Religion is a disease

If one person talks to an imaginary friend, they're crazy. If many people talk to the same imaginary friend it's religion.

Originally posted by Vrill
If one person talks to an imaginary friend, they're crazy. If many people talk to the same imaginary friend it's religion.

The problem is when the imaginary friends answer back in their own way. Then you either have to belive in something more and/or belive you have gone crazy. I do not belive in god because I was religous. I had experiances that led me to read religous text to understand what happened to me. And I do not follow any religous dogma. The core of all religons when you see beyond a few lies in the Abraham religons point to the same thing behind everything.

I think Gnarls Barkley describes it best
Gnarls Barkley - Crazy LYRICS


Look within for a connection and you might be supprised to get an answer back. The people who seek will find. If people really followed Jesus and Buddhas core message then the world would be very different. The problem is not the message it is the followers who cannot understand it and follow it.

Originally posted by windword
No there isn't.

Yes there is.
First off, where would the water come from? The Bible answers it very clearly, in Genesis 7:11 -

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

An excerpt from this site here says the following:

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.”

And, of course, there is the canopy theory- that a layer of water existed above our atmosphere, similar to Venus, which during the time of the flood, broke loose and caused massive torrential rains all across the world.

As for the rest of the evidence?

- "Polystrate" Fossils, petrified trees as long as 80 feet in length found upright, sometimes going through different layers in the sedimentary deposits.
- Fossils themselves, which don't form on the bottom of lakes or oceans unless it is quickly buried. The eruption at Mt. St. Helens was a major problem for Evolutionists because of how quickly the land around was changed because of one single event.

People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of “billions of years” is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.

- Clastic Dikes, which are basically sedimentary material intruding into foreign rock mass. The problem arises because these "older" sediments are found intruding UP into overlying younger strata. This can only have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state. So... what took these "older" sediments so long to become hard? You want me to believe it took millions of years for sand laden sediments to turn into sandstone? Sorry, but I deny ignorance, and only follow facts and common sense.

- Evidence suggests that the Grand Canyon didn't need a "little water" over "lots of time" to form - but that it could have been formed with "LOTS of water" over "little time" - think this is absurd? Palouse Canyon, in eastern Washington state, is a fairly deep (300-500 feet deep) canyon that formed in about 1 or 2 days after massive flooding. It didn't take millions of years.

There's "evidence" of a world wide ICE AGE and melting glaciers and ice sheets!

I don't disagree with this. It's likely, however, that the flood brought on a mini- Ice Age that last for a few hundred years, and once they melted, caused the sea levels to rise even more and "divide" the land, as the Bible says (which occurred about 200 years after the flood, actually!)

Besides, it's impossible to believe that a small group of people of those days could gather all the animals from all the continents, kept them in a big boat, and them put them back in their respective environments/continents after the flood.

"Impossible to believe"? Would you rather believe we all came from rocks and primordial soup? LOL. Noah and his family didn't gather the animals, they came to him. And it was only those in the immediate vicinity. There weren't "billions" of species either. Probably no more than 10,000 species, including those of birds and animals. Insects were not included, neither were fish. And, Noah was probably smart enough that he didn't need to bring a FULL grown animal, but a baby - why? Smaller, easier to take care of, they sleep more (hibernating animals), and they would live longer after the flood to reproduce. After the flood, they could have very well just have migrated to their current locations today.

There's a ton more evidence, but I'm running out of room so I had to cut this short.

reply to post by Lionhearte

Yes there is.

No there isn't.

An excerpt from this site here says the following:

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.”

Okay, but that's a theory. Also, it's describing a local, not global event, an earthquake, possible volcanic activity and a tsumani.

And, of course, there is the canopy theory

Just another theory, doesn't prove anything

- "Polystrate" Fossils, petrified trees as long as 80 feet in length found upright, sometimes going through different layers in the sedimentary deposits.

Slow global warming and the melting of glaciers and ice sheet.

The eruption at Mt. St. Helens was a major problem for Evolutionists because of how quickly the land around was changed because of one single event.

Not true. No volcanic event contradicts evolution.

- Evidence suggests that the Grand Canyon didn't need a "little water" over "lots of time" to form - but that it could have been formed with "LOTS of water" over "little time" - think this is absurd? Palouse Canyon, in eastern Washington state, is a fairly deep (300-500 feet deep) canyon that formed in about 1 or 2 days after massive flooding. It didn't take millions of years.

Evidence suggests that it took several million years to create the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones prove that. Yes, it is possible that a flash flood of enormous proportions could do great damage, but that isn't the case here.

It's likely, however, that the flood brought on a mini- Ice Age that last for a few hundred years, and once they melted, caused the sea levels to rise even more and "divide" the land, as the Bible says (which occurred about 200 years after the flood, actually!)

Not if the flood occured around 3 to 4,000 years ago.

Note: The Last Ice Age cycle lasted from roughly 60,000 to 20,000 years before present, with Ice Age cycles occurring since 2.6 Million years ago to the present. www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

"Impossible to believe"? Would you rather believe we all came from rocks and primordial soup?

What does the biblical accuracy have to do with evolution vs. creationism? Creation was before the supposed flood, right? Humanity survived this flood, did it not, or did we have to re-evolve?

Noah and his family didn't gather the animals, they came to him. And it was only those in the immediate vicinity.

So, now you're saying it wasn't a global flood, but a localized flood?

There weren't "billions" of species either. Probably no more than 10,000 species, including those of birds and animals. Insects were not included,

Genesis 7:8
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

Sorry, insects "creepeth."

And, Noah was probably smart enough that he didn't need to bring a FULL grown animal, but a baby - why? Smaller, easier to take care of, they sleep more (hibernating animals), and they would live longer after the flood to reproduce.

If they just came to him, why did he have to smart enough for anything? How did he provide the milk and nurturing that these babies would need?

After the flood, they could have very well just have migrated to their current locations today.

So, the kangaroo, the wombat and the pandas swam to Australia? Why did they need an ark? Oh, wait, it wasn't a global flood after all.

I think what Lionharte has said is very interesting and should not be dismissed so quickly. The man who first pushed the idea of continental drift was dismissed harshly and unfortunately didn't live to see his ideas accepted.

We must bare in mind that the Bible is not based on a global belief system but on a very localised cult. 'The world' in the Bible is not the earth but the Hebrews' world, which was the Holy Land. Their world, I believe, changed dramatically more than once due to sudden tectonic events. You only have to look at the map to see that the land has ripped apart to create the Suex Canal, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea. The Bible talks about massive events in which land falls, new mountains rise up and valleys are altered. The Bible is based on an imaginery volcano god but it is also a good diary of events, as seen through very superstitious eyes.

Originally posted by quietlearner
some benefits of religion out of the top of my head:
1 give hope to hopeless people
2 give morals to immoral people
I definitely see how religion can be beneficial to society. Though obviously todays mainstream organised religion is out of control and starting to create some serious world wide problems.

1. It gives false hope. As Marx said, religion is "the sigh of the oppressed creature".

It would be better to give people an education and genuine hope of improving their circumstances. Then religion (generally) becomes irrelevant.

2. Yet the facts prove quite the opposite, when we compare religious societies to more secular ones. Religions like Christianity have at their very basis some severely immoral notions, from a primitive, savage and immoral version of god (who is also quite imaginary, thankfully).

It is known that as societies become more secular they also become healthier, (generally) better educated, more tolerant, peaceful and affluent (with less income disparity). The US seems to personify many the societal problems linked to religion. Overall as a nation, it is one of the wealthiest on earth, yet also one of the most warlike with a level of societal health for its people that isn't up to first world standards. What it also has in common with many second and third world societies (often those it is in conflict with) is its level of religious fundamentalism. Go figure.

It (the US) certainly could (and should) be a model of a free society for the rest of the world to look up to. Yet it is now studied as a comparative model of societal dysfunction. Worth reading the linked paper, you might find it surprising.


www.epjournal.net...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

No there isn't.

Yes, there is.

Okay, but that's a theory. Also, it's describing a local, not global event, an earthquake, possible volcanic activity and a tsumani.

I'm not going to assume what your beliefs are, but I believe you're aware of what Evolutionists say when someone says "Evolution is JUST a theory." Besides, I wasn't proposing they were facts to begin with. Simply that there is an alternative view point that is completely VIABLE.

Slow global warming and the melting of glaciers and ice sheet.

If you can explain how ice petrified trees in sedimentary rock, I'd love to hear it.

Not true. No volcanic event contradicts evolution.

It contradicts the Old-Age Earth theory. Very, very much so.

Evidence suggests that it took several million years to create the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones prove that. Yes, it is possible that a flash flood of enormous proportions could do great damage, but that isn't the case here.

Via what, the "Fossil Record"? Maybe you should do some research onto fossils. They can't PROVE anything, except that something was once alive. You don't know if the creature those bones belonged to reproduced and had children, and if those children had mutations, and if those mutations are what brought us here today. You. Can't.

Not only that, but you should look up how "fossils" are dated to begin with. Hint- they're dated by the strata they are found in. Oh, but wait - the strata is dated by the fossils in them.

Circular reasoning.

Note: The Last Ice Age cycle lasted from roughly 60,000 to 20,000 years before present, with Ice Age cycles occurring since 2.6 Million years ago to the present. www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

The question begs, how they dated that to so many years ago. If you know, please, tell me.

What does the biblical accuracy have to do with evolution vs. creationism? Creation was before the supposed flood, right? Humanity survived this flood, did it not, or did we have to re-evolve?

It actually has a whole lot to do with it. If the Biblical account of the flood is accurate 100%, then perhaps it's accurate about the beginning. If it's accurate about that, perhaps it's accurate about the ending.

And we did not have to "re-evolve" because we never evolved to begin with. We did have to adapt, however.Minor changes such as sea life transitions from fresh water to salt water over several hundred years, or less.

So, now you're saying it wasn't a global flood, but a localized flood?

How did you get that? Read what I said again-

Noah and his family didn't gather the animals, they came to him. And it was only those in the immediate vicinity.

"Those" being the animals in the immediate vicinity, but to be honest that's just speculated theory because they could have come from around 100 years travel distance. Which is, well, basically anywhere on the Earth.

Genesis 7:8
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

Sorry, insects "creepeth."

So do Lizards. So do Snakes. So do Bunnies.
"Creepeth" are those which "move along with the body prone and close to the ground."

Genesis 7:22 suggests insects could have survived -

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Insects do not breathe out of the nostril. They don't even "breathe" at all. They don't have lungs, nor do they transport oxygen through their circulatory systems. Instead, they have a series of tubes called a tracheal system to perform the function of gas exchange in their body.

They would have survived just fine floating on a dead carcass or floating logs, or what have you.

If they just came to him, why did he have to smart enough for anything? How did he provide the milk and nurturing that these babies would need?

He had to be smart enough to build the ark, for one. God didn't build it for him, for one. One simple theory could be that the baby animals he brought on were already well fed enough to sustain them for only 40 days, and they could have hibernated whilst on the Ark.

And when I say "babies" I don't mean 2 day old babies. Could have been, sure. But they also could've been young enough to not require their mother's milk.

So, the kangaroo, the wombat and the pandas swam to Australia? Why did they need an ark? Oh, wait, it wasn't a global flood after all.

Derp. All land mass could have been connected, as I already touched upon.
Lower the water levels a thousand feet or so, and it all connects. That's where the mini- Ice Age comes in, which "divided the land" in the time of Peleg.

reply to post by TheFogHorn


Hi Foggy!

I think what Lionharte has said is very interesting and should not be dismissed so quickly. The man who first pushed the idea of continental drift was dismissed harshly and unfortunately didn't live to see his ideas accepted.

Please expand on what, exactly, in Lionheart's post shouldn't be discounted. Are you referring to the link about tectonic plate movement?

Surely, you don't think the continents were broken from one mega-continent because of Noah's flood.

reply to post by Vrill


If religion is disease then Jesus is the cure.

Religion is mans attempt at reaching God through his own efforts, Christianty is having a personal relationship with the creator of the universe through the person of Jesus Christ.

Your hatred for religion is misplaced.

As a Christian I hate religion too because Jesus is the only way to heaven and mans self efforts lead to destruction. Religion never saves anyone from hell, only genuine faith in Jesus can.

And yes i know Christianity is classed as a "Religion" by society, but the Christian faith is everything religion isn't

Our Lord Jesus Christ also hates what religion represents so don't be to quick to judge our faith as being simply a "another religion".

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

If religion is disease then Jesus is the cure.

Jesus = 1st century version of Marshall Applewhite.

That is, if Jesus existed at all, which seems unlikely. It is a certainty that he didn't exist in the way Christians believe. Same grandiose unsupported claims, same preaching of love, same primitive and barbaric heavenly father, same fate that often befalls extremist messianic/apocalyptic cult leaders. Though, in Applewhite's favor at least we know for a fact he did exist, also that far fewer numbers of people have martyred themselves in his honor. None have been slaughtered due to lack of belief in his supposed divinity.

None of it is any more believable than Scientology, perhaps a little less so. That isn't saying much, however. Believe what you wish, Christianity is based on the doctrine and methods of a brainwashing cult.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Vrill
Epicurus said it best, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?".

That argument is pathetic and disgraceful.

Originally posted by Vrill
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

How so?

It uses man's own evil, which can only occur within the framework of the absolute, unfettered, freedom ie: free will, to then suggests that God, for not intervening to remove it and for permitting it to exist in the first place cannot be good, the implication being that because we cannot be trustest with the freedom given us, that God must be unjust for making us free to do evil. So it's an argument that is pathetic and disgraceful, but also humorous in it's ignorance I don't care what the philosopher's name is or that he was among the Greek philosophers it makes his argument no better. It's pathetic, disgraceful and hilarious when you really think it all the way through..

And on that "anvil", it then puts God to the test and mocks him, no less. Oh Epicurus Epicurus, what say you now?

Yes, Epicurus humble and honest observation has a lot of “facts” that stand in its way. Let's see.....

The nonsensical genesis account, talking snakes, a flood myth so ridiculous in its scope it defies any semblance of reason, a non existent slave race in Egypt, a wandering of the desert that we know didn't happen, parting seas, imaginary friends, celestial/planetary motion halted to allow for “loving and merciful god's” slaughter, people successfully surviving inside of whales digestive systems, virgin conception/birth (it wasn’t the milkman dear, god snuck one when I wasn't looking!), changing the molecular structure of water on a whim, defying gravity, faith healing, people resurrecting from tombs and running the streets, none of the supposed amazing feats of jesus (or any mention of his existence at all) deemed worthy of mention by any genuine contemporary...Too many more to mention.....

A bigoted god who condemns people based on sexual preference, what they think, demands worship and strange occult animal sacrifice/rituals, forbids the pursuit of knowledge, makes his creation flawed then commands it to revile its flaws and correct them under threat of eternal torture, the ultimate cult figure/tyrant from whom even death itself offers no escape.

What a strange, warped version of love and mercy this primitive belief is.

Perhaps those capable reasoning without needing threats of eternal torture, or indoctrination, have less problems with the obvious truth spoken by Epicurus. No amount of cult doublespeak seems to approach the basic honesty of his observations.

For all of this, people are free to believe what they wish. Though they should never be free to enslave the young minds that innocently look up to us into a primitive religious dogma, perpetuating the cycle of fear and ignorance. At least not unchallenged.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Vrill
Epicurus said it best, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?".

That argument is pathetic and disgraceful.

Originally posted by Vrill
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

How so?

It uses man's own evil, which can only occur within the framework of the absolute, unfettered, freedom ie: free will, to then suggests that God, for not intervening to remove it and for permitting it to exist in the first place cannot be good, the implication being that because we cannot be trustest with the freedom given us, that God must be unjust for making us free to do evil. So it's an argument that is pathetic and disgraceful, but also humorous in it's ignorance I don't care what the philosopher's name is or that he was among the Greek philosophers it makes his argument no better. It's pathetic, disgraceful and hilarious when you really think it all the way through..

And on that "anvil", it then puts God to the test and mocks him, no less. Oh Epicurus Epicurus, what say you now?

The God of the Bible, and hence, the God of the three major religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, is the God if the Old Testament. This guy has some undesirable personalty traits.

If Epicurus' question is addressing the God of the OT, then his conundrum is valid.

But maybe God is not a jealous deity, demanding worship, ordering murder and condemning mankind for "birth defects" Maybe GOD is all that is, was and will be, an immutable force that permeates everything and is a unifying force that bonds all that is spiritual in one great ocean of love.

Maybe GOD is so big that believing this great thing would step foot on planet earth, write the 10 Commandments in stone and incarnate just to be murdered, is just believing in a story that stems from a lie. Then believing this lie, and molding ones life around it, is a disease.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

No there isn't. There is zero evidence of the historical accuracy of the biblical account of "Noah's flood." Besides, it's impossible to believe that a small group of people of those days could gather all the animals from all the continents, kept them in a big boat, and them put them back in their respective environments/continents after the flood.

The thing I find impossible to believe is how some of you will go through your ENTIRE lives being completely and totally brainwashed into believing absolute LIES when the evidence for the truth is so blatantly obvious that only someone who is totally paralyzed from the neck up could possibly miss it.

This makes it VERY obvious just how successful the mind control has been over society. Only someone that has been completely brainwashed would miss something so plainly obvious to anyone with two eyes.

Legends of the Flood

What is the significance of the various flood legends? The answer seems obvious: (a) we have well over 200 flood legends that tell of a great flood (and possibly more than 500); (b) many of the legends come from different ages and civilizations that could not possibly have copied any of the similar legends; (c) the legends were recorded long before any missionaries arrived to relate to them the Genesis account of Noah; and (d) almost all civilizations have some sort of flood legend. The conclusion to be drawn from such facts is that in the distant past, there was a colossal flood that forever affected the history of all civilizations.

Those living soon after the Flood did not have the book of Genesis to read to their descendants. (Genesis was not written until several hundred years after the Flood.) The account of the Flood was passed from one generation to the next. Many parents and grandparents told their children and grandchildren about the huge ark, the wonderful animals, and the devastating Flood, long before the Genesis record ever existed. Over the years, the details of the story were altered, but many of the actual details remained the same. Alfred Rehwinkel wrote:

Traditions similar to this record are found among nearly all the nations and tribes of the human race. And this is as one would expect it to be. If that awful world catastrophe, as described in the Bible, actually happened, the existence of the Flood traditions among the widely separated and primitive people is just what is to be expected. It is only natural that the memory of such an event was rehearsed in the ears of the children of the survivors again and again, and possibly made the basis of some religious observances (1951, pp. 127-128).

Preserved in the myths and legends of almost every people on the face of the globe is the memory of the great catastrophe. While myths may not have any scientific value, yet they are significant in indicating the fact that an impression was left in the minds of the races of mankind that could not be erased.

After the “trappings” are stripped away from the kernel of truth in the various stories, there is almost complete agreement among practically all flood accounts: (a) a universal destruction by water of the human race and all other living things occurred; (b) an ark, or boat, was provided as the means of escape for some; and (c) a seed of mankind was provided to perpetuate humanity. As Furman Kearley once observed: “These traditions agree in too many vital points not to have originated from the same factual event”.

Legends of the Flood

The Ancients Knew of the Global Flood

And the odds become even longer that Noah's Flood is not an historical fact when one considers the hundreds of tribes from around the world that have ancestral knowledge of the global Flood. And yet, we are expected to ignore this overwhelming evidence because it contradicts current mainstream science and archaeology.

Hundreds of tribal legends and ancient accounts from Egypt, Babylon, and the Indus confirm the account of Noah's Flood from the book of Genesis. These tribes and ancient cultures obviously had no interest in copying a Hebrew account about a global Flood, therefore, all of these accounts must have been independently derived by the various people-groups' ancestors from the eight who were on the vessel that endured the global Flood. When the eight reproduced and spread out across the Middle East, and soon thereafter, much of the world (as some were demonstrably excellent mariners), the memory of the worldwide Flood was retained, and to a not-surprisingly great degree.

Global Flood

reply to post by Murgatroid


Floods have happened and will continue to happen all over the world. The end of the ice age caused global flooding, but not simultaneously. You're right, there isn't a culture that hasn't experienced flooding. Katrina, anyone?

What is mind numbing is that there are still people that believe one man and his little clan family saved all the animals and birds and other life forms, via a boat he built, and then somehow got them to their respective environments.

reply to post by Murgatroid

The thing I find impossible to believe is how some of you will go through your ENTIRE lives being completely and totally brainwashed into believing absolute LIES when the evidence for the truth is so blatantly obvious that only someone who is totally paralyzed from the neck up could possibly miss it.

This is so tru........

Wait.

WHAT??!! You're not talking about blind believers, are you!! OMG, you're not! *facepalm*

What is "impossible to believe" is the outrageous myths of the Bible. Noah did not save every animal from drowning. He did not live to be 800 years old (or whatever preposterous age he is said to have achieved)...same for Methuselah. UNLESS THEY WERE ANOTHER SPECIES.

The evidence is NOT blatantly obvious. It is entirely a story in an ancient book that has been rewritten to fit past events and past beliefs about natural phenomenon.

sigh. This ridiculous idea that every word of it is true for everyone is, well....ridiculous. But, whatever.

I wish it wasn't so hot outside, I'd go check under all my shrubs for fairies....what did I do with that moon-energized crystal???? Did that hob under the stairs take it again?? *wanders off, frustrated*

Originally posted by wildtimes

What is "impossible to believe" is the outrageous myths of the Bible.

It sounds as if you think that myths are either true or false. That's what I call the common usage 'Joe Sixpack' understanding of what myth is.

Spend a few years studying comparative mythology, comparative mysticism, and comparative religion. Then come back and tell us what a myth is.

reply to post by BlueMule

Spend a few years studying comparative mythology, comparative mysticism, and comparative religion. Then come back and tell us what a myth is.

Erm, ExCuse Me?
I am more than 50 years old...I have studied all of those things (thanks very much). The Bible is full of myths, just as Thomas Bullfinch's The Golden Age of Myth and Legend. !!!
(there's a link to a free online version ....I suggest you spend a few years studying that. You have no call to be a smart-alec, btw).

Who is it you assume you are "advising" here?

A myth is dictionary.reference.com...

myth   [mith] Show IPA
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: [color=orqange]His account of the event is pure myth
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Any questions? Smart guy?

Well, lets have a race of the gods and see which one shows up. They are all jeolous of each other, so competion is in their blood.

Invite Yahwah, The Father (Daddy), then Allah, then Jesus, and maybe even Nimrod and lets see who makes an appearance.


Opps----nobody showed up.

Looks like the gods all died and there is nobody to talk to---except one's own imagination and fantasy.


Standing offer, produce the god, not a book of so many words. Else be considered daffy.

Originally posted by windword
But maybe God is not a jealous deity, demanding worship, ordering murder and condemning mankind for "birth defects" Maybe GOD is all that is, was and will be, an immutable force that permeates everything and is a unifying force that bonds all that is spiritual in one great ocean of love.

Maybe GOD is so big that believing this great thing would step foot on planet earth, write the 10 Commandments in stone and incarnate just to be murdered, is just believing in a story that stems from a lie. Then believing this lie, and molding ones life around it, is a disease.

The possible spiritual aspect within existence (not just humans) is a very worthwhile subject IMO. What a shame the "marketers in souls" via their cult methods and manipulation by fear, try to monopilise the subject. I wonder how many have been prevented from any open, unbiased and honest search after falling for this cult indoctrination. Surely when it comes to the point where people are encouraged to discriminate against others, or deny basic known facts of our existence because of the most ridiculous and archaic fairy stories (that have no hope of being anything other than myth), something is wrong?

Christianity is no more believable than Scientology.