Saved from what?

A vengeful bully God who will harm you if you don't do as he says?

You'd have to believe in a vengeful bully God that you need to be "saved" from before you could even talk about any need to be "saved".

Why would I want to believe in a vengeful bully God that I need to be "saved" from in the first place?

Just don't bother believing in a bully God in the first place and you won't have any need to be "saved" from its wrath.

Problem solved.

When it comes to faith-based spirituality "right and wrong" are a personal matter.

What is "right" for you is right for you.

What is "right" for someone else is right for them.

It's a fool's belief when a person starts thinking that what's "right" for them is right for everyone.

That when all HELL breaks loose.

Yep, that's my observation too.

I mean, I disagree with the actual Bible anyway. But still, even I can see where Cowboy's interpretations are often quite off in left field.

Of course, then again, like Jeanniebean says, that's really true of just about everyone.

It really is true that modern day Christianity has indeed become an individual hobby. It won't be long before it will be like solitary witchcraft.

Catholicism with their Pope actually represents the last "True Christianity". Protestantism was never anything more than "Designer Christianity" from the get-go, or as some people call it, "Salad Bar Christianity" - take what you like and reject the rest.

It doesn't do any good to show him his errors anyway. He'll just argue that he's not wrong.

Well, I don't mean to insult you either, but clearly you aren't comprehending what I'm saying.

Fire can burn you if you mishandle it. And that would indeed be YOUR FAULT for having played with fire. And that would be especially true if you were warned ahead of time that it was dangerous.

~~~~~

However, God is NOT DANGEROUS (supposedly)

You can't "burn yourself" by playing with God.

If God want to HURT you he's going to have to do it INTENTIONALLY.

If he casts you into a fiery furnace and gnashes your teeth he could have only done this with the INTENT to do you harm.

Fire does not INTENTIONALLY hurt you. It just is what it is. If you burn yourself playing with fire, you did that to yourself.

If a God INTENTIONALLY casts you into a fiery furnace and gnashes your teeth, he did that TO YOU, ON PURPOSE and FULLY AWARE of what he was doing.

So such a God would be a mean cruel bully. And to try to pretend that the person merely 'burned' themselves because they didn't listen simply doesn't compare at all.

The Biblical God would need to be an INTENTIONAL BULLY.

He's a sentient being who has CONTROL over his own actions.

He's not just a mindless flame.

So your comparison with a nasty BULLY God with playing with fire doesn't even come close to addressing this issue.

I hope that you can understand my point by now. I can hardly spell it out any plainer than this.

You can't put the "blame" for a nasty cruel God onto the person that he is being cruel to. That's nonsense.

And this is especially true in the case of mere "non-belief".

That would just be a truly nasty bully of a God.

Your analogy with playing with fire doesn't fit at all. FIRE is not a sentient being. GOD is!

So if God hurts you, he did it on PURPOSE. Knowingly and intentionally.

I will agree with you on that point MorningSong.

Did you read MorningSong's post?

No nonbelievers in foxholes, facing death, or drowning?

Why would they suddenly become "believers" then if they have no fear of death?

If you going to become hostile and start insulting people it's time to take a break from the computer.

No one here is showing any arrogance.

The points you made did not address the issues. Warning someone about playing with fire, and a God who is purposefully cruel and mean to people have nothing to do with each other.

A cruel mean God is a cruel mean God. The fact that he warns people that he's cruel and mean before acting on these horrible traits doesn't change the fact that he has these bad traits.

A cruel mean "god" would be a demon, IMHO.

All you have done is confirm that the biblical God is indeed depicted as having the demonic traits of being cruel and mean.

I thought we were talking about religion?

I'm personally not an atheist. I could never believe in atheism (i.e. a non-spiritual existence). I honestly don't understand how anyone can.

Just the same I've met quite a few atheists who would indeed continue to be atheists right up to their death without a problem. It's simply not important for them to believe in an afterlife, and the thought of ceasing to exist simply doesn't scare them.

The mere fact that you feel that facing death would be a major trauma explains to me precisely why a belief in spirituality is so important to you.

I don't believe in spirituality because I fear death. I just can't imagine a non-spiritual existence. It's partly an intellectual thing, and partly an intuitive thing.

But it most certainly doesn't have anything to do with a fear of death.

There is no door on my heart MorningSong. God flows through me freely like the wind. She has no need to knock.

Exactly. As that kind of abstract metaphor the overall ideal can work.

But let's face it, in the Christian doctrine there is a clear and blatant attempt to associate this directly with a belief and acknowledgment that "Jesus" was the only begotten son of God.

The Christian doctrine is designed specifically to gain a "copyright" on God through Jesus as "The Christ".

This is why, IMHO, this religion was clearly the work of mortal men who were out to create a religion that has absolute authority.

And I have to hand it to them, they certainly succeeded in their goal.

Hi MorningSong.

I've heard this excuse more times than I can possible remember.

I don't buy it. To not believe in a God is not the same as "rejecting a God". On the contrary it would be impossible to reject a God that you don't even believe in. You'd first need to believe in a God before you could even reject that God.

So not believing does not equate to 'rejecting God'.

That very propaganda right there is false propaganda that was created by the church itself.

If you refuse to believe in our religion God will hate you!

That's a psychological brainwashing tactic to get people to fear that if they fail to believe in the religion they will be condemned by some horrible God.

I'm sorry that you have chosen to take such a negative view Cowboy.

There is no "hatred" being spread by me. I'm addressing serious issues concerning the writings of an ancient culture that accuses all of humanity of having "Turned from God" and in dire need of being "saved" by a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices.

Why should you view that as being 'hateful'?

If you feel negative emotions associated with my views, I would ask that you quit reading them. Why read the views of others if they upset you? Just ignore them.



Your analogy here doesn't fit.

Telling someone not to play with fire because they might get burned in no way compares with a God who would actually CAST people into a fiery furnace and gnash their teeth.

You're analogy doesn't even come close to acknowledging the issue.





I was addressing what the Bible actually says Cowboy. Not your make-believe version of the religion.


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


It clearly states that he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.

This is written in the Bible, therefore it must be "God's Word" right?

So why should I take YOUR word for why this God will condemn someone when the actual Bible tells me that God will condemn those who merely do not believe in the name of the only begotten son of God.

You're trying to re-write the religion to suit your own agenda.

I speak to the issues of the actual doctrine. I'm not interested in your hypothetical Cowboyainity.

I'm in total agreement with every word you wrote here.

Very well said.

Take it up with the Pope Cowboy, and with other fundamental Christians who vehemently support the concept of hell for human souls.

I really don't care about your views on hell. My point is that no two people can agree on these kinds of things. Therefore to say that the Bible is "easy to understand" or "crystal clear" has no merit.

All you're doing is arguing for YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS on what you think about hell.

Who cares?

I sure as hell don't.

According to Matthew Jesus said that they will be case into a furnace of fire and there will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

So the Bible is threatening severe discomfort and torment. Will it last for all of eternity? Well, the Gospels also have Jesus stating that this will be 'everlasting punishment'. He also said that the fire will be unquenchable.

So I can certainly see how the Catholic Church and many others would easily conclude that this burning state of wailing and gnashing of teeth in an unquenchable fire would be "everlasting punishment".

You'll have to explain your objections to the Pope is all I know to tell you.

Personally I'm not impressed by a God who would even stoop so low as to be so cruel to people even for a brief period of time.

And for what? For merely not believing that Jesus was the son of God?

No way do I accept that notion as being "righteous".

So your point about hell is totally moot.

It doesn't matter whether it's eternal, or merely for a finite time, it's still disgusting, IMHO.

I don't believe that any all-righteous God would be involved in such horrible behavior.

What GOOD would it do God to be torturing people anyway? Would God get a THRILL out of that or what?

What would be the PURPOSE of torturing people that God doesn't even want around?

~~~~~~

Remember, we're talking about trying to understand these biblical stories, scenarios, and claims about how God will act toward people.

Well, I cannot possibly understand what GOOD it would do to torture anyone even if only briefly. What would be the point to it? That would just be downright nasty.

Surely an all-powerful God who can do anything could just wave his magic wand and make the people disappear that he isn't interested in. No need to be casting them into furnaces and gnashing their teeth.

What would be the POINT to that?

That's what I don't understand.

So you understand what GOOD there is in being mean and cruel to people that you are just going to kill anyway?

In terms of mere moral values, and in terms of a totally abstract concept of "god" in general I would tend to agree with you.

Sure, I too can view the Bible in that way. And in fact, I do to some extent.

But you know as well as I do that that view is NOT the view of "Christianity" in general. They would totally reject our views.

They demand that Jesus is the only way to God. Jesus is the Lord and Savior of the world. He died to pay for your sins. There is no other way to get to God but through the acceptance of Jesus as your "Savior". Etc., etc., etc.

The way that you are viewing the Bible is as "Just another spiritual view of God", not really all that much different from Taoism, Buddhism, etc. And that Jesus is merely a metaphorical example of the kind of moral values we should strive to be like.

In that metaphorical sense I'm about as "Christian" as a person can possibly be because I am extremely "Christ-like". I even call the Pharisees hypocrites.

If to be "Christ-like" was the only requirement then I'd be a shining example of what "Christians" should all strive to be like.

I have no problem with any of the moral values that are associated with the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary, he basically described my own personal moral values.

I've said it many times before, it would be pretty darn hard to "follow" the teachings of someone who just got done teaching precisely the character traits and moral values that I already hold.

How can you "follow" someone who is asking you to do precisely what you are already doing?

The things I argue with concerning the RELIGION of Christianity typically don't have anything at all to do with the moral teachings of Jesus.

And I also agree with you that to follow the teachings of Taoism, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha, etc, would be precisely the same thing as following the teachings of Jesus. They all taught basically the very same things in terms of moral values.

In fact, that's a point that I make quite often. Jesus didn't teach anything new or unique. He taught the very same things that had been taught for centuries before he ever existed.

This is why I'm convinced that Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist who was trying to teach his Hebrew brothers better moral values than they had been taught by the teachings of the Torah.

~~~~

However, even when it comes down to that, I'm only in agreement with you in terms of the moral standards that Jesus taught. I would still argue that the teachings of the Torah or Old Testament are far more closely aligned with the teachings of Greek Mythologies.

So concerning the Old Testament, I would say that it has about the same spiritual value as Greek Mythology. And you can take that however you like. I don't totally dismiss the value of Greek Mythology myself. There are moral and spiritual values in many fictitious stories. All I'm saying is that I don't see where the Hebrew Torah had anything better to offer than Greek Mythology. They were both most likely superstitious rumors made up by men. Maybe some of those stories were associated with divine inspiration and interventions - in BOTH CASES: Greek mythology and Hebrew mythology. I don't don't totally dismiss that. But I'm certainly not going to take either mythology to be the inerrant infallible verbatim commandments and directives of any "real" God.

If there is any spiritual truth to any of those stories it's no doubt that they were also contaminated with the views and opinions of the mortal authors who wrote them, retold them, transcribed them, and so on.

So I see no reason to take anything too seriously in terms of details.

I'll never believe in, or support a male-chauvinistic God, for example.

I also have extreme problems with any God who would condemn same-gender love. I can't imagine a God who would be so physically prejudiced against LOVE.

As metaphors that aren't taken too seriously. Sure, let the Bible be 'spiritual' in that way.

But as a verbatim manual of precisely what some male-chauvinistic God is demanding that we be like lest we be severely punished. I don't think so.

There you go Slow!

People aren't even in agreement with the BASIC story.

Cowboy is one of those who rejects the concept of hell or eternal damnation.

A lot of people (The Catholic Pope included) are quite adamant that the Bible clearly refers to a hell where people will be tortured endlessly.

So even the Christians can't get this story straight between themselves. Much less being in agreement with the Jews or Muslims.

So for a story that is supposed to be "Easy to Understand" why is it that everyone has such drastically different ideas of what the story is supposed to be about?

These claims that the Bible is "Easy to Understand" simply doesn't hold water because everyone apparently has a different understanding of what it's supposedly saying.

If anything is CRYSTAL CLEAR, it's that nobody understands these stories.

Nobody.

Everyone makes up their own little versions of it. And quite sadly too many of those people become quite arrogant about attempting to proclaim that their understanding is "correct" whilst everyone else is in the dark.



Today we now have a brand new religion that we should call "The Hell-less Christians".

Those who totally reject the concept of Hell for human souls.

Make-up your own version of the religion and proclaim that your version is the "gospel truth".

That's where Christianity stands today.

I agree. There's no question about it, you can tell from the context that it means precisely that. It's referring to a God who will not tolerate other gods being placed before him. That's precisely what Jealousy means. He won't stand for anyone being given more attention than him.

I personally don't believe that this idea came from any God. I believe that this is just a man-made religion.

They should have been more honest and wrote: "Thou shalt not have any other religions before ours because ours is a jealous religion and we won't tolerate other religions."

That's what they really meant.


I think I understand the bible very well.

I have never met anyone in my entire life who has convinced me that they understand the Bible.

~~~~~

I mean, sure, if you're going to over-simply to the point where you're just speaking to the basic story:

1. There exists a God.
2. Humans are misbehaving.
3. You are a human.
4. You have misbehaved.
5. You need to turn to God and ask for forgiveness.
6. If you do, you will be loved and given a great gift of everlasting life.
7. If you refuse, you will be punished for eternity.

~~~~~

A person would need to be brain dead to not understand that basic story. Even a Child can understand this, in fact they are basically given the very same story in Santa Claus.

1. There exists a Santa Claus.
2. Children often misbehave.
3. You are a child.
4. Don't misbehave.
5. If you are good Santa will bring you nice gifts.
6. If you are bad Santa will bring you a lump of coal.
(actually at todays' prices that might not be too bad)

~~~~~

But seriously Slowhand, the crux of the story is extremely simple to understand, and I'm sure that everyone understands that basic ideal. But that doesn't even come remotely close to understanding the bible. That is an extreme over-simplification of this religion.

~~~~~

To truly claim to understand the Bible a person would need to fully understand how this supposed God could condemn people for merely not believing in him. Because, after all, this is part and parcel of this religion if we are going to hold these scriptures to what they actually say verbatim.


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


Do you claim to understand how a supposedly just and righteous God could condemn people for merely not believing in him?

I certainly can't!

This would be like telling a child that if they don't believe in Santa Claus he will be mean to them and hurt them.

What kind of a Santa Claus would that be?

~~~~~

When you say that the bible is easy to understand if a person merely tries a little bit, you are either totally ignorant of many of these kinds of issues, or you don't recognize their significance.

Or perhaps you're just sweeping them under the carpet as being irrelevant in some way?

But for many people there are tons of these kinds of issues in the Bible that are not at all "easy to understand" or accept.

~~~~~

Moreover, neither the Jews nor the Muslims accept that Jesus was the promised messiah. And they would say to you that this is easy to understand because the messiah that was promised by God in the name of King David was supposed to be handed the throne of King David and become the King of the Jews.

Clearly that never happened for Jesus. Therefore it's extremely easy to understand why Jesus could not have been the promised messiah associated with King David.

So you've got that whole issue to deal with right there.

"easy to understand"?

If that were the case then why is the Abrahamic religion so utterly divided and fragmented between the Christians who believe that Jesus was "The Christ", and the Jews and Muslims who don't see where that could be the case?

This claim that the Biblical stories are "Easy to Understand" simply can't be supported in terms of actual cultures and their "understands" of this basic religion.

~~~~~

Even go over to the Christian side of things and look at how the Catholics and Protestants are divided in their "understandings" of the bible.

The Catholics are quite adamant about there being a "Hell" for humans who do not satisfy the requirements of this God. However, many Protestants reject the notion of "Hell" for humans. Of course even the Protestants are in disagreement on that one among themselves. But a "hell-less" Christianity is more attractive and the "hell-less" Protestants are on the rise.

~~~~~


But seriously, when you say that the bible is "easy to understand" what exactly are you talking about? The basic Santa Claus idea?

Yes, I think everything understand that idea.

But that hardly constitutes "understanding" the Bible.

~~~~~

There are a LOT of issues associated with the Bible that I don't understand.

Like I mentioned above, "A God who condemns people for merely not believing in him"?

That makes no sense to me, and I cannot understand that in terms of a supposedly righteous God. Sounds more to me like a ploy invented by men to try to mentally coerce people into buying into their religion. (If you don't believe in our writings God will condemn you and we wash our hands of the whole affair).

I simply don't buy it. Sounds like a man-made brainwashing scheme to me. Certainly not something I would expect from a truly righteous God.

~~~~~

And there are many other issues that I don't "understand" either.

Blood sacrifices can "pay" for sins?

And that just gets extremely complex when it comes to Jesus being the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to pay for the sins of men.

In fact, in my mind, that cannot even be made to be understandable in terms of a truly righteous and all-wise God.

I just personally can't see anything either righteous, or all-wise about such a solution to problems.

That's just not my idea of a wise solution to problems. Especially if this supposedly all-wise all-powerful God had other options available. And he would have had to lest he be less than all-powerful and all-wise.

So I can't even imagine understanding how that could ever make any sense.

~~~~~

So no Slow, I cannot even imagine understanding the biblical story as an actual account of some supposedly all-wise all-righteous God.

For me, it's far easier to understand that the whole thing is nothing more than superstitious man-made rumors.

Now THAT, I can understand!

Well, if they stop there, then they are indeed respecting Protestantism. And many Protestants do stop there. I know my family did.

However, those who try to hold out their personal interpretations as the interpretations that should be "clear" to everyone else, are the one's who are in violation of the ideals of Protestantism.

In a very real sense I have taken taken Protestantism to its ultimate epitome by interpreting the Bible to be false rumors.

I don't claim to be a "Protestant" though.

But I guess it could be said that I'm a Protest-ant. I too protest against other people's interpretations being pushed onto me.

Is that the same as being a Protestant?