The Actions Of Two People

[Dianna]

I've been trying to come here more often and I enjoy reading the different posts and points of view. As I've said before, I truly value being able to question something that seems illogical (especially when I realize I'm not the only one) in order to get feedback and input from people from all walks, without being branded as threatening or insightful.

As I was reading Dan's post about who controls the weather, and one of Fawzo's responses, it mirrored something I'd written down in a super-rough draft just days ago while reading something in preparation for a funeral.

I could have responded to Fawzo on Dan's thread, but out of respect, I really don't want to take things off-topic, so as a refresher:

Fawzo

Isn't that the whole basis of Christianity though. God made the whole world suffer for the actions of two individuals. All the suffering of every generation past, present and future because of the actions of two people and somehow people think that this Christian God is a just God. It friggin amazes me.

It is like I stole a cookie fom Dan and he justly rewards me by making all my future generations suffer terribly because of my theft and people applaud him for his justness. FRIGGIN AMAZING!!

Pete, on 06 Jun 2013 - 6:00 PM, said:

I guess it depends on the Christianity. I have always said that some are more verbal than others but it does not mean that they are the only ones.

http://wiki.answers....anity_are_there

and even this list is not all inclusive.

Fawzo

I think they all include the fall of man starting with Adam and Eve though and the curse that was inflicted upon those naive beings by their loving God.

This was something I wrote just days ago, in response to what I'd wanted to say to some Christians who had ticked me off, but I knew it'd turn into an argument, and as long as what they believe doesn't interfere with what I do, I stay out of other people's beliefs. Although I make a living doing public speaking and teaching Rational Hedonism, this isn't even well thought out and sloppily written. So, I'm apologizing in advance, it was really just the way my mind was trying to work out the things they had said and never was meant to be seen unless it had been worked out better.

Anyway, after my super long intro, this was what I wrote before the topic was raised here and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has trouble with it.

I’m having trouble with sin.

Even the Bible says, after god created the world and all that was in it, it was good. When he finished creating man, he said it was very good. He was happy with it. Even with man and woman.

So just because he said, all this I give you, but whatever you do, don’t eat from that pomegranate tree. And the bottom line was, they did. Not sure if the whole sin was because they’d used their free, independent nature he’d given them to do something he said not to, or that they’d eaten to have their eyes opened and become like him. So he curses them – not only just them, that did the “bad thing”, not just their children and grandchildren.

Everybody.

Forever.

Why didn’t he just squash the two of them like bugs right then and start over?

There is also the story that Adam had another woman before Eve, and she hadn’t worked out, so if that was true, he didn’t have trouble reworking things. Squash them like bus and start over.

Why punish their descendants thousands of years later?

It’s not like it’s a punishment anymore – we’re too far removed, and many don’t even connect with an Adam and Eve story anyway.

And then, he “floods the earth” and kills everyone (supposedly), including all of the animals that weren’t on his ship – which was a good 99.99% of them – because the people had gotten so bad, so wicked that … he kills them.

Now why didn’t he do that when they first screwed up? Why wait until so many years later when kids’ kids have great grandkids? If you know the future, know Adam and Eve messed it up, that you were going to have to destroy the world with a flood, and now, kill thousands and more instead of just two?

All of that, based on the “sin” of two people. People who’d just been popped into existence, and easy to unpop. Just next time when you put Adam to sleep, instead of removing a rib, keep him asleep. It wouldn’t have had to be painful.

So if there hadn’t been that sin, if there WAS that sin, there’d be no need for a Savior, a Redeemer from sins and the never-ending punishment no one even remembers from what. What if Jesus had come with all his wisdom and heavenly understanding and kindness, and not had the expectation of a Messiah, had not become the whole sun/son which all the religions that followed orbited, had not been the reason for conquering in his name and the name of his church, had not seen thousands martyred or slaughtered in holy wars, pogroms, holocausts, Inquisitions because of his name.

What if he’d just been a nice guy like Buddha or Baha’i, Gandhi or the Dalai Lama?

Think of all the dead who’d never been killed, their descendants who lived.

The Peace.

[cuchulain]

if god knows everything, then he knew way back before he said let there be light that I would be a sinner for the few short years he had me here, and thus end up in hell for all eternity to suffer forever. Him being all powerful, why wouldn't he create it so that I wouldn't end up in hell? I have heard the freewill argument, but inevitably am led back to: he is all powerful and all knowing, so he should be able to figure out a way for it to work like i say and not create a bunch of people that he supposedly loves, that he knows will be sinners and end up in hell, and he knows he will torture for all eternity.

a lot of people liken him to a good father. If I did that to my kids, what do you think they would say?

[BrDevon]

And now for the opposing argument:

Forget Adam, forget Eve, forget their neighbors, Sally and Steve.

Forget the critters forget the ark

Forget the ones that fed the sharks.

Forget the others and their sins,

because I am a sinner within.

So, let's talk about me.

I'm a sinner. There. I said it. Not just a took a chomp off the fruit sinner, but sins too many to count. But I was given a choice. I can either believe in an Almighty God, who sent his son who was the only one to walk this earth sinless, and who went to his death taking on the sin of not only those who were, but those to come, and died in exchange for me, for any other sinner (for the record that would be all person kind).

Yeah, it may be a bit warped, considering God could have done the Jeannie move, crossed His arms and blinked and made us all perfect. But He didn't. Why? Don't know, and really am not too bothered by it. So I was built from a flawed prototype. He knew I was going to give in to sin. Yup. I wish I had those odds at the casino. 100 per cent guarantee my files would be as corrupted as every other creation who had his or her wetware programmed.

But here's my Control-Alt-Delete: I choose to accept that there is only one way to deal with this corrupt file, and He is the antivirus. I can give myself over to Him, accept His son as my savior, believe that He took the punishment I deserved and suffered that I might know joy.

From the outside looking in, it's a complete mind **. I get that. But for me (and I am only going to worry about me for this argument), it's the best deal - the only deal - I'm going to get. Take it or leave it, and maybe if I'm lucky God will tell me why He planned it out that way.

I accept He did not make me a mindless minion who was perfect and got to play with his earth and creation. He gave me challenges. He gave me a LOT of challenges, and all He asked in return is "trust me, accept my son, and let me worry about why." I can do that. I CHOOSE to do that. And that's the thing. It has to be a choice.

I have lived my life saying that this works for me, and I will allow others to choose for themselves. Unlike many brands of Christianity, I do not - possibly to the point of a fault - try to get others to join me. I have been quoted, even on this forum, as saying if Christianity is so dang wonderful, then my own example should be enough to make others want to follow. I do not convert anyone. I would prefer anyone to make up their own mind. I promise you being Christian is not an easy path, and sometimes one just has to accept that nasty things happen to people who don't deserve it - at least in my own thinking. But I also accept that there are reasons for things I will never understand, and I can choose to trust that there is a God who loves me and even loved that person that died in whichever fill in the blank tragedy will happen today. Why do some people have to suffer and die painfully? Why did I have cancer so many times? Why am I partially (mostly?) deaf? Them's the cards that I was dealt.

It's hard for me to put into words why I would choose to follow God, seemingly despite His creating the world the way it is (and yeah, I KNOW he knew it was going to happen - He is God, and all knowing). I'm okay with that. It sounds almost delusional to those looking from outside my path, and I can accept that just fine. All I can say is I did make the choice, it makes me happy, and each person with a sane mind has to make a choice for him or herself. I am not here to convince you. I won't try to sell you. I even wish you the path you are called to take and wish you great joy in all things in your life and for those who believe there is a beyond, I wish you joy there, too. I won't call you crazy whatever path you choose, all I ask is that you do not intentionally harm others in your path. Please afford me the courtesy of allowing me to enjoy the path to which I am called. I promise you I will hurt none deliberately. I'll even try to bring joy to a few along the way.

[Pete]

I will say that it amazes me that the God described in the bible is considered as just or that the bible is considered as God's actual words.

That said most of the acts described and the people killed were not killed through humble believers like Brother Devon but through religious organisations of power seeking greater influence. I personally think God is for me a source of love and a hope I cling too for all, whether or not others think that is foolish. I look at sin as the errors of being human rather than something that separates us from God. As few would judge their child to eternal punishment for errors I do not believe God does either. I may not believe in the Pauline school of thought and cannot see how the cruel death of someone acts as a sacrifice for my errors or that is somehow a just thing to do. However, to hope for better things to come and a better life than this one for everyone and a belief that God is loving and guiding and that eternal life exists is not for me something negative. Others can say I am foolish and really I do not care. That hope has carried me through some tough times in my life and helped me cope with some of the horrors I have witnessed in the world.

I know there is a gulf of difference between what is believed in the Pauline school of thought and mine but I am not of the mind to wipe it out of existence. It is organised religion that I have issue with. The idea that they know best and that there is a great evil awaiting everyone who does not do as they say is for me an issue and not something that I believe is just or humane. I have friends from across the spectrum of beliefs and some of the love they have for people I find inspirational and the idea that God would torture them on the basis of a belief is not something I can entertain in my mind or see as just. I just want to live and let live. The trouble is that is not something that is presented by organised religion and its influence on politics and other beliefs. On the issue of Gay marriage, I do not care that some feel it's a "no no" but why should they have influence over what I believe in on areas of faith and prevent me. Why should some schools be allowed to teach one view of religion only. I went to a faith school (CofE) but today I would never go back to them and I have awoken to the contribution many faiths and non faiths have made for the good of humanity. Do I somehow say to myself that I am somewhat better because of a belief than them and that God (as in the focus of my faith) is therefore right to condemn all who do not believe to hell as I do or do I say imperfect as I am as a human being (warts and all) that there is hope for all and really believe God to be loving and just. Do I say that eternal damnation is just or do I say that love always finds a way in the end for all. I believe in hope, faith and love and eternal damnation does not figure in that for me. The idea of my loving friends burning in a hell for eternity would not adhere me to God and it is a real put off for me, but despite what organised religion says I do not believe in my heart that this is true about God.

I am foolish, I am human, I make mistakes and do things wrong sometimes but I see God as a hope to be reach for and not an ogre. I do not want to go on a mission to convert the world and I do not want to condemn the world and all in it either. I just have a hope, foolish that maybe in the eyes of others and believe love is a spirit and worthy of aspiring towards if not in this life but the next. Others can make up their mind on how they see things but there is how I see it.

[Dianna]

Thank you very much for your responses, cuchulain, BrDevon and Pete!

I have a tremendous amount of respect for both you, BrDevon and Pete, and if there was a sense I was trying to attack beliefs on a personal level, I assure you, it wasn’t intentional.

Maybe it’s just my own mind trying to wrap around huge concepts, and as I read what I wrote over again, I don’t even know if it’s about God, maybe more about what mankind has done with the understanding of God.

No one knows what really happened “in the beginning”. The people who passed down oral history and wrote it down later weren’t there. Every culture, every religion has its own belief of “in the beginning” including those who believe humans were “planted” here by extraterrestrials and our whole concept of gods came from those beings we couldn’t understand. I can deal with all of those theories, to me it’s man trying to explain answers to things we can’t know.

I think what I was wrestling with was the concept of what was called sin.

To be given all paradise and a rational mind, free will, and then be punished (not just you or your grandkids) but everyone, everywhere. Forever. This was thousands of years before the Ten Commandments were even given.

I believe man of every race and culture has moral laws, things we all know to be right and inherently wrong, with some cultural differences. We screw up. We learn and adapt. Hopefully we learn from mistakes.

If every religion believed in eternal damnation and hellfire, I might consider it, but to me, Christianity is just “a way”, just as Islam (which didn’t even exist until way after Christianity) is “a way”. I’m using those two religions as examples only because they are the only two I know of that marched forward in a militaristic manor in “holy wars” and killed thousands who didn’t believe as they did.

I can't help but follow the trail of thought that, this concept of original sin whose only resolution was believed in and eventually provided by the death of Jesus, in whose Name was used so that countries and indigenous peoples and their riches could be run over with the idea of manifest destiny of the church and god’s kingdom on earth by greedy profiteering men who tried to sell the idea they were doing those people good, cleansing their souls even if it meant torturing them.

When I look at all the great thinkers and inventors we do know of, it boggles my mind and I hate to imagine all the other potentially great people and minds (ideas/art/inventions) destroyed before they could make their mark, by power/riches/property hungry warriors “in Jesus’ name” This wasn't just a one-time thing, this was on continental scale levels - Africa, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East ... all of this, because of the actions of two individuals.

Again, I apologize if I’ve offended. It’s not meant to be a personal attack, just my attempt to understand better.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Dianna

[cuchulain]

yeah, I probably came off as attacking now that i re-read that, and I apologize as well. I was intending to simply point out why I didn't personally believe in christianity, and I kind of overstepped it. Sorry. A person should never attack someone else for believing something that doesn't hurt anybody, in my opinion, and I can completely respect the arguments provided.

[Pete]

That said, I think Dianna makes a good point in that when I look at the history I am sure Jesus never envisaged the many things said to be done in his name. Burning heretics, torturing people of other viewpoints and religions, Crusading off to mass slaughter not only Muslims but also the Cathars throughout Europe, Setting up the Spanish inquisition, Killing Witches and Pagans, repressing people because of their sexuality, justifying the enslavement of Africans etc etc

I am not attacking the faith as a whole but I feel I have to recognize the way things have occurred and it fills me with horror and sadness. I really do not think Jesus ever planned it that way even if these things are being said to have been done in his name during those times.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Pete

[Dan56]

I’m having trouble with sin.

Even the Bible says, after god created the world and all that was in it, it was good. When he finished creating man, he said it was very good. He was happy with it. Even with man and woman.

So just because he said, all this I give you, but whatever you do, don’t eat from that pomegranate tree. And the bottom line was, they did. Not sure if the whole sin was because they’d used their free, independent nature he’d given them to do something he said not to, or that they’d eaten to have their eyes opened and become like him. So he curses them – not only just them, that did the “bad thing”, not just their children and grandchildren.

Everybody.

Forever.

Why didn’t he just squash the two of them like bugs right then and start over?

So if there hadn’t been that sin, if there WAS that sin, there’d be no need for a Savior, a Redeemer from sins and the never-ending punishment no one even remembers from what.

We are all condemned to die in the flesh because we have all sinned, we aren't punished for Adam and Eve's sin, but our own. "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Do you think that If God 'squashed' A&E and started over, that the next 2 people would have remained sinless? The third person we read of was Cain and he committed murder! The people in Noah's day were not killed because of A&E, but because of their own sin; "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). The bible makes it clear that we are each judged by our own works and not the deeds of those who came before us; "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). You are correct, if there had been no sin then or now, there would be no need for a Savior, but clearly, such is not the case. JMO

Edited June 7, 2013 by Dan56

[Dianna]

Thank you Dan, for your response!

If I was going to believe one story over another, it'd have to be the one I learned when I was a child:

In classical Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman on Earth. Zeus ordered Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, to create her, so he did—using water and earth. The gods endowed her with many gifts: Athena clothed her, Aphrodite gave her beauty, and Hermes gave her speech.

When Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Epimetheus, Prometheus' brother. With her, Pandora was given a beautiful container – with instructions not to open it under any circumstance. Impelled by her curiosity (given to her by the gods), Pandora opened it, and all evil contained therein escaped and spread over the earth. Pandora had unleashed all the evils now known to man. No longer could man loll about all day, but he would have to work and would succumb to illnesses. She hastened to close the container, but the whole contents had escaped, except for one thing that lay at the bottom – the Spirit of Hope named Elpis. Pandora, deeply saddened by what she had done, feared she would have to face Zeus' wrath, since she had failed her duty; however, Zeus did not punish Pandora, because he knew this would happen.

Wikipedia and About.com

If you notice, the story above has a few things in common with the Bible's account. The first woman created, was told whatever you do, don't open this! And as a result of it, bad things entered the world. The main difference was the message of Hope, and not being punished with death, because Zeus had created her with curiosity.

What chair does the cat or dog try to jump on every time you aren’t around? The only one in the house he’s not allowed. Tell a bunch of kids, don’t go into that creepy house down the street – they’ll be snooping around in no time.

Do you think that If God 'squashed' A&E and started over, that the next 2 people would have remained sinless

If god created man with free will, intelligence and curiosity, then you might expect your creation to do its own thing. I may have trouble with the "sin" aspect, but I do understand moral laws, so if god had said, you can have everything but don't steal fruit from MY tree, that would have involved personal theft and yes, a crime. And Cain murdering Abel, I also understand as breaking a moral law. Crimes yes, worthy of death? O.K. But only for the one who committed the crime, as you said, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son".

Again, thank you for taking the time it took to pull up these quotes and answer.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Dianna

[Dianna]

Burning heretics, torturing people of other viewpoints and religions, Crusading off to mass slaughter not only Muslims but also the Cathars throughout Europe, Setting up the Spanish inquisition, Killing Witches and Pagans, repressing people because of their sexuality, justifying the enslavement of Africans etc etc

I am not attacking the faith as a whole but I feel I have to recognize the way things have occurred and it fills me with horror and sadness.

Rational Hedonists observe a Day of Mourning on the last Saturday of July in memory of all those gifted physicians, creators, artists and free-thinkers destroyed in the name of god. Apparently the tradition started in the Dark Ages, and has undergone different stages.

It involves setting smooth stones in a brazier of fire, representing that even fire did not destroy their ideas and works, which live on.

[Fawzo]

What my Christian friends above seem to over look is that we are sinners because that heritage is passed down to us through the actions of ONE MAN according to the Bible. Death entered the world through Sin if one believes the Bible.

If God had not cursed Adam and Even and the fruit of their hands then things would be quite different.

[Bro. Hex]

I really liked this part of Pete's response:

"I guess it depends on the Christianity"

My particular Christianity doesn't involve "believing" anything...in particular !

Edited June 8, 2013 by Bro. Hex

[Pete]

I guess there are days I envy Dan. He clearly knows what he believes. I am finding it difficult to justify very much to myself and that which I do believe in is riddle with so many questions I just cannot answer. I used to believe that on acquiring knowledge that you would know something more but instead it is for me just an awakening about how much we really do not know for certain and how much more there is to further know.

For many faith is about finding the meaning of life. Some say that we are really just trying to find a meaning for our own lives so that we feel more alive within our existence.

From what I have learned I cannot with all honesty believe that the bible is the actual words of anything other than man. In fact I cannot believe any scripture to be from anything other than man. I believe there is a spirit within us that is capable of many wonderful things but I do miss those days when things used to be more simpler and I guess shielded for me. Yet, for me it would be dishonest to turn back from what I have learned and how much I am uncertain of. That said if there is any meaning that exists for life then it has to be in love. Without love I doubt our existence would last very long or seem worth while. For me love is the energy of God (IMO) and life and the hope to come. Faith is the not knowing everything but still hoping that it will make sense and turn out for the good of all. I am sure love is the key though. Without it I guess we may as well of remained in the primordial swamp and been oblivious to it all. We owe so much (IMO) to love whether by a friend, lover, parent, society or our spiritual being. No dogma could ever replace that belief for me and if the meaning of life exists then without love it would hold no real meaning or purpose. Hence, the only higher being (call that God or whatever) that could exist for me has to be within the power of love and not condemnation.

[Fawzo]

Fantastic Post Pete!!!!

Yea it was also great when we believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa and wore diapers and had no responsibilities whatsoever and other people fed us and bathed and nurtured us, but this thing happens to most of us where we mature and sooner or later we become the ones responsible for loving and nurturing others and as we do eventually grow ever so slowly in knowledge and wisdom we shed those old ways and Myths and become mature Loving Nurturing individuals.

I know the feeling well of which Pete feels of how nice and secure it once felt to believe as Dan does only to discover that those beliefs were in error. A myth designed and based in fear to help me mature to a point where I could grow and behave in a manner in harmony with my fellow sentient beings in my culture, just like the stories of the boogie man in the closet that would harm me if I did not listen to my parents, which when my level of sophistication grew that myth was soon discarded as well.

It seems to me that the path back to the loving source from which we all sprang should be as Pete stated one of Love. The paths laced with sin, death and fear just keep one wondering around in circles seeing separate paths and boogie men everywhere. Finding the straight and narrow path filled with love seems quite the dilemma for the ego which is accustomed to seeing separation and danger everywhere.

As infants our parents love us because they see us as an extension of themselves. Good parents don't see their kids as little parasitic packages constantly devouring their resources and creating waste matter, not good for much. They feel the Unity and Love and potential within each of these little packages. Our belief systems should do the same. Nurture and Teach others of their potential and how to overcome certain human tendencies and behaviors which are deemed negative by society (and why they are deemd negative) , not badger and torment them with stories of hell fire, punishment condemnation.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Fawzo

[Dan56]

I guess there are days I envy Dan. He clearly knows what he believes. I am finding it difficult to justify very much to myself and that which I do believe in is riddle with so many questions I just cannot answer. I used to believe that on acquiring knowledge that you would know something more but instead it is for me just an awakening about how much we really do not know for certain and how much more there is to further know.

For many faith is about finding the meaning of life. Some say that we are really just trying to find a meaning for our own lives so that we feel more alive within our existence.

From what I have learned I cannot with all honesty believe that the bible is the actual words of anything other than man. In fact I cannot believe any scripture to be from anything other than man. I believe there is a spirit within us that is capable of many wonderful things but I do miss those days when things used to be more simpler and I guess shielded for me. Yet, for me it would be dishonest to turn back from what I have learned and how much I am uncertain of. That said if there is any meaning that exists for life then it has to be in love. Without love I doubt our existence would last very long or seem worth while. For me love is the energy of God (IMO) and life and the hope to come. Faith is the not knowing everything but still hoping that it will make sense and turn out for the good of all. I am sure love is the key though. Without it I guess we may as well of remained in the primordial swamp and been oblivious to it all. We owe so much (IMO) to love whether by a friend, lover, parent, society or our spiritual being. No dogma could ever replace that belief for me and if the meaning of life exists then without love it would hold no real meaning or purpose. Hence, the only higher being (call that God or whatever) that could exist for me has to be within the power of love and not condemnation.

I would assert that Christ demonstrated and taught the 'love' that you seem to find evasive or absent from the gospels. There's no condemnation in Christ, it only exist without him. That is why its not just religious dogma to believers, but the living Word. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned" (John 3:17). It seems to me that you want a God of love while simultaneously rejecting the Word of God, which was manifested in Christ, and whom demonstrated his love for us to the utmost degree. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). Its really that simple. What exactly did Christ do or say that you find so offensive? The two greatest commandments that he mentioned seem to embrace what your seeking.

Fantastic Post Pete!!!!

Yea it was also great when we believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa and wore diapers and had no responsibilities whatsoever and other people fed us and bathed and nurtured us, but this thing happens to most of us where we mature and sooner or later we become the ones responsible for loving and nurturing others and as we do eventually grow ever so slowly in knowledge and wisdom we shed those old ways and Myths and become mature Loving Nurturing individuals.

I know the feeling well of which Pete feels of how nice and secure it once felt to believe as Dan does only to discover that those beliefs were in error. A myth designed and based in fear to help me mature to a point where I could grow and behave in a manner in harmony with my fellow sentient beings in my culture, just like the stories of the boogie man in the closet that would harm me if I did not listen to my parents, which when my level of sophistication grew that myth was soon discarded as well.

It seems to me that the path back to the loving source from which we all sprang should be as Pete stated one of Love. The paths laced with sin, death and fear just keep one wondering around in circles seeing separate paths and boogie men everywhere. Finding the straight and narrow path filled with love seems quite the dilemma for the ego which is accustomed to seeing separation and danger everywhere.

As infants our parents love us because they see us as an extension of themselves. Good parents don't see their kids as little parasitic packages constantly devouring their resources and creating waste matter, not good for much. They feel the Unity and Love and potential within each of these little packages. Our belief systems should do the same. Nurture and Teach others of their potential and how to overcome certain human tendencies and behaviors which are deemed negative by society (and why they are deemd negative) , not badger and torment them with stories of hell fire, punishment condemnation.

To believers, the bible is not a myth based in fear, but life everlasting founded in faith. Those that love Christ don't fear anything. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4&5). Yeshua did that for me unconditionally, I didn't earn or deserve it. I know that there's no torment or punishment for me because I've accepted him, as anyone can. But 'love' is a 2-way street, those that hate everything that Christ lived and taught also reject the salvation he promised.

[Pete]

"I would assert that Christ demonstrated and taught the 'love' that you seem to find evasive or absent from the gospels. There's no condemnation in Christ, it only exist without him. That is why its not just religious dogma to believers, but the living Word. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned" (John 3:17). It seems to me that you want a God of love while simultaneously rejecting the Word of God, which was manifested in Christ, and whom demonstrated his love for us to the utmost degree. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). Its really that simple. What exactly did Christ do or say that you find so offensive? The two greatest commandments that he mentioned seem to embrace what your seeking."

Dan I have little doubt that Jesus had love in his heart. What I find hard is that according to fundamental principles that God sent him to die a cruel death because God would not forgive anyone any in other way. Its not Jesus I have a problem with its what some of his so called followers have made of him and are saying about God that I have an issue with. The whole principle of sacrificing a person or animal is for me a cruel bronze age nonsense. Its you who says the bible is the word of God and not me. I am not rejecting the word of God. I just do not recognize the bible as the word of God. If there is anything that the bible being portrayed as the actual words of God and fundamentalism has taught me then it would be that there is nothing I can trust because of inconsistencies, contradictions, and of its cruel presentation of a God committed to killing his Son to appease his own temper, intolerance and rigid thinking. . I do not believe God is like that. You do (IMO) and therefore we disagree.

"To believers, the bible is not a myth based in fear, but life everlasting founded in faith. Those that love Christ don't fear anything. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4&5). Yeshua did that for me unconditionally, I didn't earn or deserve it. I know that there's no torment or punishment for me because I've accepted him, as anyone can. But 'love' is a 2-way street, those that hate everything that Christ lived and taught also reject the salvation he promised."

"

To biblicists the bible is not a myth. To others it has so many uncertainties that much of what it says is believed to be of myth. Lecturing me about how I should believe this or that or I am rejecting God's word just does not make much sense to me. I mean if a Muslim tried lecturing you about the Koran being the Word of God I am sure you would not agree, but that Muslim would believe in the Koran with the same earnest as you do about the bible. I personally do not believe I reject the word of God, just what fundamentalists say about God and I believe God's word is not the bible or any written text. As for your idea your idea of salvation I would refer to what I have already said above.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Pete

[Fawzo]

I would assert that Christ demonstrated and taught the 'love' that you seem to find evasive or absent from the gospels. There's no condemnation in Christ, it only exist without him. That is why its not just religious dogma to believers, but the living Word. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned" (John 3:17). It seems to me that you want a God of love while simultaneously rejecting the Word of God, which was manifested in Christ, and whom demonstrated his love for us to the utmost degree. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). Its really that simple. What exactly did Christ do or say that you find so offensive? The two greatest commandments that he mentioned seem to embrace what your seeking.

To believers, the bible is not a myth based in fear, but life everlasting founded in faith. Those that love Christ don't fear anything. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4&5). Yeshua did that for me unconditionally, I didn't earn or deserve it. I know that there's no torment or punishment for me because I've accepted him, as anyone can. But 'love' is a 2-way street, those that hate everything that Christ lived and taught also reject the salvation he promised.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4&5).

Dan this is the very same twisted perversion of love that both Pete. myself and others object to. The idea that Jesus had to basically commit suicide to save us from his vain, jealous, angry, vengeful, insecure Father who is incapable of forgiving even the smallest of offences.

Not only that, look at the cruelty of the punishment doled out against humanity and all other living things on the planet for the first offence of God's naive children who knew not what good and evil were and had never seen death until they disobeyed the first time. I hate to imagine what the punishment would be for taking the godly chariot out and drinking too much ambrosia and wrecking it while fondling a cherub.

[Dianna]

I come from a religious background that encourages questioning, even your own beliefs are open to scrutiny by yourself or others, so I’m really not trying to be attacking here. Some things may seem obvious to folks who grew up around churches, but I’m looking at the Bible’s words from an outsider’s view, which isn’t saying I’m naïve when it comes to what it says, only in hearing hundreds of preacher’s sermons on it.

So, maybe I was asking this backwards. Instead of asking, “from the beginning”, I’ll come at it from the other side.

In my opinion, without Christianity, the Jewish Bible would have stayed the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, and not been relegated to the status of, “Old” Testament, with the feeling that something better came along, and glommed onto its coattails: the “New” Testament. The Jews were looking for a Messiah, they thought Hezekiah might have fit the bill, but whoever they were looking for, Jesus didn’t turn out to be him either (for them). I used to wonder why there was a “new” testament, why didn’t the new Christian movement have their own Bible. A Christian told me it was because they used the “Old” to prove the “New”.

And of course that got my brain thinking, because I’d recently read someone’s theory that maybe the god of the “old” testament” was not the same as the “new”, certainly the style, attitude and gods seemed different when you switch from one testament to the other.

So looking back, at the “old” testament from the point of view of the earliest beginnings of the formation of the church, after Jesus’ death and people were meeting in secret, teaching to others who’d never seen witnessed Jesus’ speeches or works: somewhere in there (and I think it had to be the new Jewish believers because they would be the only ones who knew the Hebrew Scriptures – it wasn’t the old testament yet because the new one hadn’t been written) – but anyway, somewhere in there, in answer to people asking, “why did Jesus…?”, “how do we know that …?” these early teachers, maybe the disciples themselves, began looking in the Scriptures and began pulling out excerpts of passages as answers.

And to make a short story long, that’s what I think happened with how Jesus became the answer of sin and the blood atonement for that first “sin”.

I’m just trying to figure out if this has something to do with relatively “new” religions like Christianity and Islam, this, don’t think, don’t question, put blinders on and it’s my way or the hellfire highway.

I don’t think, and I hope others will correct me if I’m wrong, that Hinduism, Buddhism, or the Pagan religions have those beliefs. During my travels, I’ve interacted and shared interesting discussions with people of so many different religions, and I have to say, none has ever been in my face adamantly (read that, rudely and sometimes angrily) except the Christians (I’m NOT lumping those on this forum with them) .

It seems to me, somewhere in the earliest of church days, before they had all the writings collected yet, the Hebrew Scriptures started being used to “prove” Jesus was the Jewish Messiah they’d all been looking for, plucking verses from out-of-context here and there to make their point, and as time went on, it was most effective on the Greeks, Romans and other non-Jews (the Jews familiar all their life with Scripture would certainly have realized they were out of context or not talking about the Messiah) who never would have read the Hebrew Scriptures and quickly outnumbered the few Jews who also believed.

In my opinion, much later, because the Christians were using the Hebrew Scriptures to “prove” and connect Jesus, it was added to the growing collection of Christian writings which made them the New Testament and Old Testament (which was relegated to finding prophecy verses, teaching the history of the Bible, and Bible-lesson stories).

That would explain why, in that beginning, following the progression from the Garden and exile, all through the Old Testament to the end, one (meaning me in this case) doesn’t see Jesus at all.

It’s only when starting with the New Testament and using it to find the out-of-context passages scattered in the Old, can one (meaning, me) piece together the Christian version of Jesus, on whom EVERYONE must kneel and confess or suffer eternal burning in hell if you don’t go to paradise/heaven.

Dan56

“I know that there's no torment or punishment for me because I've accepted him, as anyone can. But 'love' is a 2-way street, those that hate everything that Christ lived and taught also reject the salvation he promised.”

Dan56

“I would assert that Christ demonstrated and taught the 'love' that you seem to find evasive or absent from the gospels. . . . “

I agree with this. Because I do think the real Jesus who shows up amidst the New Testament’s agenda was a wise, caring and kind person, who did love God and people. That’s why I think if the Christians hadn’t adopted the Hebrew Scriptures to “prove” Jesus was Messiah, Son of God, and on whom everyone must be saved, and only gone by their own collected writings, the Hebrew Scriptures would be relatively unknown except to the Jews, who would have been happily left alone, and Jesus would have been accepted more as a Buddha-type philosopher.

Again, this is just the cogwheels of my mind trying to work these things out, my opinions which could be wrong. Thank you all who have contributed to the ideas and concepts.

[Fawzo]

Well depending whether one believes Luke's account of what Paul did after his conversion in ACTS or Paul's own words in GALATIANS, and we'll play it safe and take Paul's own words in GALATIANS. He claims he spent three years studying scriptures to find himself approved. That could quite possibly mean he spent three years "scripture mining" to find any sacred Jewish Scriptures to build his case or prove to himself that Jesus was quite possibly the Messiah.

[Dan56]

I mean if a Muslim tried lecturing you about the Koran being the Word of God I am sure you would not agree, but that Muslim would believe in the Koran with the same earnest as you do about the bible. I personally do not believe I reject the word of God, just what fundamentalists say about God and I believe God's word is not the bible or any written text. As for your idea your idea of salvation I would refer to what I have already said above.

Its true that I'd reject the Koran because I don't believe its inspired, and of course it contradicts what I do believe. That's probably the same reason you reject the bible. Since you don't accept the bible as God's word, it stands to reason that you would reject what fundamentalist say about it.

Someone quoted this once before ;

When Stephen Roberts, an athiest, was talking to a theist about the thousands of gods and goddesses worshiped by humans, he said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Dan this is the very same twisted perversion of love that both Pete. myself and others object to. The idea that Jesus had to basically commit suicide to save us from his vain, jealous, angry, vengeful, insecure Father who is incapable of forgiving even the smallest of offences.

And that amazes me... Someone dies so you can live and you interpret it as a twisted perversion? God has always forgiven people for sin, but the wages of sin are death and someone had to pay. God would not and could not be righteous otherwise. To not atone for the significance of sin and its cruel effects would be unjust, and I personally prefer a 'Just' God. Everybody wants the resurrection; nobody wants the crucifixion, but one cannot occur without the other.

I agree with this. Because I do think the real Jesus who shows up amidst the New Testament’s agenda was a wise, caring and kind person, who did love God and people. That’s why I think if the Christians hadn’t adopted the Hebrew Scriptures to “prove” Jesus was Messiah, Son of God, and on whom everyone must be saved, and only gone by their own collected writings, the Hebrew Scriptures would be relatively unknown except to the Jews, who would have been happily left alone, and Jesus would have been accepted more as a Buddha-type philosopher.

How do you know if Jesus was actually a wise, caring and kind person, who did love God? Or that Christ ever existed at all? If the gospels are true, then the authors didn't adopt the Hebrew scriptures to prove Christ was the Messiah, but the scriptures themselves substantiated it. Remember that Christ himself often referred to the scriptures, he first quoted Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18 proclaiming who he was. My point is that the gospels are either true or false, if a person can't believe Christ was the Messiah, then it would seem illogical to believe he was a kind person. Otherwise your trusting part of what's written while denying other parts.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Dan56