• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I really love Jesus

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If that were true, God could make the deserts the Israelites walked, the most luxurious of all the land, and have his people colonize it.
So evidently you are missing some details that were written.

It's just an observation from what I read when I read the OT awhile back.

I can't post the whole first five books of the OT though. I don't see taking other people's lands and make it their own as a good thing. It's not specific to religion-most countries have done it (from what I gather) in one way or another. Our morals and indifferences to what's written in the bible doesn't change the role and fact colonization played whether it's said it's from god or not.

I believe it's historical. It is written as such. Why do you dismiss it as anything else but history?

God does not exist because of historical documents that talk "about" him.

I didn't dismiss it. I just said "if."

I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean you don't believe "God can do it then"? Do what?

I don't see a difference in god working 2,000 years ago but stop working today. If god did these historical things, and god is the creator, he would still be "literally" involved in the world and everyone would "know" this whether they want to believe in him or not.

This has less to do with what's written and more to do with how life works. For example, the laws of physics don't change in the past 2,000 years. Our understanding of it, yes but not the laws itself. So, if jesus literally walked on water (for sake of point) that would be false since time period doesn't change how physics work.

Raising from the dead, and other like miracles would work the same-therefore, they're not historical. Mythological I'd say but that doesn't devalue the bible.

Take the Pantheon for instance:

The present-day Pantheon is located on the site of an earlier structure of the same name, constructed around 25 B.C. by statesman Marcus Agrippa, son-in-law of the first Roman emperor, Augustus. Traditionally thought to have been designed as a temple for Roman gods. Pantheon

This is history as well. But does that mean Zues and Athena exists just because the Pantheon does?

Anyway, though. Killing women, children, and men in general is part of taking the promise land or colonizing it. People have done this for centuries. Whether god told them to do it or not is not historical; so, that depends on the person's belief. In general, I'd say no. However, people who did can justify it by god, though.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
I revere Jesus of Nazareth as a prophet of the highest, greatest God... the Supreme God, the God worshipped within the Abrahamic religions.

I also accept Jesus as part of myself... an inclination in my heart that inspires compassion, unconditional love, mercy, kindness, humility, redemption, salvation, and deliverance. One inclination, among many inclinations. One shard of my soul, among many shards. In that way Jesus is like a god, or an extension of the highest God. Even when I defy that inclination, and do things differently in life, or embrace the path illuminated by some other shard... I know it is there, a part of me, inviting me to look for the best things in people no matter how terrible they might seem, and showing me with an invisible extended hand bright sunlit doorways I might not have otherwise noticed, or wanted to notice.

I am not a Christian. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, I am polytheistic. Jesus is not the only shard in my soul and some can be quite terrible. However, I have great respect and appreciation for Abrahamic culture and continue to embrace many of their teachings in my own way.
 

soulsurvivor

Active Member
Premium Member
I love Jesus with all my heart. I grew up with Christianity, so maybe that's why he means so much to me. But I think it's also because I'm very sure he's a very holy soul and has taught us a lot of important things about kindness, forgiveness and other useful wisdom.

What does your religion think of Jesus?
Approximately every 2160 years, the God of the Earth sends a Teacher to humanity to give them a specific message or teaching. This teacher is the Avatar of the Age. Jesus was the World Teacher/Avatar for the Age of Pisces (the last 2000 years). He message primarily was the message of love. He should mean a lot to people of all religions, because his message of love was for everyone regardless of the religion they follow.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It's just an observation from what I read when I read the OT awhile back.

I can't post the whole first five books of the OT though. I don't see taking other people's lands and make it their own as a good thing. It's not specific to religion-most countries have done it (from what I gather) in one way or another. Our morals and indifferences to what's written in the bible doesn't change the role and fact colonization played whether it's said it's from god or not.
This is why I say you are missing details.
1. The land is not theirs.
2. The owner of the land is giving it as an inheritance to those he wants to.
3. The ones who are being dispossessed are being driven out, because of their practices.
How is that wrong?

God does not exist because of historical documents that talk "about" him.
Where did that come from? No one made that argument.

I didn't dismiss it. I just said "if."
Cool.

I don't see a difference in god working 2,000 years ago but stop working today. If god did these historical things, and god is the creator, he would still be "literally" involved in the world and everyone would "know" this whether they want to believe in him or not.

This has less to do with what's written and more to do with how life works. For example, the laws of physics don't change in the past 2,000 years. Our understanding of it, yes but not the laws itself. So, if jesus literally walked on water (for sake of point) that would be false since time period doesn't change how physics work.

Raising from the dead, and other like miracles would work the same-therefore, they're not historical. Mythological I'd say but that doesn't devalue the bible.

Take the Pantheon for instance:
That does not follow.
When there is a plan for a building project, (1) land is surveyed; (2) land is purchased; (3) architectural plans are drawn up; (4) equipment is brought in for construction - bulldozers, tractors, cement mixers, etc. (5) laborers are busy on the site.... working in various fields.
After the building is finished, they are gone - the architectural blueprints are gone. the heavy equipment - tractors, bulldozers....are gone. The laborers are gone. The only things left are the building and the occupants, and any personnel to maintain the building.
No bulldozers are seen running through the complex. No cement, and mixers are there. They served their purpose.
Their absence does not mean they never were a part of reality and involvement of the project.

Similarly... In fact, I don't think I need to explain the application. You do see why your reasoning is not adding up, don't you?

This is history as well. But does that mean Zues and Athena exists just because the Pantheon does?
I don't recall anyone saying that history alone proves God.

Anyway, though. Killing women, children, and men in general is part of taking the promise land or colonizing it. People have done this for centuries. Whether god told them to do it or not is not historical; so, that depends on the person's belief. In general, I'd say no. However, people who did can justify it by god, though.
No. Killing men women and children was judgment for deeds described as detestable to the owner of the land. That is what the Bible says. Leviticus 18:24-30 ; Leviticus 20:22-24.
God was not even partial to those he gave the land to. They receive the same treatment.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
This is why I say you are missing details.
1. The land is not theirs.
2. The owner of the land is giving it as an inheritance to those he wants to.
3. The ones who are being dispossessed are being driven out, because of their practices.
How is that wrong?


Where did that come from? No one made that argument.


Cool.


That does not follow.
When there is a plan for a building project, (1) land is surveyed; (2) land is purchased; (3) architectural plans are drawn up; (4) equipment is brought in for construction - bulldozers, tractors, cement mixers, etc. (5) laborers are busy on the site.... working in various fields.
After the building is finished, they are gone - the architectural blueprints are gone. the heavy equipment - tractors, bulldozers....are gone. The laborers are gone. The only things left are the building and the occupants, and any personnel to maintain the building.
No bulldozers are seen running through the complex. No cement, and mixers are there. They served their purpose.
Their absence does not mean they never were a part of reality and involvement of the project.

Similarly... In fact, I don't think I need to explain the application. You do see why your reasoning is not adding up, don't you?


I don't recall anyone saying that history alone proves God.


No. Killing men women and children was judgment for deeds described as detestable to the owner of the land. That is what the Bible says. Leviticus 18:24-30 ; Leviticus 20:22-24.
God was not even partial to those he gave the land to. They receive the same treatment.

I'd have to come back but it looks like there's a debate on the nature of genocide in the OT.

Violence against the Canaanites in Deuteronomy and Joshua Reconsidered

Sometimes I think some interpretations are biased. For example, jesus being killed because the government agreed with hesitance with the Jews is very barbaric but many Christians see it as a blessing.


Edit.

Maybe Christians see it how they want (god as author) rather than seeing the bible written "about" a god.

I think those perspectives (from god vs about god) would make a difference in interpretation, no?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Where did that come from? No one made that argument.

Disregard it.

That does not follow.
When there is a plan for a building project, (1) land is surveyed; (2) land is purchased; (3) architectural plans are drawn up; (4) equipment is brought in for construction - bulldozers, tractors, cement mixers, etc. (5) laborers are busy on the site.... working in various fields.
After the building is finished, they are gone - the architectural blueprints are gone. the heavy equipment - tractors, bulldozers....are gone. The laborers are gone. The only things left are the building and the occupants, and any personnel to maintain the building.
No bulldozers are seen running through the complex. No cement, and mixers are there. They served their purpose.

Their absence does not mean they never were a part of reality and involvement of the project.

Similarly... In fact, I don't think I need to explain the application. You do see why your reasoning is not adding up, don't you?

I'm saying if you want to build a city and so forth, it can't stop at the first brick. Creation evolves into more creation. The bricks pre-existed so the building was formed into being not created from nothing. Although the term sustainer sounds off putting, I like that word better because it doesn't describe the cause of the universe (since things don't come from nothing) but the momentum and formation of it. So, creation, in this sense isn't the "first mover" but movement itself.

No. I actually don't.

If killing women and children was what god wanted? o_O
Now I think about it, you didn't answer my questions...

To answer your question, no. I feel the bible talks about god not a diction from god. So, the killing of women and children would be something god wanted as it is written. If he actually did, I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with who/what god is in personal respects.

I mention colonization because going from one land to the next and taking lives to do so is basically what the people did for their promise land in scripture. It's not specific to what god said but (If historical-I haven't looked into it), but what's written. So, I would assume that the people went to another land because that's what they "believed" god told them not god as an outside party telling them what they should do.

If it can't be replayed today, I don't believe God can do it then. How would he?

With this, for example, the laws of physics are the same regardless the time period. If jesus let go of a rock he held, it would fall just as if I did so or you did so.

I don't recall anyone saying that history alone proves God.

I was replying to this: I believe it's historical. It is written as such. Why do you dismiss it as anything else but history (44)?

I would say god has no influence in history. I believe the two are separate in regards to events happening in the bible. This had to do with this comment: If that were true, God could make the deserts the Israelites walked, the most luxurious of all the land, and have his people colonize it.

When I'm talk about colonization, I'm speaking of history rather than god.

No. Killing men women and children was judgment for deeds described as detestable to the owner of the land. That is what the Bible says. Leviticus 18:24-30 ; Leviticus 20:22-24.
God was not even partial to those he gave the land to. They receive the same treatment.

When I read these chapters, the colonization (the "4... possess [of] land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey" by nature of history involved killing the people on that land in order for one to claim it. The people on this foreign land where also women and children.

Remember. I see the bible written about god not written by god. So, historically, yes they killed women and children but according to christians god didn't condone it even though it was written that he did (above). I assume they say this because they have a personal relationship with him to know the difference between his edict and history (the context of it from a spiritual light) that I, reading it verbatim, would not have.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What sort of stuff? Killing of women and children?
I read that men women and children were killed. I never read that God wanted the killing of women and children.
1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Jesus is a toxin to life, a misguided nut who would have us squandering love on those undeserving of it, have us vowing our lives to poverty, and worshipping a savagely cruel and heinously violent god. He's such a clown he thinks proper morality can begin with what "I" want, and that our existence and being as humans is so damnable that even thoughts we don't act on or speak on are considered sin.
Wow! Someone begins a thread expressing their love for Jesus, and you are motivated to reply w/ disgust?!

What brought this on?

Where does this hatred come from? Do you even know?

FYI, love is never ‘squandered’. It costs nothing to give it.
Jesus doesn’t force us to associate w/ “undeserving” people. And if certain ones are undeserving, it’s because they’re not applying Jesus’ own commands to love others. That’s not Jesus’ fault.

No Christian needs to be (money) poor to please Jesus. The evidence is, there apparently were rich Christians in Bible times. — 1 Timothy 6:17

Your claim, which many believe, of Jesus’ God, Jehovah, being “a savagely cruel and heinously violent god”, I think it suits them (you?) to believe that He is unjust, to somewhat justify their own behaviour. If people really want to know why God acted in certain ways, examining the reasons why, they’ll realize that Jehovah was protecting His people, from those who would kill them.


It seems even today, Israel / Jews are the target for much misguided hatred, so the evidence is there. Such hatred was the same back then.

Back then, He was just protecting His people!

Regarding those whom God killed, let me ask you this....Who is going to resurrect those ones? That’s the promise the Bible holds out even for the “unrighteous”. — John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15.

Many seem so quick to judge, but few are willing to reason on the why’s, or discover the purposes that the Bible reveals for such actions.

I’m still curious as to what motivated you to reply in such a way to a post that wasn’t hurting you at all?
 
Last edited:

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
Jesus is a toxin to life, a misguided nut who would have us squandering love on those undeserving of it, have us vowing our lives to poverty, and worshipping a savagely cruel and heinously violent god. He's such a clown he thinks proper morality can begin with what "I" want, and that our existence and being as humans is so damnable that even thoughts we don't act on or speak on are considered sin.

Jesus loves you
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
Would you agree or disagree, then, with the Bible's teaching that salvation comes via trusting Jesus, not ourselves, for (future) moral perfection?
I disagree. You do not need to believe in Jesus to be saved. The most important is to be kind and loving to others
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
I'm curious as to what you think. What are your thoughts?
My religion teaches that one who loves Jesus, obeys his commandments... Not picking and choosing which to obey and which not to.
Jesus himself said, "If you love me, you will observe my commandments." (John 14:15)
Among other things, Jesus commanded this... 18 “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Matthew 28:18-20

So for example, if we say, "Well, I cannot do this." Do we show that we love Jesus?
Some persons actually have thought that they could not do this, but then their love really shone through... not only for Jesus, but God and neighbor, and they were move to obey... not merely out of duty, but out of love.

Some however, have bluntly refused to obey... making excuses. For example, some do not consider it necessary to bear witness as Paul and the apostles did.
2 Timothy 4:2, 3 - 2Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. 3For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.

Luke 8:1 - Shortly afterward he traveled from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him. . .

Acts 5:42 - And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.

Acts 20:20 - I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house.

Luke 10:1, 2 - 1 After these things the Lord designated 70 others and sent them out by twos ahead of him into every city and place where he himself was to go. 2 Then he said to them: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.

Do you think that a person who refuses to obey the command to go and preach and teach the good news with urgency, really loves Jesus? Or does it rather not show a lack of both faith, and love? (Romans 10:11-17)
I disagree with you. The two commands you have to keep is
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

If you follow those two commandments you are saved.

I do not believe the whole bible is literally God's word.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Shopping carts.
If I were working at a grocery store I would love it when people leave carts about in the parking lot because it's more time outside. But that's rude, it creates extra work, and creates a risk of a cart slamming into something. I would love this, but I shouldn't do that and instead should return the cart to a cart corral.

I think you missed the point. What you personally do should not just be selfishly motivated. That is the whole point....you should do to others what would be in their best interest, not just your own. Your scenario above demonstrates this well I think...

Having a bunch of shopping carts carelessly left where they would cause inconvenience or damage would not be in anyone’s best interests. :p
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The divisiveness, wars and unrest engendered by the followers of the Prince of Peace are historical facts. The discontinuity between doctrine and 'believers' behavior is clear. Common ideas of fairness justice are very different from God's "justice" as outlined in the Bible.

Please don’t blame Jesus for what his later followers (who claimed to represent him) did. He foretold a falling away (an apostasy) from his teachings, so all the things you listed were no surprise and no indication that they ever knew obeyed the one they claimed as their “Lord”. He has never known them. (Matthew 7:21-23)
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Please don’t blame Jesus for what his later followers (who claimed to represent him) did. He foretold a falling away (an apostasy) from his teachings, so all the things you listed were no surprise and no indication that they ever knew obeyed the one they claimed as their “Lord”. He has never known them. (Matthew 7:21-23)
Fair enough, but how much 'falling away' did he anticipate, given his expectation of an imminent end of days?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
What does your religion think of Jesus?
As a coward. Even without the Satanism, the pre-Christian Vikings called Jesus "white Christ", which was an insult meaning "coward", as opposed to "red Thor" (meaning he was covered in the blood of his enemies). To be a coward was the worst thing imaginable in pre-Christian Germanic society so Jesus' teachings and known life are basically the polar opposite of what my values are.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Fair enough, but how much 'falling away' did he anticipate, given his expectation of an imminent end of days?

A complete falling away....so much so that he could say what he does at the judgment...."I never knew you...get away from me you workers of Lawlessness". (Matthew 7:21-23) That sounds pretty complete, don't you think?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A complete falling away....so much so that he could say what he does at the judgment...."I never knew you...get away from me you workers of Lawlessness". (Matthew 7:21-23) That sounds pretty complete, don't you think?
A complete falling away in just 20 years?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Disregard it.



I'm saying if you want to build a city and so forth, it can't stop at the first brick. Creation evolves into more creation. The bricks pre-existed so the building was formed into being not created from nothing. Although the term sustainer sounds off putting, I like that word better because it doesn't describe the cause of the universe (since things don't come from nothing) but the momentum and formation of it. So, creation, in this sense isn't the "first mover" but movement itself.

No. I actually don't.
Am I misunderstanding you? I don't think so.
Are you not understanding me? That seems to be the case.
Quoting you...
I don't see a difference in god working 2,000 years ago but stop working today. If god did these historical things, and god is the creator, he would still be "literally" involved in the world and everyone would "know" this whether they want to believe in him or not.

This has less to do with what's written and more to do with how life works. For example, the laws of physics don't change in the past 2,000 years. Our understanding of it, yes but not the laws itself. So, if jesus literally walked on water (for sake of point) that would be false since time period doesn't change how physics work.

Raising from the dead, and other like miracles would work the same-therefore, they're not historical. Mythological I'd say but that doesn't devalue the bible.

Take the Pantheon for instance:

End quote.

Jesus and his works in the past. + God and his works in the past - i.e. creation = Bulldozers, Cement mixers, Laborers, Bricks and cement, etc.
Those works were finished. So just as you would not see a bulldozer running through the finished building, you will not see God creating, nor Jesus walking on water, nor his apostles raising the dead, and opening physically blind eyes.
Like the Bulldozer digging trenches... the cement mixer mixing and pouring concrete... the laborers busy at their work, having accomplished their purpose, Jesus and the apostles performing signs, accomplished their purpose.
The finished building that you see, afterwards = the spiritual building that came out of the works of God, Jesus, and the apostles.
Just as one can see the physical building, and have clear evidence that there were construction workers and equipment used to accomplish it, there is clear evidence that God, and Jesus were involve in the spiritual building seen today. For example, Jesus said his disciples would be identified by the love they have among themselves - the whole association of brothers in the world.
He said the good news of the kingdom will be preached to the ends of the earth.
He also said that his followers will be hated, and many will not believe.
So the evidence is not dependent on everyone saying, "Oh. It's true."
Is that any more understandable for you?

Now I think about it, you didn't answer my questions...
Sorry. What question did you want answered?

To answer your question, no. I feel the bible talks about god not a diction from god. So, the killing of women and children would be something god wanted as it is written. If he actually did, I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with who/what god is in personal respects.
Many people have the same feelings you do.
The scriptures say otherwise ... whether people accept it or not. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 ;2 Peter 1:20, 21 ; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11

I mention colonization because going from one land to the next and taking lives to do so is basically what the people did for their promise land in scripture. It's not specific to what god said but (If historical-I haven't looked into it), but what's written. So, I would assume that the people went to another land because that's what they "believed" god told them not god as an outside party telling them what they should do.
Are you discussing the Biblical narrative, or what you can verify as history?

With this, for example, the laws of physics are the same regardless the time period. If jesus let go of a rock he held, it would fall just as if I did so or you did so.
:shrug: That doesn't make me any less clueless as to what you are trying to say.

I was replying to this: I believe it's historical. It is written as such. Why do you dismiss it as anything else but history (44)?

I would say god has no influence in history. I believe the two are separate in regards to events happening in the bible. This had to do with this comment: If that were true, God could make the deserts the Israelites walked, the most luxurious of all the land, and have his people colonize it.

When I'm talk about colonization, I'm speaking of history rather than god.
You just quoted me talking about history. You were the one who brought in God, remember?

When I read these chapters, the colonization (the "4... possess [of] land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey" by nature of history involved killing the people on that land in order for one to claim it. The people on this foreign land where also women and children.
From God's point of view, the people of the land did detestable things - men, women and children, as a part of their worship to idol 'gods'. Sodom and Gomorrah was an example of how children were not innocent and untarnished.

Remember. I see the bible written about god not written by god. So, historically, yes they killed women and children but according to christians god didn't condone it even though it was written that he did (above). I assume they say this because they have a personal relationship with him to know the difference between his edict and history (the context of it from a spiritual light) that I, reading it verbatim, would not have.
Interesting that you say, according to Christians. Since I and my brethren of close to 9,000,000, believe that God condoned it, what does that make me... a cushion? :D
 
Top