary if you are to judge people to be sinners as the Torah had people doing)

Jesus basically renounced the stoning to death of sinners. Especially be other sinners, and supposedly every human is supposed to be a sinner, therefore there should be no stonings at all. That's quite the opposite of what the teachings of the Torah had people doing.

Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as in "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and instead he taught to "Turn the other cheek".

Again, without taking this to extremism, all he's basically saying is that it's better to forgive and walk away than to seek revenge. I doubt very much that he actually meant to turn you other cheek and offer it up to someone who is viciously attacking you. That would be quite unwise, and I doubt that Jesus was teaching anyone to do unwise things.

However, overall, I do agree that the moral values that had been attributed to Jesus are "good" when not held not turned into absurd extremism.

Where the moral teachings of Jesus unique or new?

This is the question people should be asking when they ask if the teaching of Jesus were "good". Why ask if they are good? Ask if they are original or unique to Jesus (which many supporters of Christianity like to claim)

The answer to that is clearly, no. They are not unique to Jesus, nor did they originate from him.

The Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern Mystics had been teaching similar moral values centuries before Jesus was ever born. The golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" had been around long before Jesus.

The idea of not judging others is far more ancient than Jesus.

The idea of not seeking revenge and forgiving those who trespass against you, is also extremely ancient.

None of this moral content originated with Jesus. It had all been around and had been taught by other spiritual and moral leaders long before the time of Jesus.

So in this sense Jesus was not the slightest bit unique in terms of his moral teachings. It only seems that way within the very narrow confines of the biblical story. This is because the Biblical story is focused on what the ancient Hebrews were doing, and Jesus came along and taught those people better moral values.

However, the entire human population was not as rude and crude as the ancient Hebrews. The entire human population had not been taught by an ancient Torah to judge and stone sinners to death, etc.

In the larger global picture Jesus was not unique at all in terms of the moral values he taught. On the contrary it's quite possible that Jesus was simply trying to convey to the Hebrews the higher moral values of the Eastern Mystics and trying to get them to move away from the terrible moral values that they had been taught by the Torah.

Summary

Are the teachings of Jesus 'good'?

The moral values are. But they are basically the same moral values as the ancient mystics taught long before Jesus had ever been born.

Are the teachings that Jesus was "The Christ" any good?

I personally don't think they are. All those teachings tend to do is cause people to judge others in Jesus' name by proclaiming that if they don't believe in Jesus, or if they haven't accepted him as their "Lord and Savior". then they are judged to be "rejecting God", etc.

I don't see anything "good" in that. All that does is create religious bigotry in the name of Jesus. Where is there anything "good" in that?

That idea also tends to hold up the entire biblical cannon as the "Word of God", and that goes far beyond the mere teachings of Jesus.

IMHO, Christianity, as a religion, is hardly about Jesus at all. What it's really about is using Jesus as an excuse to hold up the entire Biblical cannon as the infallible "Word of God", including the writings of Paul and stuff from the Old Testament as well. Clearly Jesus himself was not even in agreement with much of the stuff that was in the Torah or Old Testament.

So I don't support any of that, and I don't see that as being "good".

As soon as Jesus is used as an excuse to judge others, I'm done with it.

So I prefer not to think of Jesus as "The Christ", but rather I prefer to think of him as just a mortal man who rejected many of the horrible things that had been taught in the Torah as having been from "God".

And it still doesn't make any sense to anyone today.

No two people on planet Earth are in agreement of what these gospels stand for. Not even two Protestant "Christians" of the same denomination.

Much less the Jews, Muslims, or Catholics.

NOBODY agrees on what these absurd convoluted and highly contradicting stories supposed mean.

Even in the Interview on Fresh Air this religious radical confessed that he is not in agreement with all the other preachers that are even involved with his particular extremist movement.

No two preachers even agree on the details:

NOBODY understands these convoluted fables MorningSong.

~~~~~

There are people who believe that there is no hell for humans.

There are people who demand that the concept of hell for humans is paramount and that the religion can't work without it.

There are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same.

There are people who demand that Jesus was merely the "Son" of God and cannot be seen as being the same as God.

There are people who believe that only individuals can save themselves by appealing to Jesus.

There are people who believe that only Jesus can save individuals by choosing to call them in.

~~~~~~

There are countless different opinions and views on what these scriptures mean.

Some individual may CLAIM to understand them, but clearly these scriptures themselves are WILDLY ambiguous.

If they weren't then we wouldn't have Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, and all the myriad of differing sects and opinions within those.

If anything is CRYSTAL CLEAR about these ancient Hebrew fables it is indeed they the fables themselves are extremely UNCLEAR.

Truly. All these untrustworthy confused texts do is cause arguments. In fact that is ALL we ever see. People arguing over Christianity or the Abrahamic religions in general.

The Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and the myriad of disagreeing Protestants all arguing continually with each other over their own highly confused and ambiguous doctrines.

And the poor atheists and people of other faiths have to live in this world with this argumentative confused Abrahamic zealots.

They talk about "righteousness" and "justice", but totally FAIL to understand LOVE.

Just go with LOVE and flush those ancient doctrines down the drain. They aren't doing anyone any good at all.

There is no power at all in the fictitious God created by the ancient Hebrews. It's a man-made fable of a truly pathetic man-made God.

MorningSong, there is never any GOOD in having anyone brutally beaten and nailed to a pole.

Once you understand that, will you begin to see the absolute ignorance and stupidity of these male-chauvinistic Hebrew fables.

MorningSong, there are totally JUST and RIGHTEOUS concepts of "God" in the Eastern Mystical spiritual philosophies without the need to have the God lower itself to the in crude and ignorant mentality of a sick demented human societies.

The ancient Hebrews weren't any more intelligent than the modern day Taliban. They were just as ignorant, violent, and male chauvinistic.

You don't need to reduce God to the mentality of the Taliban in an effort to proclaim that God is "just". That's totally uncalled for.

There is NOTHING GOOD about having someone brutally beaten and nailed to a pole.

I'm truly sorry to hear that you support such a violent horrific event as being divinely "just" and "righteous".

How decent honest people can be lead into believing such a foolish thing is truly beyond my ability to comprehend.

And to make matters FAR WORSE, they have a tendency to proclaim that I am the one who is "rejecting God" by not supporting such ignorance and violence.

Or that I'm the one who has no concept of "righteousness".

This is like Freddy's Nightmares. A religious society who proclaims that anyone who doesn't support VIOLENCE as a "righteous" solution to problems is being "ungodly".



It's like living in the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits.

People supporting horrific violence, prejudice, and religious bigotry as being "Holy" and "Divine". And acting like as if this is the only way a God can be "righteous" and "just".

Nope, sorry, I don't buy such utter nonsense.

~~~~~~

All you're basically saying is that if some guy brutally rapes and mutilates a little girl it's OK. Because if he asks for forgiveness then his act of brutally raping and mutilating the little girl has been PAID FOR because Jesus was nailed to a pole and sent to hell for 3 days.

And therefore "justice prevails".



No, sorry MorningSong. That mentality does NOT work for me.

~~~~~~

Of course, I'm educated in the Eastern Mystical philosophies, and they offer far more SANE ways of dealing with these things. Trust me MorningSong, JUSTICE is definitely maintained and satisfied in the Eastern Mystical philosophies.

If you think it's not, then you simply don't have a good understanding of those spiritual philosophies.

This idea that only the Hebrew fables qualify as a "just" way of dealing with things is utter nonsense. On the contrary there is nothing remotely "just" in the way that the Hebrews deal with injustice in their religious fables.

Josh McDowell explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. His analogy simply doesn't work.

Beating someone and nailing them to a pole does not PAY for anything, UNLESS someone is appeased by that action.

So all Josh McDowell is suggesting is that God is somehow appeased by seeing someone SUFFER.

And that's utter nonsense.

These excuses people give simply don't stand up to reason.

Having someone nailed to a pole does not PAY for anything.

That is nothing short of utter SICKNESS.

That's the kind of thing that a DEMON would be appeased by, not a God.

There is no excuse or justification for these utterly absurd fables.

Why do people keep supporting this nonsense.

WAKE UP!

All that Josh McDowell is suggesting is that if someone rapes and murders someone else, then asked for forgiveness, it OK, because God PAID for that horrific act of VIOLENCE via another act of VIOLENCE by having his son nailed to a pole!

In order for Josh McDowell's analogy to actually WORK, if his daughter breaks a lamp, then he would need to PAY for that by breaking another lamp (not going out and replacing it with a nice new one). That wouldn't fit the crucifixion scenario.

This religion has horrific VIOLENCE being used to PAY for horrific VIOLENCE.

That's utter nonsense.

Well, here we go again with more contradictions.

A battle was WON by the crucifixion of Jesus?

This implies that God had to sacrifice his son in order to win some sort of "battle".

Who was God fighting against? Satan?

And if so, then this Satan fellow must be quite the THREAT to God that God felt that he had to take such desperate action in order to "beat" this demonic angel and "win" a battle against him.

~~~~~~~~

People aren't listening to my concerns at all.

I ask people to justify this crucifixion of Jesus by explaining why it was necessarily in order to PAY for our sins. But this just goes in one ear and out the other. Or in the case of the internet I guess it goes in one eye and out the other.

What was the PURPOSE of the "sacrifice" of Jesus on the cross?

In what was would this have been a "sacrifice" for God? What did God LOSE, or give up, by making this "sacrifice". And if he didn't LOSE anything, then how could it be called a "sacrifice"?

There are so many contradictions in these fables, and NO ONE, has ever come up with a sane explanation for any of this. Moreover, not two Christians appear to agree on what had been "sacrificed" or why it was necessarily to make the "sacrifice" and TO WHOM the "sacrifice" was made.

~~~~~~

The "sacrifice" could not have been made TO man

God could not have "sacrificed" his son TO mankind, because mankind never asked God to sacrifice his son. Nor is mankind in any position to be asking this God to make any "sacrifices" TO mankind.

The "sacrifice" could not have been made TO Satan

For God to "sacrifice" his son to Satan would imply that Satan was a real THREAT to God and that God had to do something desperate in order to "beat" this demon.

That's not going to fit in with the idea that God is ALL POWERFUL and Satan is merely a sniffling wimp.

So we can't have God giving into Satan by 'sacrificing' his son to BEAT Satan in some sort of battle.

That idea doesn't work if God is supposed to be ALL POWERFUL.

The "sacrifice" could have only been made TO God himself

That's the only thing that makes any sense in this religion. The original God of Abraham is the God who demands blood sacrifices for the atonement of sin. He's the one who is appeased by blood sacrifices. So in these biblical fables this God could have only "sacrificed" his son unto HIMSELF, to appease himself of the sins of man.

Personally, that sounds really weird and sick to me. I personally dismiss the Old Testament already because it's a fable about a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices just like Zeus and many other fictitious Gods of myths and fables.

Yet this is the BASIS of these blood sacrifices. It is the GOD himself that is supposedly appeased by a blood sacrifice, no one else.

So God would have had to have "sacrificed" his son unto HIMSELF. Not to some satanic demon in order to WIN a Battle. If God had to do that, this would only show that God is vulnerable to Satan and must appease Satan by making a "sacrifice" unto Satan.

~~~~~~~~

So this idea that the crucifixion of Jesus represents "winning" some "battle" doesn't fit in with the overall fables of a God who HIMSELF requires blood sacrifices to pay for sins.

~~~~~~~~~

Moreover, what would God have been "sacrificing"?

Jesus didn't even DIE in a spiritual sense! He supposedly survive the experience and will go on to become the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and will reign over humanity for ever and ever.

So what did he sacrifice?

The mere PAIN of having been beaten and nailed to a pole?

That would have been the only thing he would have "sacrificed". He most certainly didn't sacrifice his LIFE since he supposedly LIVES FOREVER! He's a spiritual being not a mortal human!

He also RETURNED TO HEAVEN to sit at the right-hand of God. So what was 'sacrificed'. This God didn't sacrifice his son to anyone if his son is sitting right next to him as we speak and will remain alive in spirit for all of eternity.

~~~~~~~~

This whole fable is utter nonsense.

~~~~~~~

Even as a totally fictitious fable it doesn't make any sense.

~~~~~~~

The only thing that makes any sense in this fable concerning the crucifixion of Jesus to PAY for the sins of man would be to return to the Old Testament and realize that this God requires blood sacrifices before he can forgive sins. That would be the only reason that any such sacrifice would be required. It would be required by the God himself to appease himself.

And since Jesus didn't ultimately did in terms of spirit, the sacrifice would not have been DEATH. Jesus did not pay the ultimate price of DEATH because he rose from the dead. Thus the check would have BOUNCED.

You can't just die for three days, and say, "Ok I had enough of this I want to LIVE again".

This is all nonsense.

It's a fable that simply makes no sense at all.

Why people continue to cling to these fables is truly beyond me.

The only thing I can see is that a lot of people have convinced themselves (or have been convinced by others) that either these fables are true, OR atheism must be true. And since most people have an extreme phobia to an atheistic world they reach out to this fable in hopes of a dream of ETERNAL LIFE.

That is the only explanation for this.

Otherwise why would people be so desperate to support such absurd stories?

That's truly a shame. As I have said many times, there are actually spiritual philosophies that make FAR MORE SENSE and are FAR MORE SANE, for anyone who would like to believe in a spiritual essence to reality. The Hebrew fables are nowhere near the only ideas mankind has come up with for a possible spiritual essence of reality. Obviously this was the basis for religions based on Zeus, or Athena, or Apollo, etc, etc, etc.

Humans have been inventing spiritual paradigms since the dawn of man. The Hebrews have no patent on God.

It saddens me deeply that humanity has become so obsessed with religious fables that are based on a God who delves out punishments for every little things, has his own son crucified on a pole, and basically uses negative crude methods to try to SOLVE all his problems.

And the truly ironic thing is that in these fables God's solutions to these problem NEVER WORK anyway. Humans continually fall away from this God and this God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates, or has to drown them out in a great flood.

Even the New Testament has Jesus proclaiming that the path is straight and the gate is narrow to the kingdom of this God and FEW will make it.

Well, if FEW make it, then clearly the vast majority of souls must be LOST.

It's a religious fable about a creator that LOSES the vast majority of souls that he creates.

It's a very sad and non-inspirational religion all the way around if you ask me.

You're chances at qualifying for ETERNAL LIFE are extremely slim even according to Jesus if you can believe these fables.

You probably have a far better chance at winning the lottery on Earth.

And that's supposed to be inspirational?

Even if I believed completely that I was totally "Saved" and qualified for the heaven of the God of these fables, I would still be extremely depressed about the fact that so FEW souls ever make it.

Like our good friend Smiless used to say, "I volunteer to be the last person to enter heaven. I don't even want to be there if anyone else has been left out."

When is that war going to start?

Are Christians going to start standing up against Christians both, arguing that they represent what Jesus truly wants?

This religious fanatic is preaching that he's doing this all in Jesus name to convert everyone to "Accepting Jesus" as their Lord and Savior.

This is the problem. This idea that converting everyone to "Accepting Jesus" as Lord and Savior starts getting out of hand.

Who decides who's actually "accepting" the teachings of Jesus, and who's actually abusing the teachings of Jesus.

As far as I can see, the real difference is precisely that.

Accepting the TEACHINGS of Jesus is one thing.

But when the religion becomes obsessed with demanding that everyone must accept Jesus as their LORD and SAVIOR, it's just the Crusades all over again.

And then they TAKE that to the NEXT LEVEL by proclaiming that THEIR political agenda represents the DESIRES of Jesus!!!

It's just using this whole icon of Jesus as an excuse to proclaim that if you're not on THEIR SIDE and in alignment with THEIR political agenda, then you are rejecting Jesus and therefore rejecting GOD!

This is the PROBLEM with this religion.

It just has this TENDENCY to become a CRUSADE in the name of Jesus to PUSH a specific political agenda based on religious zealots who demands that if you don't accept THEIR INTERPRETATIONS of scriptures, then you are REJECTING JESUS!

It get's totally OUT OF HAND. And these kinds of religious movements tend to take ADVANTAGE of the "Christian Sheep", who merely want to FLOCK behind this baloney under the belief that they are supporting JESUS, when in fact, these religious zealots have nothing at all to do with Jesus.

~~~~~~

In fact, look at what this guy is doing. He's already rejecting the biblical prophesy of "The Rapture" and proclaiming that God is talking to him directly with a whole NEW PLAN and a whole NEW WORLD ORDER based on converting everyone to Christianity.

This is the epitome of religion gone awry.

It's just going to lead to extreme religious tension between all the religions of the world as the other religions start to DEFEND against the "Christian Crusades" in the name of the Christ.

This kind of talk is especially going to feed the flames of Muslim extremists and confirm in their minds that there truly is a "Holy War" in the making.

These people have even proclaimed that the Buddhists, Hindus, and all the other Eastern Religions are the "Word of Satan".

It's CRAZY.

And the atheists are under attack as well.

When it's going to stop?

~~~~~~

I firmly believe that humans evolved from monkeys. In fact, they're still acting like monkeys so they aren't much further evolved than the monkeys, IMHO.

Religious extremism like this is truly nothing more than a blatant display that people still believe in superstitions to the HILT.

Something's gotta give!

So this God cursed the serpent to crawl on its belly and this is why snakes have no legs? And then he turned around and cursed women with painful childbirth as a punishment. Finally he had his son nailed to a pole. And now anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as the Lord of Lord and King of Kings in the name of religious zealots and their interpretations of these stories they must be possessed by a demonic fallen angel or one of his minions.

Let's try to get real here.

~~~~~

What I find so thoroughly disappointing is the very simple fact that I'm living on a rock floating in space with billions of people who actually fall for this stuff.

Is there intelligent life in this universe?

Maybe not. There certainly doesn't appear to be any sign of it on planet Earth.

I'm listening to Fresh Air with Terry Gross interviewing Chris Peter Wagner a leader of NAR (The New Apostolic Reformation)

Their goal is to take dominion over government, art, entertainment, and basically the entire world.

They believe in "Casting out demons" in the name of Jesus Christ, and don't think much of anyone who doesn't recognize Jesus as "The Christ"

These people are totally paranoid about demons possessing people.

They also spoke about their efforts to convert Japan to Christianity and away from its religions of Shinto and Buddhism which they see as the work of Satan.

They claim to "respect" all religions and the "freedom of religion", yet at the very same time they renounce all non-Christian religions as being the word of Satan.

This is religious extremism in all it's "Holy Glory".

They're goal is to expand their influence and control over government, education, and the arts.

Sad.

Truly sad.

And then they wonder why people speak out against this overly-arrogant religion.

All the more reason to point out the utter absurdities in these ancient fables. People are trying to make it POLITICAL and FORCE it onto other people through, government, education, and the arts.

This is truly scary.

~~~~~

This guy is also quite confused and inconsistent. He used to believe in "The Rapture" but he no longer believes in this now. Now he believes that through his ministries of the New Apostolic Reformation the world can be entirely converted to "Christianity" and there will be no need for "The Rapture".

He believes that all the Jews (or all of Israel will ultimately convert to Christianity and be "SAVED" as an entire nation).

This all comes to him directly from God, NOT from the Bible.

~~~~~

There used to be a time when they would send people like this to an insane asylum, but today with "religious tolerance" we have to tolerate these people, even though they have totally changed what the religion was all about according to the original Hebrew Gospels, and now they are making up their own stuff and claiming that it came to them directly from God.

Scary.

That's all I can.

The atheists are going to have their hands full dealing with all the religious zealots of the world. I guess the Muslims will continue to move toward their "Jihad" in defense of these "evil Christians" and we'll just move into a world-wide Holy War.

The poor atheists have to put up with all this crap.

Religion, in this "New Apostolic Reformation", is without a doubt threatening to become highly POLITICAL. They are openly stating that they are out to seek DOMINION over Government, Education, and the Arts, in Jesus' name.

Something's gotta give.

These religious zealots are getting out of hand.

And how many "innocent Christians" are going to get sucked into supporting this utter nonsense?

What is Christianity morphing into?

All they are doing is confirming the fact that atheists have been pointing about just how dangerous these arrogant religions can be!

When religion becomes and excuse for a POLITICAL MOVEMENT it's time to speak out against it.

I don't have high-speed Internet so I can't check it out. But I'm sure that my objections are valid.

Innocent people falling from grace when they don't even know the difference between right and wrong to begin with?

They totally confess what they had done after the fact, and offer up the complete truth, turning in all guilty partners?

The serpent is cursed to crawl on his belly for the rest of his days (supposedly why snakes have no legs)?

Sure, the serpent might have deserved it, but still, how silly is this story truly?

And then Adam and Eve are cursed and kicked out of the Garden of Eden without even rebellion against. They are cooperating fully and weren't even asked if they want to be forgiven for their INNOCENT fall from grace?

Come on.

Gimmie a break.

These stories are just as silly as Greek Mythology. Sometimes even sillier.

The fable of Adam and Eve is quite short, and yet riddled with flaws in terms of the overall biblical thesis.

The story begins in Genesis 2


[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
[25] And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.



Notice here that it clearly states that they were both naked and they were not ashamed of being naked. This in an important flaw to recognize in these stories. It raises a red flag that clearly indicates that these stories were written by mere mortal men who were making up fables.

To begin with, if being naked is reason to be ashamed, then there must be something "wrong" with being naked. In other words, it must be a "sin" to be naked. Otherwise what reason would there be to be ashamed?

So in this verse we are being told that Adam and Eve are actually committing sins in total innocence all the time and just not aware of it. They have no clue that they are doing anything "wrong" because they have no knowledge of "Good and Evil".

Evidently that's the idea here.

So let's move on.


Genesis 3


[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


Well, what does this story say?

It says that Eve was told not to eat of the fruit of the tree lest she will die. Period.

She doesn't say that God told her that she would be disobeying him if she ate this fruit. He merely told her that she will die. It's just information. Eve at this point is obviously quite naive and doesn't know the difference between "Good and Evil" at that stage. So she most certainly could not understand the concept of lies. She's totally naive and innocent supposedly because she has not YET obtained the knowledge of "Good and Evil".


Genesis 3


[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Ok, so a totally innocent woman who has no understanding of "Good or Evil", has just been told that the information she has been given was wrong and that nothing bad will happen if she eats this fruit.

Well duh?

At this point there is absolutely no reason for Eve to suspect that the serpent is lying to her. She has no understanding of "Good or Evil", she has no concept of people trying to get over on her or that they should give her false information. In short, she has absolutely no reason to think that this serpent is trying to get her into trouble.

She can't be savvy about things such as "Good and Evil" at this point because she hasn't yet obtained that knowledge.

Therefore she can only have acted in a state of completely naive innocence, and most certainly did not act out of any rebellious desire to reject God or do anything "wrong", on the contrary she has no concept of what's "right or wrong" at this point. She doesn't even know that she's naked and that being naked is somehow "wrong".

So she can only have acted in a state of completely naive innocence completely unaware of the consequences of her actions.


Genesis 3


[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.


Ok, they are clearly ashamed of themselves here. Well, if they are ashamed of themselves then they must already be sorry for what they have done. They aren't boldly rebelling against God screaming, "We aren't going to obey you anymore you big bully!"

They aren't doing that at all. On the contrary, they are now even ashamed of being naked, something that they weren't even aware that they had been doing "wrong" all along.


Genesis 3


[9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
[12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.


Ok, here we have Adam OPENLY CONFESSING HIS "SIN". Isn't that what this religion says we are supposed to do?

Adam certainly appears to be doing the RIGHT THING here. He's openly confessing his "sin" to God. And he's even squealing on Eve.

He's cooperating with God completely. And he's clearly ashamed of being naked. That's not an act of bold rebellion. On the contrary Adam is acting like he would love to be FORGIVEN for what had just occurred.

Isn't that what this religion says we're supposed to do? Confess our sins and ask for forgiveness?

Sure looks like this is Adam's state of mind at this point. He's not arguing with God or defying God in any way.

Genesis 3


[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.


Here Eve is explaining to God that she had been beguiled by the serpent. A concept that she could not have possibly understood BEFORE she had obtained the knowledge of "Good and Evil".

Obviously she never had a CHANCE! At the time that she had been beguiled she had no clue what that would even mean. She was beguiled by the serpent whilst in a state of pure naive innocence. And now that her eyes have been opened she is aware that she has been taken advantage of.

Moreover, is Eve acting rebellious toward God at this point? No, not at all. On the contrary she's cooperating with God FULLY. She's telling God the TRUTH, and she's even testifying against the criminal who had beguiled her. She a MODEL WITNESS for the prosecution, and she's cooperating with God FULLY. She's not rebelling against God or arguing with God at all.

She not saying to God, "You lied to me and told me that I would die if I ate this fruit! But this serpent told me the TRUTH about this fruit!"

She's not even going that far. She's CONFESSING to God that she has been beguiled by this serpent, and she's turning in the serpent and testifying against him. Fully cooperating with God.

There's no rebellion on the part of Adam and Eve in this story at all. They are totally cooperating with God and telling him the TRUTH as they know it to be.


[14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


Ok, so supposedly the serpent truly is the guilty party here. He supposedly knew that what he was doing was against the will of God and so on and so forth.

So fine, God curses him to crawl on his belly for the rest of the days of his life, and evidently that's why snakes have no legs.

Believe that one and I have a bridge up for sale that I'd like to tell you about.

~~~~

Ok, moving onward:


[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
[16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


WHOA!

Here we have God delving all out this horrible sentencing to Adam and Eve already.

But WAIT?

Did God even ask Adam and Eve if they are sorry for what had just unfolded?

Did God even ask Adam and Eve if they are feeling remorseful and would like to repent or be forgiven?

This whole religion is based on the idea that everyone needs to confess their sins and ask to be forgiven for their mistakes.

Yet we don't see Adam and Eve being offered any opportunity to be forgiven or to repent for their naive innocent mistakes.

And according to this story Adam and Eve are not rebelling against God in the slightest. They are totally confessing to God what had just unfolded, they willfully testified against the criminal who beguiled them, and they are offering to tell God the TRUTH about everything.

By the sounds of this story, if God would have asked them if they would like to be forgiven at this point, it sure sounds like they would be more than willing to ask for forgiveness.

This is ridiculous!

The harsh sentencing of these two naive innocent people who had been beguiled by and evil serpent and EVEN CONFESSED before God to the whole ordeal, and even testified against the evil serpent, and told God the TRUTH of everything that had happened, is totally uncalled for. Their harsh sentencing is simply unrighteous and doesn't fit this scenario at all because they are being completely cooperative with God and confessing everything to God just as it has unfolded.

At worst, they should have been given a slap on the wrist and asked not to ever do anything like that again. Not only were they "first offenders", but according to this story they didn't even have any concept of "Good or Evil" before they had made the mistake. They couldn't have possibly committed this action with premeditated malice.

Their so-called "fall from grace" would have necessarily had to have been an act of complete naive innocence.


[20] And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


And here they are being kicked out of the garden of Eden, not even being asked if they would like to repent from their "Wicked Ways".



They had already CONFESSED their "sins". They had already told God the TRUTH about everything. They had already shown complete and full COOPERATION with God.

And they weren't even given the opportunity to be forgiven?

~~~~~

Yet, we are to believe that now all it takes to get "back in good" with this God is to simply confess our sins and ask to be forgiven.

~~~~~

Well, based on this story of Adam and Eve, it certainly appears that they had totally confessed their sins, and were totally ashamed and sorry for what had just happened. They even testified against the evil demon that beguiled them. The fully cooperated with this God and did not show the least bit of rebellion or desire to oppose God in any way.

So this story doesn't even hold water. The "punishment" doesn't fit the crime, and it most certainly doesn't fit the attitude of Adam and Eve as this story is written. They weren't rebelling against God at all. They were TOTALLY COOPERATING with God in this story! And evidently they were even ashamed of themselves. People who are not willing to repent feel no shame! Since Adam and Eve were ashamed of themselves that already shows that they were remorseful and sorry for what had happened.

They should have been forgiven. They did everything that is required to be forgiven. The confessed their mistakes, they told the absolute truth about what had happened, they turned in all the guilty parties. They did everything RIGHT. They cooperated with God's AUTHORITY completely without hesitation or rebellion.


Adam and Eve should have been given gold stars to paste on their foreheads for having been such cooperative angels.
'

They turned in the evil snake that had beguiled them and freely testified against him.

What more could they possible do?

They were clearly not being rebellious toward God at all, as these fables are written. They were confessing everything and cooperating with God FULLY. That does NOT constitute rebellion.

These stories have to be man made fables.

Snakes crawl on their bellies now because God put a curse on serpents?

Come on folks. This is like the Three Little Pigs, or some other nursery rhyme.

Conclusion:

These were fables that people made up to tell their children. Over time they realized that even some adults are gullible enough to believe them too, and thus they grew to become "religion".

That's a good point.

We were just taking in another thread about God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.

I wonder if that was a "divine" act?

~~~~~

On a more practical note, it's been my experience that people tend to associate "divinity" with things that they see as being really beautiful or awesome, and if it isn't so hot, then it probably wasn't divinely inspired.

And of course, nothing considered to be "bad" or evil could possibly have been divinely inspired. Unless, of course, God supposedly had a plan that humans simply can't understand. That often suggested as well.

~~~~~

I tend to agree with Jeanniebean when she basically associates "Godliness" or being "Divine" with LOVE, pure and simple.

In that case anything that is inspired by LOVE is divinely inspired.

Sounds like a pretty sound approach to me.

Owl buy it.

Sounds pretty cool. A church that makes worshiping into a party with lots of singing might be fun. And a preacher who uses humor in his sermons would be fun too. I think George Carlin would have made a good preacher too, except he would probably a bit too honest.

New Age Christianity really has no choice but to start making services fun and enjoyable events if it's going to survive. And doing away with the concept of hell for humans like Cowboy does makes it far more palatable too.

I wonder if anyone has ever taken a survey of how many denominations believe in hell for humans, and how many reject the concept. Also, how many churches within a specific denomination are actually in agreement on that point. I know that Bishop Carlton Pearson got in hot water for renouncing the concept of Hell within his denomination.

The Catholic Church firmly stands behind the concept of hell for humans, and they totally renounce the forms of protestantism that reject hell for humans as being afraid to commit to the scriptures (At least that's their stance). The Catholic Church often changes what it stands for too though, so who knows when they'll finally decide to give up on hell to make the religion more attractive.

Clearly religions are evolving along with everything else I guess.

By the way, I see they moved your bible study thread to the Christians forum. I guess they don't want that thread to become a huge argument over various interpretations of scriptures, especially offered by x-Christians like myself who might have alternative views, or comments to make about people being turned into pillars of salt by an angry God.

I wonder if anyone ever wrote a gospel tune about that.

That sounds like it could make an interesting Rock Song.

"Lots of Salt for Lot's Wife!"

Boy, I sure I could have some fun writing lyrics for that one.

Don't look back!
Don't look back!
Sodom and Gomorrah
is under attack!

Run for your life!
Cling to your wife!
It'll be your fault,
if she's turned into salt!

Sounds like a nursery rhyme.

Why would Jesus spend 3 days in hell for us if hell isn't intended for us as you have claimed?

You're not being anymore consistent in your fables than the Hebrews were in theirs. But then this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Clearly are confused about your own beliefs. Let me know when you get it all straightened out.

So now you're climbing out on a limb and making up your own definitions of what constitutes a sin.



If we go by your approach then anyone who does not marry at all would be committing a sin as well. Therefore you need to start telling single people that they are sinners and better get their act together and grab a spouse before it's too late!



Your absolute desperation to make this broken religion work at all cost is truly hilarious.

So you're basically renouncing Hell for humans in this religion. I'm quite sure that many Christians are not going to be in agreement with you on that one.

Also if that's the case then what was the point with the "Fall from Grace" and all that nonsense.

Why didn't this creator simply start out with this as his plot in the beginning? He simply creates humans, offers them a chance to win the prize of eternal life if they choose to obey his commands, and if they chose not to obey they forfeit the gift.

That would have been more consistent then.

Why bother punishing women with painful childbirth for Eve's decision to not obey this God. Shouldn't this God have simply allowed Eve to perish, as HER CHOICE, and allow everyone else to make their own choices after that.

Why punish all the women of humanity with painful childbirth simply because Eve wasn't interested in the gift of eternal life?

~~~~~~

You're trying to reduce this story into something that simply doesn't fit the BIG PICTURE.

~~~~~~

No, this God becomes angry and PUNISHES those who refuse to obey him Cowboy. He doesn't merely give them a choice of either eternal life or the right to politely decline the offer.

He'll punish you with painful childbirth if you refuse to OBEY him!

You can't avoid it Cowboy.

The religion is hopeless.

Either confess that this God is out to HURT people who refuse to obey him, or move on to another religion.

You're just personally living in denial of what the religion is actually all about is all.

~~~~~

And what about Jesus being the "sacrificial lamb" of God to PAY for the sins of man via his brutal crucifixion?

You're in denial of many of the MAJOR TENANTS of this religion is all.

Jesus could not have "paid" for man's sins via his "DEATH" because he didn't die spirituality. Only his body died, his SPIRIT obviously survived in this religion. So he could have have paid for man's sins though his "Death" (which according to you would have been EVERLASTING punishment).

~~~~~

Your explanations for this religion don't fly.

You're just in denial of the religion yourself is all.

By the way, where do you get this idea?

According to Matthew Jesus had the following to say which totally conflicts with what you are claiming above:


Matt.25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Jesus was certainly referring to PEOPLE here.

So evidently you are either in denial of what the scriptures have to say, or you simply aren't aware of what they have to say.

You are basically lying (or grossly mistaken) to preach to people that this religion does not have Jesus stating that PEOPLE will be sent away into everlasting punishment.

If you're going to PREACH this religion you better LEARN it FIRST.

~~~~~

Apparently you're just out to try to justify this religion at all cost.

Moreover, you clearly see the problem with sending PEOPLE into everlasting punishment, otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to deny that this religion makes this proclamation, even in Jesus' name.

You're doing everything in your power to "justify" an unjustifiable religion.