Monday, August 17, 2009

WHY THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD IS A CULT FIGURE CREATED TO PLACATE THE IGNORANT, AND WHY CHRISTIANS SHOW CONTEMPT FOR THE TEACHINGS OF JOSHUA - SOLVING DEPENDENCY

Before you hate mongers (really only one) hit me with why I do not believe in God, let me say, I do, just not the Judeo-Christian God. I believe in the God of Joshua. In the first instance, Christians demonstrate their contempt for Joshua by using the name given to him by the people who killed him on the cross, the Romans. His real name is Joshua not Jesus.

Archeologists have now proven entire sections of the Old Testament were plagiarized from Sumerian text. People need to take the time to read the Old Testament. This mythical god reserves the right to drown innocent child in a great flood. This mythical God tells the Israelis’ to war against other tribes in the area. While I am a strong supporter if Israel, what has all this warring gotten them?

This mythical god tells them to butcher their male children with circumcision. This is about a covenant with god. God tells you to alter your child’s penis and you do it - this is not a god - it is the act of politicians seeking to maintain control of lemmings.

This mythical god tells you to kill your children and you do. Deuteronomy 21: 18-21. This mythical god tells you to kill the male population when you go to war against another tribe and to take their women as wives, and you do it. Deuteronomy 21: 10-13. To insure the lemmings do not think for themselves, or follow their heart, god threatens severe punishment. Deuteronomy 29:19
Christians and Jews have warred since the beginning of their creation. They have justified slavery, bigotry, and war. Their god is not a God - it is a personality cult which rationalized the irrational.

The purpose of this piece is to point out this god creates dependency on the cult. It (not he or she) punishes people who follow their heart. So long as the people of Brownsville or anywhere else remain enslaved to this mythical god, they will be sentenced to misery. Joshua understood the heart, and love and compassion. Brownsville can pull itself out of this misery if it would simply reject the churches and act as Joshua did with love, compassion and justice.

This will not happen because as is always the case, lemmings thrive on being dependent on a cult figure. It is so much easier than having faith in yourself to do the right thing.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

There's nothing wrong with not believing in any god. In fact, I would argue that it is the only rational position.

Writer said...

Whatever your beliefs, you can't win people over by calling them lemmings.

Besides, try not being a lemming to government and see how far THAT gets you. Don't pay your taxes. Don't register your vehicle. Ignore stop lights. We all have to follow rules, whether man-made or, as you contend about religion, man-made.

Religion is the same as government in many ways; an agreed upon set of rules we follow to make all our lives better if we follow them. Just like we fall short on following "God's word"; we fall short of obeying the law; otherwise, we would not need Police. The advantage of religion is that your conscience is the "police". Religion even offers an appeals process, which doesn't cost you money.

You may have heard the saying, "lead, follow, or get out of the way." The implication is that you are either inducing lemming behaviour, are a lemming, or are useless.

Leaders need followers to accomplish great things. Followers need leaders to motivate them to accomplish great things. It's a symbiotic relationship. Anybody who neither follows nor leads just gets in the way.

You may argue that we don't need leaders or followers; everybody should be able to decide for him or herself. This would work if we all knew how to make good decisions. The problem is that we do not; we all make it up as we go. To guide us in making decisions, we came up with religion and law to help us decide things more efficiently. So, we're back to square one.

So, you can't have followers unless you have leaders. If you are a leader trying to get people to see things your way, that they ought to think for themselves, it's a paradox. How can you get people to follow your thinking without them being lemmings to you? You automatically defeat your argument when trying to persuade others to see your viewpoint.

Most of us don't go to church because somebody makes us. Nobody makes us obey the law. We all find that following their guidelines makes life less complicated. There is an almost tangible benefit from our lemming behaviour; we put up with less crap.

Making up our own minds about every single situation comes with a lot of mental overhead. Who has time to analyze every scenario? Just follow the rules and enjoy what freedom remains. Law and religion are simply behaviour shortcuts.

So, rather than look down on our lemmings; I would say that you ought to find ways to lead them to accomplish great things. Or, get out of the way and let somebody else do it. They're going to follow somebody, regardless.

Anonymous said...

Unimpressive. Joshua clearly believed the "Old Testament." He also believed in God, and said he was God. Was he right or wrong? While acting with love, compassion and justice is commendable, you seem to be trading down from a rational deity to a "cult figure" who was good-hearted, but wrong. I'd rather have faith in the real deal, even if other lemmings swallow the "the only rational position is athiesm" coolaid. Thanks for the posting opportunity.

BobbyWC said...

Shaine, I do not disagree with most of what you say, but government is not voluntary - religion is -

You tell me to lead or get out of the way - this is an interesting contradiction in your position.

This is my entire point - people need to act and stop following - I act every day

I understand that you cannot go out there and make miracles by holding public office.

I work with different people every day and encourage them to act - I encorage them to stop waiting on someone or a pray to fix their problems.

Only we can fix our problems - a little government help to kick start the solution is never bad - bas as we saw with President Johnson's welfare programs too much government enslaves.
\
Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Will you quote where in the new Testament there is any support for the following:

"Unimpressive. Joshua clearly believed the "Old Testament." He also believed in God, and said he was God."

He rejected the old laws of the Old Testament - he even rejected the covenant with God concerning circumcision as it related ot gentiles.

Where did he embrace the stoning of children, where did he say he was God, people repeat these things and then get mad when you ask for the quote.

Further, the gnostic Bible, which includes the Books rejected at the Council of Nicea, make it very clear Joshua was just a man with a message from God.

Bobby WC

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

My response contains citations (while I note that you really didn't provide any real citations), but a truly complete response can include many more. This is the 1st of a 2-part response.

You said, “His real name is Joshua not Jesus.” In my initial response, I didn't want to spend time pointing out that Joshua is the English version of the original Hebrew name, which is generally understood to mean “God Saves.” Jesus is the Greek version of exactly the same name. E.g., St. Paul, the author of several books of the New Testament, was a Roman and a Jew who spoke and wrote in Greek. I'm sticking with “Jesus.”

I said, “Joshua clearly believed the Old Testament.” No surprise here: Jesus and other Jews followed the law of Moses, the books of the prophets, and the psalms. Jesus was circumcised and consecrated to the Lord (Luke 2:21-24), and, after being temped because he was the “Son of God” (Luke 4:3; Matt. 4:3), Jesus reads from the Prophet Isaiah, declaring the passage “fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke 4:16-21. In speaking about John the Baptist, He says, “All the prophets and the law prophesied up the time of John.” Matt. 1:13; cf, Luke 16:16; John 1:45. Matthew 5:17 quotes Him: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” Jesus said, after explaining the necessity of His death and resurrection on the road to Emmaus: “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! … Then, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him all the scriptures.” Luke 24:25, 27. In verse 44, He states: “'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.' Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures." Luke 24:44-45. This is far from a rejection of the Old Testament!

These are Gospel examples, not from books outside the canon of Sacred Scriptures, such as gnostic books you reference at the end of your reply. But you allude to Paul (you state: “[Jesus] even rejected the covenant with God concerning circumcision as it related [to] gentiles”). Cf, Romans 2: 25-29. Paul believed the Old Testament and Jesus' role in its fulfillment. See Acts 24:14-15, “But this I do admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and written in the prophets.” Paul's writings are rational and quite robust, any quotation needs to be made with an appreciation of the circumstance under which the text was written, but, note Romans 3:28-30: “Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law.”

“The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. …. “Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” Quoted from Catechism par. 121, 129: omitted citations reference the New Testament, early Church writers, and other authoritative teachings. Catechism Pt I, Sec 1, Ch Two, Art. 3.IV, online at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM.

Anonymous said...

Part 2: Bobby, you say “Where did he embrace the stoning of children, where did he say he was God, people repeat these things and then get mad when you ask for the quote.” I have never heard anyone ever assert that Jesus “embraced” the stoning of children, even the “incorrigible child” noted in of Deut. 21:18-21 (your original post). Nor have I seen that Jesus ever addressed the other two references in Deuteronomy that you cite or support lots of other OT specifics. That takes nothing away from His acceptance of the OT. Deuteronomy restates and amplifies many of the original revelations to the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt and that amplification continues through the New Testament. Compare the 10 Commandments in Exodus ch. 20 and in Deuteronomy ch. 6. The 3 citations you make to Deuteronomy may actually make sense in the context of the tribal cultures of that era, particularly where a new group is moving into an area occupied by groups that lived in serious sin. But Jesus challenges us to remember the underlying purpose of the Scriptures – to draw each of us to our Creator. Cf, Matt. 15:1-20. For example, Jesus is tested by the Jews in questions regarding the stoning of the woman caught in adultery and whether the established practice of granting divorces was acceptable (Matt. 19:3-12). Both actions were proscribed in the law of Moses. Jesus' responses? Even you recognize his responses based upon love, compassion and true justice. Quoting Deuteronomy (6:4-5) Jesus tells us the Greatest Commandment: Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34.

As to where He says that He is God? If you recognize Sacred Scripture, one can look at, e.g., Mark 1:1, 11 (“And a voice came down from the heavens, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'”), 15:39; Luke 1: 35 (“And the angel said to [Mary] in reply, 'the holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God'”), 43 (a Holy Spirit-filled Elizabeth exclaims, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”), 2:11 (“For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.”), 3:21-22; John 1:1-5, 14, 16, 34 (John the Baptist notes, “Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God”); Matt. 3:17 (“And a voice came from the heavens, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'”), 16:16 (Simon Peter said “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”); 28:54 (the centurion and men keeping watch at the crucifixion: “Truly, this was the Son of God!”). Where does Jesus address this? In many instances, he identifies his unique role, but here are highlights: “They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' He replied to them, 'You say that I am.' Then they said, 'What further need have for testimony? We have heard it from his own mouth.'” Luke 22:70-71. See also Mark 14:61-62 & Matt. 26:62-64. More authoritative, however, is what's in the Catechism and its biblical and related citations on Christ. See http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM.

Your Joshua is a non-divine creature of an otherwise unfamiliar God (of your own manufacture). This is not scriptural and is even less coherent and rational than that which is believed by Jews and Christians. Again, I would say, “While acting with love, compassion and justice is commendable, you seem to be trading down from a rational deity to a 'cult figure' who was good-hearted, but wrong.” Sadly, the personality cult you're pointing to as the source of slavery, bigotry and war actually exists: it is the sin (pride) that blinded Satan and mankind. Pride and selfishness may causes Brownsville's problems. It might also come from persons acting as god and creating their own “convenient truth” for everyone else to aimlessly follow. That's neither wise, nor is it good leadership. May God open your eyes, ears and heart to His revealed Truth. -Paul

BobbyWC said...

I learned a long time ago only a fool debates someone who selectively pulls from teh scriptures.

His name is Joshua - you cannot refute that - saying he is the son of God is not the same as saying he is god . This is a myth created by the catholic church to justify their disrespect for the 10 Commandments.

Any fool can play the scripture game - If we are made in God's imagine and likeness then it can be reasoned we are all God - it is a word game of selective interpretation.

man did not order the Israelites to kill - GOD did - man did nogt justify slavery - GOD did -

Jesus rejected all of this. He respected people - you confuse his message of respect for those who followed the OT with acceptance.

But then again - we can play this fools game all day.

Bobby WC

PaulG said...

Yes, I am a fool for Christ, but, no, I'll not play this fool's game all day, Bobby! I've got better things to do, and I certainly recognize when the “game” has been won.

Don't you see the irony? You ask for scriptural citations (which I provided), after you (in your original post) “selectively pull[] from [the] scriptures,” and then you complain of a “fool's game!” I took you and your challenge seriously, but you've confirmed why your original post was “unimpressive”! Your ability to reason remains in doubt in your latest response:

(1)I had no need to refute “Joshua,” but I did distinguish why “Jesus” is no “Roman” fabrication;
(2)You've never made a case for the existence of a “god of Joshua” or the non-divinity of Jesus, other than unattributed reference to “archeologists,” the curious citation to gnostic texts, and now, a curiously quixotic reference to the 10 commandments (– please make up your mind: is the OT “good” or not?); and
(3)You are apparently not just “any fool,” because your apparent attempt to “play the scriptural game” as “a word game of selective interpretation” completely ignores the context of the text and the intent of the author – proving that you cannot play that fool's game!

You make poor argument to support your thesis, since you deem defense of your position to be a fool's game. And I'm sorry that, to the extent Brownsville is in misery, you're not offering anything better than a path to the cliff. Even Brownsville deserves better. “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.” (Rev. 22:21)
-Paul

BobbyWC said...

exactly how many so called Christian religions are there that do not agree on the meaning of the scriptures? But you have the real meaning.

exactly how many Jewish sects are that that do not agree on the meaning of the scriptures? But yet you a christian knows exactly what is meant.

Many of my views go all the way back to the ana-baptists which is at least as far back as the 1500's - my views are nothing new

Eaxtly which of the 3 versions of the 10 Commandments in the OT is the correct one? Which of the 2 (maybe more but I remember 2) of the Lords Prayer is the correct Lords Prayer.

The Bible is a selective document used to serve political ends. When Christians demand their Biblical right to pray in public at football games how is that not a direct violation Joshua's words on the issue as found in the Book of Matthew

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Bobby WC

Paul said...

Trust in you or trust in Jesus? Thankfully, my Christian views herald from more than 500 years ago to the beginning of the Christian era, and these embody the prior Old Testament views that were authoritatively correct (oh, unless you don't think "Joshua" was divine). Sadly, the devil works through such divisions as what you present (and as is apparent in a fragmented Christianity today), when Jesus called for "One Body" and identified Himself as the way, the truth and the life.

Again: I start with the premise that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired to reveal and lead us to Truth (One God - Father, Son and Spirit). The human authors wrote what needed to be written to their immediate audience, as guided by the Spirit, and that same Spirit uses the canon of scripture to speak to us, a different audience. Recall that Jesus wasn't being followed by a court reporter or stenographer! Don't miss the forest for the trees! For example, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 6 contain the 10 Commanmdments, but the latter was written later, providing some additional insights as to the meaning of the original text. That's why Jesus sums up the law: love God above all and love your neighbor as yourself. Differences in the Our Father? Sure, but the point is that we pray, we acknowledge His holiness, thank Him always, and turn to Him in our need.

We're facing the same problem right now, with these words we trade: for instance, you're not seriously suggesting that pre-game prayer is the mechanism by which the Judeo-Christian cult controls the masses, right? (Oops - but you start the example with "The Bible is a selective document used to serve political ends," so I'm not sure ....) I'll instead address how it is not a "direct contraditionof Joshua's words on the issue...."

Chapters 5-7 are placed in the context of the "Sermon on the Mount." See Matt. 5:1 (going up to the mountain and starting the teachings), 7:28-29 (astonishment of crowds upon hearing the teachings) & 8:1 (coming down from the mountain). The trees: the disconnect between form (hypocritical actions that do not reflect godly righteousness) and purpos (placing ourselves rightly before God in prayer). The forest: the Gospel of Matthew as a response of the early church to Pharaisaic Judaism, as a call to true rightesouness and recognition of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament - providing additional insights to what preceded His proclamation of the Good News.

Public prayer, whether at a football game or not, can run afoul with the cited text if it is done "as the hypocrites" do! But the point made does not contradict all public prayer. Nor is this a command that we crowd into closets to pray (presumably, individually, or in very close and small groups!) So, if a moment of silence is provided before a game, pray! (Aren't we admonished to "pray always"?) Let's just keep our focus on God, not our own glory.

Please know that my "blog-voice" shouldn't be distracting you from a sincere interest in sharing my Jesus (John 3:16). Don't let my occasionally ascerbic tone get in the way of your reflection on that message. I've prayed for you, and for Brownsville, and will continue to do so.

Regards,
Paul

BobbyWC said...

Paul, thanks for your professionala approach in you repsonse. Further, the quality of your writing is awesome.

When you fail to admit the Bible has been used for political ends - you loose credibility.

I accept that whether or not the Bible has been used for political ends - it is still what it is independent of how man has used it.

I also accept their may be purpose in the various versions of the 10 Commandments and the Lord's Prayer - I also concede that just because the various sects cannot agree on which is the correct one does not mean the Bible is not what it is. man's misuse of the Bible does not devalue its true meaning or source.

You have never heard me question faith - because in the end my acceptance of Joshua's existence and his meassage as found in the new Testament and gnostic Bible is based purely on faith.

But here is the problem - what the Bible is or is not - it is purely a political tool used by man - you know the fruit is not bad - it becauses bad when man poisons it.

For me this was Joshua's greatest message - to look into ourselves and lives life based on love and compassion.

This idea that salvation is through Joshua as taught by "Christians." defies everything Joshua believed in. The salvation is not in the man, but in living the message of the man -

I am pleased that more and more people are beginning to see the difference. The "Christian" view of salvation absolves "Christians" from living the message of Joshua.

You need to read "Joshua"

http://www.amazon.com/Joshua-Parable-Joseph-F-Girzone/dp/0684813467

It is odd how I found this author - my views on Joshua were well established when one day in a taxi in Manhattan the driver and I got to talking about the gnostic Bible. He told me about the book and said I would enjoy.

The first Book was made into a movie. BY chance when I got back to Dallas it was playing at the theaters - I have read all of the Books in the series.

Salvation in not through acknowleding man's perceptation of Joshua - it is through living his message.

Bobby WC

Paul said...

Bobby, thanks for the kind words.

I've seen the Joshua movie and briefly looked at Fr. Girzone's personal website and his "Joshua Mountain Ministries" websites (www.joshuamountain.org/our-story.html). At least on the surface, it would appear that you and the Joshua series' author would have a serious disagreement with regard to Jesus' nature, but (like you and I do) you'd agree that we're called to act in a loving, compassionate and just way each day.

At no point have I said that beliefs, including religious beliefs, are not often twisted to evil purpose. Nor have I indicated that any human institution (and any individual) is immune from being manipulated to ungodly ends. If I did I'd be ignoring the very nature of our mortal and fallen world.

The "coincidences" that led to your adoption of these modern Joshua parables for application in your life -- I hope you see that as a divine revelation from the God of Joshua (since, based on your apparent views, it cannot be Joshua)? I would suggest that you keep living His message, but also look to His Abba -Our Heavenly Father- for further guidance and instruction. Take that step in faith -- He will honor it!

Pax et bonum,
Paul