which god -

I have lots of both on my web site. This one is plain chant, voice only with no instruments at all. Really bad.

It's my first attempt too so you're not missing anything. I just wondered if you had heard it.

Thats fine Sam. The reason I am reading it is because a couple folks on here (they know who they are) kept insisting I "could not properly" argue these points unless I read the bible. So thats why Im doing it and routinely pointing out new issues that have been created as a result of having been asked to read it.

Probably because of school I am used to having to settle into subjects that may not interest me but regardless of that, I need to pass the courses so to me, its no big deal. The bible will just be like another course that I need to pass. Same exact thing.

But you didnt address the question I was most interested in. Where do you think humans came from? Or do you just not think about it which is also an option. Many people are that way in my experience.

Well that'd be Zeus wouldn't it?

To the best of my knowledge he's the only god ever to have received the title of "God of gods".

All other gods work under him on commission.

And the Goddesses are all sisters of Aphrodities.

That's actually an unscrupluous dirty trick that religious people use to get people to read their doctrine.

Just the other night I had decided to re-read the entire bible as a refresher course. But I didn't get very far before I realized why it's such a waste of time.

The Bible isn't going to change no matter how many times it's read. It's the same crap all over again.

The more I read it the more I want to throw up at the fact that so many people actually believe that it could have something to do with the creator of this universe.

It would be like someone handing me a book about a man who is an egotistical bigot and a male-chauvanist pig who ran out on his family and shirked all of his responsiblities and claimed that the book describes my father.

I would toss the book back at them and say, if this is a true picture of what my father is like I disown him.

It's that simple.

I'm sure as hell not going to believe on pure faith that God is as ugly as the Bible claims. I wouldn't want God to be that nasty.

I would be extremely disappointed in God if I discovered that the Bible were true. I don't even care if he did have his son crucified. That in itself would have been a dispicable thing for God to do.

There's no excuse for the biblical picture of God at all. None.

If the pentalty for not worshiping that God is death, then by all means I accept that pentalty. I'd rather die than serve that demon.

And that's the truth.

If this is the wrong picture of God then God had better get some better publishers and authors to write his books because the Bible makes God look quite literally worse than Satan.

If the Bible is true then God is a deomon. It's that simple.

Also, if the book is a lie, then God should be glad that I rejected it.

The idea that any God would punish people for thinking that he is BETTER than what the Bible claims is an oxymoron.

What kind of a God would punish decent loving people for thinking that he was better than the male-chauvnistic blood-thirsty pig described in the Bible?

It's ridiculous.

I know Abra you are right. Im actually skimmin it and looking for deviant sexual behavior and violence. Shhhh. Dont tell anyone.

oh i think about it K, my post should be evident of that. as far as to where we came from, I've listened to everyone on here and their opinions and there is none so far that i find to be absolute truth so i keep looking. i don't begrudge anyone there views even the Christian's but i see my role here at least as someone to make others think on what they have established as there beliefs, which has snowballed with the C's into greater depths so to say.

but in the long run it makes no diff what one believes, we will not know in this life anyway. based on some things in my family have happened to them i lean more to an outside source for life here - alien, but!! that's not the "real" answer either - for it still remains to be seen where they came from. thus back to either a diety, a force, or happenstance. those are the three i look at closely. sorry K. but to me whether man was here 6000 yrs. or 6 million yrs makes no difference i am searching for core answers - not when we started or how we may have developed aeons ago, but how we started to run/perform, to me there is more than just the body, think of it like this if you may - what gives energy to life? what is the spark that turns over the engine for the first time and what keeps it running with clock like precision? what is the power source? and because I've witnessed spirit i can't rule out that this is the energy that leaves the body and then the motor dies. there is some force that gives life to all in my opinion, and that part of evolution does not touch on this - that is why it holds little interest to me K, not because i think its wrong or it sucks - it doesn't answer my questions i have. i am looking for core answers - why are we alive? why do we exist and that's out of the realm of science for the most part at least for now anyway. i want to know if possible what gives me life? because i know i did not give myself life! therefore with all i have experienced i still hope to find the answer, but if i don't it won't matter, its just a desire to know if i can.

Were it possible to substanciate a single word of your post, I might tend to agree with you. However - the entire thing is subjective at best, and based on perception unsupported by experience.

Eljay it is my understanding that today there are many Roman Catholics in particular who will go out of their way to classify themselves as believers in the concept of "Theistic Evolution." A close girlfriend of mine is a practicing Roman Catholic who also has a belief in the Theory of Evolution. In fact, I went to school with her. I am not taking a position on whether or not it is the normally accepted policy of the current day Catholic Church but in my own personal experience it certainly exists. Here is how they define it.

What is Theistic Evolution?

Theistic Evolution is not a defined belief system. A theistic evolutionist is a person who accepts that evolution is the scientific description of how organisms change over time; that all organisms have got here through descent with modification. At the same time, they are theists - who believe in a God who is both personal and concerned with His creation (as opposed to a 'wind it up and let it go' Deist God)

Theistic Evolutionists could thus belong to any of the three main monotheistic faiths, or to any other theistic belief system.


Even Wiccans define themselves as such and the only difference there is they tend to believe that a Great Goddess gave "birth" to the Universe and all of her planets. No one is really at odds, its just the details vary a bit.

Your right Abra.The God of the Earth is a demon.And we all will suffer and die whether we serve him or not.

The God of the Earth is a "him" in your estimation? Thats not what I have heard you say before. Your theory of events is that the passive, female Goddesses, who had traditionally been associated with the Earth were replaced by the thunderous, violent male designated "Skygods" which would of course eventually give rise to Monotheism and the conceptualization of a singular male deity who is an aggressive, jealous, Skygod that will rule over humanity with an iron fist. Lets not mix words. Get to it if you want to create an argument here. Start another thread.

God could have created the Universe and sat back to watch. If you believe in God, You can't even begin to decide what would make sense to a deity.

At one time there were Christians who believed that Satan inspired the writing of the Old Testament. They believed that Satan was indeed the God of the physical world.

They belived that the New Testament was the word of the spiritual God who was portrayed in Jesus. They did not believe that Jesus was incarnated as a mortal man like the Catholics believe. And therefore they didn't believe in the crucifixion as a real event. They saw it as a metaphor. They believed that Jesus was always spiritual as they believed that the spiritual God would never 'dirty' himself by becoming physically incarnated.

They did however, consider themselves to be "Christians" as they were indeed followers of the teachings of Christ. They also believed in contraceptives, euthanasia and even suicide. Or I should say that they did not believe these things to be sins.

They also believed in helping the poor and focused on helping the poor as they felt this was one of Jesus' greatest messages.

They believed in masturbation and any non-procreative sex. They simply didn't believe that sex was sex unless procreation took place. They viewed sex as the act of procreating, not a physical act of pleasure.

The Pope of the Catholic church was outraged by the beliefs of the Cathers and so he amassed 'Holy Armies' to mass murder them.

The Catholic "crusaders" did indeed succeed in murdering all of the Cathers and wiping them out completely.

Those people who talk about Christianity as we know it today "must be true" because it has survived so long seem to overlook all the mass murdering that took place to keep the religion going.

Christianity as we know it today truly is an evil religion if only because of its history. The bigoted Christians that we know today are responsible for having murdered all of the TRUE Chrisians. They worship Satan in the name of Jesus and don't even know it.

BigGlen, correct me if Im wrong but isnt that the "Deist" outlook or belief? They dont deny the possibility of a "creator" but once that took place, this creator "left the building" not unlike Elvis and allowed the mechanisms of biological evolution to take place on its own and this is where life originates.

Your views?

This is true if you simply believe in a "God" generically.

But it's not compatible with a belief in the Bible because the Bible claims that God was intervening and guiding events all the way through the old testament. Sending his son to be crucified is hardly an act of just sitting back either.

And then there's Jesus telling people that God will answer their prayers.

So a God who doesn't intervene simply isn't compatible with the Biblical picture. The Biblical God was always fussing around with his creation.

Various Vatican cardinals, and I believe the pope too, are on record encouraging catholics to accept evolution.

The Vatican does not consider Evolution and Religion to be mutually exclusive.

You can actually go to the Vatican site and read all about it.

Mitochondria! Or
Chlorophyll!

Genesis 1 (I say one so as to not confuse it with the contradictory Genesis 2)

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Alright, plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes? What the? Now thats not asking for much. Its common sense. I think the same guy that wrote that passage about "rabbits cheweth the cud" tackled this assignment.

ive seen you make this statement a few times K, where is that verse found i cannot locate it?

never mind i found it in leviticus.