The worst sinner is the one who takes the right of passing Judgment away from God!

is the god from Christianity and Islam a god of love? If he is, why would anyone want to kill in his name? wouldn't understanding his word and disobeying it be the worse sin? when innocents are killed in the name of god, the god of peace and love, seems like a contradiction and a lie...

is the god from Christianity and Islam a god of love? If he is, why would anyone want to kill in his name? wouldn't understanding his word and disobeying it be the worse sin? when innocents are killed in the name of god, the god of peace and love, seems like a contradiction and a lie...

If you're speaking about the Biblical God, or the God of the Torah, or the God of the Quran (all the same God), then no one took this right away from God.

God gave that right to men on his own accord! He commanded men to judge others and stone sinners to death, and he also directed them to judge people to be heathens and to murder them as well.

So the Biblical God already gave away his own "rights" to be the only entity who can pass judgments. The Biblical God clearly gave that right to mortal men.

Of course, you need to understand that the whole thing is just a silly fable. There is no God that goes along with this fable anymore than there exists a Zeus.

Zeus and Yahweh are both fictitious Gods, right beside Thor, Odin, and all the rest.

The real Creator of this universe (if it exists at all) has probably never even attempted to contact mankind for the purpose of giving him any 'commandments' or anything like that. If the real Creator of this universe wanted us to KNOW something you can bet your sweet bippy we'd KNOW it!

These man-made myths can't have anything to do with any real Creator. If we have a conscious Creator that Creator does NOT want us to know about it.

On the other hand the atheists might have it right after all. Maybe the whole universe is just a cosmic fart, and all these somber religions are worshiping nothing but ionized gas.

Whatever the case may be, I'm personally confident that the Creator of this universe wouldn't be as egotistical as these religions make their god's out to be.

They all want THEIR version of their jealous egotistical Godhead to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

That can only be a reflection of man's ego. No God would be that screwed up. It wouldn't be a "god" if it was. It would just be another cosmic fart.

Actually Abra it even says in the bible only God has the right to judge. In the Quar-an it says all infidels are already judged unless they turn to Islam. The issue is to judge others in the name of God, not Judge them by the laws of man...

Actually Abra it even says in the bible only God has the right to judge.

All i got to say is i would suggest not judging anyone in any way.

Matthew 7:1-3
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This just serves to confirm what I continually point out. Jesus was not in agreement with the directives of the God of the Old Testament. His teachings did not agree with those teachings.

It makes far more sense to simply recognize that Jesus was actually attempting to convey the wisdom of Buddha to his Jewish brothers. He could not have been the "Only Begotten Son" of the biblical God. He didn't even agree with the directives and moral values of those fables.

All i got to say is i would suggest not judging anyone in any way.

Matthew 7:1-3
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matthew 5:17
-------------
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
================================================================

Of course the directives aren't going to agree, they are two totally different laws. The coming of a savior "Jesus Christ" was the end of the laws and prophecies of what we call the old testament. And Jesus gave us the new laws/prophecies.

You can't "change" to new laws without "destroying" the old laws.

Moreover, if this is supposed to be the 'word' of some "all-wise" God then why not just come out and say directly that Jesus came to change the laws?

Why would an all-wise God need to play these silly games that can only serve to make his very own "word" ambiguous?

Such a God could not blame anyone for dismissing this fable as being utterly absurd, because it most certainly is absurd.

Jesus would have been crucified on the cross solely because this utterly idiotic God directed the people to murder heathens, where a heathen is anyone who rejects the "Old Testament Laws".

In other words, you're asking me to believe that some all-wise supreme being commanded people to murder heathens, and then sent his "only begotten son" into that same crowd to basically become a heathen.

This Biblical God would not be justified in condemning anyone who took part in the crucifixion of Jesus, nor would he be justified in condemning anyone who refuses to accept the words of Jesus. Because this God command us not to listen to heathens!

Jesus was a heathen by the simplest definition.

You might argue, "Oh but Jesus wasn't a heathen because he really was God". But that would be a moot point. Even if Jesus really was sent by God he would have still been a heathen by the very meaning of the term. Jesus taught against the laws of the Old Testament and offered a new value systems to follow. That's blaspheme against teh teachings of the Old testament, even if it came from the Biblical God Himself!

To be perfectly just, this God would need to honor BOTH the believers and the non-believers, because BOTH people are attempting to honor this God.

I reject the whole shebang, because I can see how utterly paradoxical it truly is. This biblical God would have been sending mixed messages.

1. Don't believe the heathens! Stone them to death!

2. Believe Jesus because I sent him! And by the way, I let my followers crucify him in MY NAME anyway!

What?

No way. This God would have everyone so confused that he couldn't blame anyone for believing in Jesus, or not believing in Jesus, or even rejecting the whole religion as being utterly absurd.

For this God to truly be just, he would need to accept everyone with open arms no matter what they chose to believe. Because his messages are insanely contradicting and confusing.

He can't blame the ambiguity of his messages on anything other than his very own ineptitude.

If God wanted to change his laws he should have had Jesus say, "Yes, I've come to change the laws. There has been a change in the way that God wishes for mankind to behave." That would have been crystal clear and "wise".

But he clearly did not say that. He said just the opposite. He said that he did not come to destroy the laws.

Why would God feel it necessary to say such a thing if the opposite was the truth? Can God not speak the truth without ambiguity?

=======================================
You can't "change" to new laws without "destroying" the old laws.
=======================================
The laws weren't destroyed, they were fulfilled.
-----------------------------------------------------------

==========================================
For this God to truly be just, he would need to accept everyone with open arms no matter what they chose to believe. Because his messages are insanely contradicting and confusing.
===========================================
Here we go again with the contradictions and being confusing. There are ABSOLUTELY NO contradictions nor is it confusing. You people on this site have yet to show me a contradiction that is truely a contradiction. I've shown many times in the past that the what they called contradictions were actually not contradictions.

Laws do not become "fulfilled". Prophecy becomes "fulfilled".

Laws either stand, or they are changed. It makes no sense to talk about laws being "fulfilled". That's a totally meaningless and absurd notion right there.





That fact that you personally refuse to accept the myriad of contradictions and conflicts that have been pointed out is totally meaningless. That's merely your own personal stance.

The fact is that this religion is extremely confusing and contradicting. The proof is in the pudding!

The Jews themselves reject the idea that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God. They point out the FACT that all of the prophecies of the Old Testament were not fulfilled with the coming of Jesus. The Christians argue that they will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. But the Jews point out that there is really no mention of any "second coming".

So even the people who worship the God of the Old Testament are confused and in contradiction with each other

That's a FACT.

So for you to pretend that there is no ambiguities in the "version" that you chose to believe is utterly meaningless. The religion as a whole is clearly confused and divisive.

In fact, the Catholics were the original Christians and the Protestants protested against their views. So now we have the Protestants complaining that the Catholics have it all wrong.

Then the Protestants continue to protest against each other forming a myriad of disagreeing denominations. There's no way that you're going to convince me that the Amish believe the same as, say, a Southern Baptist. Sure they might both believe that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh, but they don't get very far beyond that.

Islam is also an off-shoot of this very same religious folklore. So to claim that it's not confusing is absurd. It's extremely confusing and very few people who want to worship this fundamental God can't agree on much of anything really.

In fact, It's come to my attention vividly that even members, and clergy of the same denominations of Christianity often disagree on many issues quite a bit.

So to even remotely claim that this religion isn't confusing is truly a farce. That statement doesn't even come close to matching the reality on the street.

It's an extremely confusing and vague religion that no two people can ever even seem to agree on in detail.

In fact, this is a major point that I continually bring up. If our creator is supposedly "all-wise" surely it could have communicated its wishes and desires better than this.

A very simple thing that comes my mind all the time is the obvious fact that Jesus himself could have just written down what he wanted to say in his own words. And if God can "protect" his word and keep it from becoming corrupt from the hands of men, then God could have preserved the "Word" of Jesus directly without any need for any confusing ambiguous hearsay authors.

The fact that this isn't what happened indicates to me that Jesus was not the son of any God. At least not in any special way intended to send a message to humans.

An "all-wise" God would not have permitted his "Word" to be contaminated by hearsay mortal authors. Men that even the Bible itself demands that we can't trust because "all men are sinners" and have fallen short of the glory of God.

As far as I'm concerned that's a contradiction right there.

It's a contradiction that an "All-Wise" God wouldn't have known any better than to allow his message to be written down as mere hearsay by mortal men decades after his Only Begotten Son had died.

There's nothing "All-Wise" about using such an approach to send such important messages to mankind, IMHO.

Therefore this so-called "message" cannot be from an "all-wise" God because it wasn't "wisely" delivered.

There's really no reason to cling to this old myth.

If you want to save Jesus, just recognize that he was a Buddhist. Or at least a Pantheistic Jew who was educated in the wisdom of Buddhism.

There's no need to toss the baby out with the bath water.

I recognize what Jesus was attempting to do and I admire his effort. Although I confess that if he really did overturn money tables in a church he was asking for trouble. He also would have been better off if he hadn't say around ranting on about how the Scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites. That's what did him in.

He should have practiced what he preached and just turned the other cheek and minded his own ministry. That's too bad.

However, to believe that some righteous God had sent Jesus to deliver a message totally orally without writing anything down is silly, IMHO. It's also absurd to believe that this God would allow his messenger to be crucified for blaspheme. That makes even less sense.

And finally, if Jesus was some sort of "Sacrificial Lamb" of God, that only confirms two things:

1. This God is appeased by blood sacrifices.

2. This God must have been pretty desperate.

Sacrificing your only begotten son to a morbid crucifixion can only be seen as an act of desperation.

I personally don't believe that our Creator would be either of these things. A Creator that is appeased by blood sacrifices is already sick, IMHO. And a desperate God, is,... well,.... a desperate God.

I don't believe that our Creator would be so desperate either.

There's nothing good about this fable really. I mean there may be some positive stories contained within it, and the moral teachings of Jesus were certainly positive enough because they were basically the wisdom of Buddhism.

But the whole idea that all of mankind has fallen from grace from our creator and the only way to get back into grace is for our creator to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole so he can forgive our sins?

That's just downright sick, IMHO.

If I wanted to have "Faith" in something I'd want to have "Faith" that this morbid story is indeed nothing more than an utterly absurd fable.

I certainly wouldn't want to place pure blind "Faith" in the idea that it might be true! Why would anyone want this story to be true?

It seems to me that God's grace would shine down upon anyone who would sincerely love for this story to be an absolute falsehood. There certainly can't be anything wrong with that. Anyone who actually wants this story to be true must already be feeling pretty desperate about life in general, I would think.

Paul (one of the Authors of the New Testament) wanted this story to be true. But Paul was indeed a desperate man. He had already fallen for the Old Testament story and saw Jesus was a "savior" from a dismal fate.

But once you recognize that the Old Testament is already as fictitious as the Greek Mythology of Zeus, then you quickly realize that there is nothing to be "saved" from.

Being 'saved' by Jesus only has meaning in the context of having already believed that you've been condemned by the God of the Old Testament. I don't believe the latter, so I see no value in the former. A God supposedly offering to save me from his own wrath via a bloody gory "sacrificial lamb". This is like a horror film.

And I'm supposed to believe this on "Faith"?

No thank you.

There are far wiser spiritual philosophies to be had.

If our Creator truly is "all-wise" then it makes sense to me that we should seek out the wisest of all spiritual philosophies and place our faith in that. These convoluted arguing finger-pointing Abrahamic religions are far from "wise", IMHO.

I mean, clearly this is my perspective, but that's what I'm here to share, right?