Thread: God + woman = abomination.

God + woman = abomination.


Not to shatter your faith in the WORD but consider.

God as a species and man as a different species.

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

God with Wogod is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Wogod is then Not OK.

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Consider also, the trinity.

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

God + woman = abomination.


Regards
DL

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

I really cannot believe you dont understand the trinity at all... even a school child has a modest understanding of the relationship.

Jesus and God are one. God made Mary pregnant with himself in the form of Jesus. Mary was not God or Jesus' mother as you well know, she was (to be blunt), the instrument which god chose to bring himself into this world in human form. To suggest that there was some incest at play really makes you look like a spanner!

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

Two things.

1) God was not reproducing. He was, if you like, transforming into human form.

2) The rules you are implying God obeys, were rules god created to govern MAN. As you have stated, God is a different being from man, so why would he be under the same rules? You don't apply the laws man follows to horses do you?

Again it seems to me like you have not thought this through.

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

Two things.

1) God was not reproducing. He was, if you like, transforming into human form.

2) The rules you are implying God obeys, were rules god created to govern MAN. As you have stated, God is a different being from man, so why would he be under the same rules? You don't apply the laws man follows to horses do you?

Again it seems to me like you have not thought this through.

I have too.

If horses are ruled by horses and ants are ruled by ants, why should man be ruled by an alien God. how can an alien know what being human is all about?

He can only if He lowers Himself to our level.
As our example this says that we to can lower ourselves to lower animals. Lets try pigs so that we can set the rules for pigs.

You are right though about not applying His rules to Himself. That would prevent His use of genocide on us. Can't have that now can we. He might have to genocide our ass again. This is good, right?

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

How can God know what being human is all about?? Well maybe since he created us? Made us in his image? And therefore has the same general conscious awareness as us?

And if we take this fruther to the christian perspective, God came and lived among us? Suffered like us?

Originally Posted by sox

How can God know what being human is all about?? Well maybe since he created us? Made us in his image? And therefore has the same general conscious awareness as us?

And if we take this fruther to the christian perspective, God came and lived among us? Suffered like us?

Gods do not suffer.

The only way God can know man is to live a full life of a man. Jesus did not.

If Jesus was God then why did he not speak of the abolition of slavery, the equality of woman and the discrimination of Gays. Just to name a few.

Can you really see Jesus as casting the first cloud in the flood?

If you can then you cannot know God at all. He does not kill humans. His creation and children if you are correct.

Regards
DL

Gods do not suffer.

How do you know that?

The only way God can know man is to live a full life of a man. Jesus did not.

I would disagree with the first sentence, and moving onto the second ask how jesus did not live as a man?

If Jesus was God then why did he not speak of the abolition of slavery, the equality of woman and the discrimination of Gays. Just to name a few.

I am nto discussing slavery as you clearly havent been arsed to go and look into it. As for the latter two, why would Jesus say any different from God on these matters?

Can you really see Jesus as casting the first cloud in the flood?

What?

If you can then you cannot know God at all. He does not kill humans. His creation and children if you are correct.

God does not kill humans?? If you are referring to the God of the bible, as this thread seems to suggest he most certaintly does! If he did not, how could he have carried out the genocide you so wittingly mentioned before?

Originally Posted by sox

Gods do not suffer.

How do you know that?

If you were a non corporeal God, how could you suffer. Not phisically. Mentally. No because you have all the answers.

The only way God can know man is to live a full life of a man. Jesus did not.

I would disagree with the first sentence, and moving onto the second ask how jesus did not live as a man?

At what age does wisdom come to man? How old was Jesus? There is your answer.

If Jesus was God then why did he not speak of the abolition of slavery, the equality of woman and the discrimination of Gays. Just to name a few.

I am nto discussing slavery as you clearly havent been arsed to go and look into it. As for the latter two, why would Jesus say any different from God on these matters?

Because all souls have the same value. Does womans soul take a back seat to man souls in heaven. Same on earth as it is in heaven. Ring a bell.

Can you really see Jesus as casting the first cloud in the flood?

What?

The story of Jesus with the prostitute. He who is without sin let him cast the first stone.

If God wre to use genocide he would be throwing clouds. Poetic licece on my part. I thought you would get it.

If you can then you cannot know God at all. He does not kill humans. His creation and children if you are correct.

God does not kill humans?? If you are referring to the God of the bible, as this thread seems to suggest he most certaintly does! If he did not, how could he have carried out the genocide you so wittingly mentioned before?

I refer to people who are misreading the Bible.

God is real and would never kill humans. Those who applaud Him when He does in scripture are just plain wrong. The real God does not break His oewn laws and use genocide on His children.

Regards
DL

You cannot misread a chapter in the bible where it says God kills people. God has taken the lives of people.

Originally Posted by sox

You cannot misread a chapter in the bible where it says God kills people. God has taken the lives of people.

That would make Him break His own laws.

Whould you trust a law maker that breaks His own laws.

Do as I say, not as I do??????? Sounds like something only some alien God would say or do.

The real God is better than yours. He does not break His laws and does not kill people that He calls His children.

Regards
DL

I hold the belief that God created life. In my opinion he has the right to take it away, and when he does his reasons are justified.

Originally Posted by sox

I hold the belief that God created life. In my opinion he has the right to take it away, and when he does his reasons are justified.

I have created two sons. To take their life would be a horrendus crime.

What justification do you give for God's genocidal fit?

What can justify killing millions including children and babies by the tens of thousands?

We did not love Him.
We did not obey.
We did not adore.

Why did our loving father drown us all except for the 8.

Regards
DL

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Lol thats more reasonable than your idea of God.

Once again though, I shall say that I am not a christian...

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Lol thats more reasonable than your idea of God.

Once again though, I shall say that I am not a christian...

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Lol thats more reasonable than your idea of God.

Once again though, I shall say that I am not a christian...

And yet the God you seek must do miracles.

Regards
DL

I have not said I am a christian, jew or muslim. You know nothing of the God I seek or believe in.

Second of all, why must God perform miracles? I assume you are meaning the God of the bible when you say this.

If I were ever to follow the God of the bible, it would not be because of the miracles he had been said to carry out. If I am going to follow any religion it will be because it is a comfort to me, and I expect it to try and make me a nicer, more loving person.

What does your God offer? You mock the abrahamic Gods, yet while there might be some bits that seem bizzarre, or even blatantly false, they at least offer the believer salvation.

Originally Posted by sox

I have not said I am a christian, jew or muslim. You know nothing of the God I seek or believe in.

Second of all, why must God perform miracles? I assume you are meaning the God of the bible when you say this.

If I were ever to follow the God of the bible, it would not be because of the miracles he had been said to carry out. If I am going to follow any religion it will be because it is a comfort to me, and I expect it to try and make me a nicer, more loving person.

What does your God offer? You mock the abrahamic Gods, yet while there might be some bits that seem bizzarre, or even blatantly false, they at least offer the believer salvation.

Yes, as in follow Jesus or go to hell. Nice policy???

What is your belief. You keep saying what you do not believe, lets see what you do believe, no more hiding now.

Regards
DL

That depends entirely on what you think hell is. I for one don't think that hell is a fiery cavern where people are burned and tormented for eternity by demons, as is classically depicted. I do not think that God would send us to some horrific place for eternal pain and suffering. I think that hell is not a place, but a state. A state where we are totally cut off from God. I also think that ultimately hell leads to our non-existance.

I have said before, I am a Deist. I do however defend the christian faith very frequently as I have noticed that many people who attempt to mock it simply do not understand it. That is not to say it isn't without it's problems though.

Originally Posted by sox

That depends entirely on what you think hell is. I for one don't think that hell is a fiery cavern where people are burned and tormented for eternity by demons, as is classically depicted. I do not think that God would send us to some horrific place for eternal pain and suffering. I think that hell is not a place, but a state. A state where we are totally cut off from God. I also think that ultimately hell leads to our non-existance.

I have said before, I am a Deist. I do however defend the christian faith very frequently as I have noticed that many people who attempt to mock it simply do not understand it. That is not to say it isn't without it's problems though.

If there is a God, and there is, then there is no way to cut ourselves off from Him. God does not lose souls. We are supposed to be precious to Him. He is not one who loses anything.

And yes Christians have problems and if they do not address them, they will dwindle to nothing over time. A new Bible is required. Constantine's Bible was always meant to be a work in progress. Rome must recognize this fact.

Regards
DL

I think if we look back in time, before the first person died, they MUST have been cut off from your God.

Originally Posted by sox

I think if we look back in time, before the first person died, they MUST have been cut off from your God.

Before the first true human died, there was no God.
That first soul became God. Our next evolution.
We created God, God did not create us.

Why would we want to follow an alien God anyway?

Deist believe in nature and a non interfering God from what little I understand.

The God of ants is an ant.
The God of lions is a lion.
The God of men is a man.

This is natural.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God of men is a man.

This is natural.

No it isn't... I don't think any religions believe that Gos is a man.

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God of men is a man.

This is natural.

No it isn't... I don't think any religions believe that Gos is a man.

You are probably right. that does not make me wrong.

Most believe that mans ways should follow some alien miracle worker. This is just our wish and hope for miracles that we can personally use. The epitome of selfishness.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God of men is a man.

This is natural.

No it isn't... I don't think any religions believe that Gos is a man.

You are probably right. that does not make me wrong.

Most believe that mans ways should follow some alien miracle worker. This is just our wish and hope for miracles that we can personally use. The epitome of selfishness.

Regards
DL

I don't think most people who are religious hope for miracles to be honest. I don't think thats an accurate assumption.

Can I ask, in what sense do you mean "alien"? Alien as in otherworldy, or alien as in does not understand mans needs?

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God of men is a man.

This is natural.

No it isn't... I don't think any religions believe that Gos is a man.

You are probably right. that does not make me wrong.

Most believe that mans ways should follow some alien miracle worker. This is just our wish and hope for miracles that we can personally use. The epitome of selfishness.

Regards
DL

I don't think most people who are religious hope for miracles to be honest. I don't think thats an accurate assumption.

Can I ask, in what sense do you mean "alien"? Alien as in otherworldy, or alien as in does not understand mans needs?

Alien begins with being non human and non corporeal. If a non corporeal God had a human past then He might have a clue as to what drives us. He might make decisions from a point of view relevent to humans. If never human then He cannot walk in our shoes or know us deep enough to lead us.

Like a man setting the rules for fish. Without having been a fish we can only know how fish think by observation. Assumptions are the only thing we can do along with best guessing.

There is no otherworldly God as well. If there was then to not be here to explain His policies in a more coherent way than scripture, leaves us to our best guess and assumptions. Not a good way to lead. Further, if He has access to miracles and did not demonstrate then on occasion of need, then He would be immoral. A leader does not let His subjects starve to death or let His policies be misunderstood.

For these and more I reject a non corporeal miracle maker. One cannot lead in absentia.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by sox

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

I really cannot believe you don't understand the trinity at all... even a school child has a modest understanding of the relationship.

Jesus and God are one. God made Mary pregnant with himself in the form of Jesus. Mary was not God or Jesus' mother as you well know, she was (to be blunt), the instrument which god chose to bring himself into this world in human form. To suggest that there was some incest at play really makes you look like a spanner!

What the??? So Jesus made his own mother pregnant? I'm sorry but it is you who are looking like a spanner

SIGH

The formula of the Trinity in Christianity comes from the older Hebrew formula of Tetragrammation - IHVH (which the profane get the name Jehovah from)

In both it represents the formula of creation.

I = Yod, The King or The Father
H = He, The Queen or the Mother
V = Vau, The Prince or The Son
H = He final, The Princess or The Daughter.

In the formula, put simply, the Mother and Father unite in Cosmic ecstasy and become not two, but one, after the union they again divide and become two and the Father falls asleep and the Mother discovers she is pregnant with twins. She gives birth to a son and daughter. The son and daughter fall from the heavenly realms into the macrocosmic realm, the Son governs all the principles which make up the macrocosm BUT the daughter falls further into the microcosm and partakes of the lowest of the low, but also the highest of the high.

The daughter becomes the bride who is asleep can only unite with the Divine by falling in love with the son, by doing this they then become the King and Queen and again the whole process is completed with the Queen giving birth to twins and so on and so on.

The Christians simply took this formula and by adapting it and concealing certain parts of it they molded it to suit their world view at the time, that women was inferior, in order to keep her subordinate, and give the males of the species more power and to attempt to demonstrate that God was male.

Yes there is incest. But the final He in Tetragrammation or the Princess had fallen so far and her gene pool so diluted that it would not be considered incest in a Court of Law!

Christians deny the feminine element because they know ( or rather some of them in the inner sanctums know, the ordinary man is just sheep) how important and crucial the female is in creation, even more so than men, that it frightens the shit out of some of them.

They don't want common ordinary folk knowing the truth!

I mean, we might abuse it for Gods sake!

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by sox

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

I really cannot believe you don't understand the trinity at all... even a school child has a modest understanding of the relationship.

Jesus and God are one. God made Mary pregnant with himself in the form of Jesus. Mary was not God or Jesus' mother as you well know, she was (to be blunt), the instrument which god chose to bring himself into this world in human form. To suggest that there was some incest at play really makes you look like a spanner!

What the??? So Jesus made his own mother pregnant? I'm sorry but it is you who are looking like a spanner

SIGH

The formula of the Trinity in Christianity comes from the older Hebrew formula of Tetragrammation - IHVH (which the profane get the name Jehovah from)

In both it represents the formula of creation.

I = Yod, The King or The Father
H = He, The Queen or the Mother
V = Vau, The Prince or The Son
H = He final, The Princess or The Daughter.

In the formula, put simply, the Mother and Father unite in Cosmic ecstasy and become not two, but one, after the union they again divide and become two and the Father falls asleep and the Mother discovers she is pregnant with twins. She gives birth to a son and daughter. The son and daughter fall from the heavenly realms into the macrocosmic realm, the Son governs all the principles which make up the macrocosm BUT the daughter falls further into the microcosm and partakes of the lowest of the low, but also the highest of the high.

The daughter becomes the bride who is asleep can only unite with the Divine by falling in love with the son, by doing this they then become the King and Queen and again the whole process is completed with the Queen giving birth to twins and so on and so on.

The Christians simply took this formula and by adapting it and concealing certain parts of it they molded it to suit their world view at the time, that women was inferior, in order to keep her subordinate, and give the males of the species more power and to attempt to demonstrate that God was male.

Yes there is incest. But the final He in Tetragrammation or the Princess had fallen so far and her gene pool so diluted that it would not be considered incest in a Court of Law!

Christians deny the feminine element because they know ( or rather some of them in the inner sanctums know, the ordinary man is just sheep) how important and crucial the female is in creation, even more so than men, that it frightens the shit out of some of them.

They don't want common ordinary folk knowing the truth!

I mean, we might abuse it for Gods sake!

It does seem that God does not mind incest.

Adam and Eve had to do it to start things up. Mother and sons, father and daughters till the sons started to prefer the younger sisters and on and on.

Noah and his bunch with sisters and close, no closer cousins and on and on.

Incest, incest every where so for Jesus/God to do his mother. No problem.

One thing is puzzling to me though.

Was the trinity a twonity for 9 months. Did God take a holiday or what.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by sox

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

I really cannot believe you don't understand the trinity at all... even a school child has a modest understanding of the relationship.

Jesus and God are one. God made Mary pregnant with himself in the form of Jesus. Mary was not God or Jesus' mother as you well know, she was (to be blunt), the instrument which god chose to bring himself into this world in human form. To suggest that there was some incest at play really makes you look like a spanner!

What the??? So Jesus made his own mother pregnant? I'm sorry but it is you who are looking like a spanner

SIGH

The formula of the Trinity in Christianity comes from the older Hebrew formula of Tetragrammation - IHVH (which the profane get the name Jehovah from)

In both it represents the formula of creation.

I = Yod, The King or The Father
H = He, The Queen or the Mother
V = Vau, The Prince or The Son
H = He final, The Princess or The Daughter.

In the formula, put simply, the Mother and Father unite in Cosmic ecstasy and become not two, but one, after the union they again divide and become two and the Father falls asleep and the Mother discovers she is pregnant with twins. She gives birth to a son and daughter. The son and daughter fall from the heavenly realms into the macrocosmic realm, the Son governs all the principles which make up the macrocosm BUT the daughter falls further into the microcosm and partakes of the lowest of the low, but also the highest of the high.

The daughter becomes the bride who is asleep can only unite with the Divine by falling in love with the son, by doing this they then become the King and Queen and again the whole process is completed with the Queen giving birth to twins and so on and so on.

The Christians simply took this formula and by adapting it and concealing certain parts of it they molded it to suit their world view at the time, that women was inferior, in order to keep her subordinate, and give the males of the species more power and to attempt to demonstrate that God was male.

Yes there is incest. But the final He in Tetragrammation or the Princess had fallen so far and her gene pool so diluted that it would not be considered incest in a Court of Law!

Christians deny the feminine element because they know ( or rather some of them in the inner sanctums know, the ordinary man is just sheep) how important and crucial the female is in creation, even more so than men, that it frightens the shit out of some of them.

They don't want common ordinary folk knowing the truth!

I mean, we might abuse it for Gods sake!

It does seem that God does not mind incest.

Adam and Eve had to do it to start things up. Mother and sons, father and daughters till the sons started to prefer the younger sisters and on and on.

Noah and his bunch with sisters and close, no closer cousins and on and on.

Incest, incest every where so for Jesus/God to do his mother. No problem.

One thing is puzzling to me though.

Was the trinity a twonity for 9 months. Did God take a holiday or what.

Regards
DL

Nope

And that's the trouble with confusing allegorical symbolism used to personify types of energy and natural phenomena with real people!

Mythology personifies characteristics of the psyche and characteristics of nature into fictitious characters and the bible does the same.

Confusion occurs and unfortunately still does when people mistake these characters to be real and then miss the entire meaning behind the story.

Adam and Eve (which should be traditionally spelt Heva, in Jewish Qabbalistic terms, which is far older than the Christian interpretation) are simply another expression and name given to the intial I & H in the IHVH formula.

They represent the Mother and Father, the first TWO, which then produce the offspring of the V & H final.

These are NOT real people. The formula is used to describe the nature of creation.

E.g A positive and Negative or Male & Female combine and give birth to something else

The personifications are only used to describe the nature of these energies to one another, how they combine and what they produce in combining.

One of the most enlightening revelations from such a formula or should i say ongoing cycle is to realise that everything comes from the same ONE!
The one produces the two and the two combine to produce all of creation. One of the most hidden secrets in the religious hierarchy and the Occult is how did the one produce the two...??? How do you think that happened???
And even further beyond that how did the ONE come to even exist at all?

Now the serpent used in the story of Adam & Eve is an interesting idea,

The serpent is also a representation of a particular type of energy. No prize for guessing what form of energy that is any physicist reading this!

In the Qabbalah, on the tree, the snake represents the descent of spirit into matter.
As you probably know the apple symbolized knowledge. So the spirit of matter(the snake) encouraged Heva (the feminine principle) to tempt Adam (the masculine principle) to partake in what is negatively described as 'The Fall of Man' on a more positive note, if Adam hadn't taken a bite, thanks to that 'Evil' Serpent, nothing would exist, inc you and me.

Another interesting idea is the production of the twin serpents as is found on Hermes Caduceus. Which poor old Heva is also responsible for. Any guesses physicists as to what the two serpents might represent?

Here's a clue.........the Cadeuces is interestingly used as a symbol of medicine.

Another clue.........wave forms......duplication

Another clue.......zip

If you haven't got it by now, i will kick your bum!

Absum!

All that was before the first man is fantasy. No one was there to see or record.

Do you see God sitting back in His easy chair and dictating to a scribe thousands of years after creation describing what is irrelevant.

If relevant then tell why. Does a frog need to know where the tadpole came from before he eats it?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Absum!

All that was before the first man is fantasy. No one was there to see or record.

Do you see God sitting back in His easy chair and dictating to a scribe thousands of years after creation describing what is irrelevant.

If relevant then tell why. Does a frog need to know where the tadpole came from before he eats it?

Regards
DL

It appears you totally miss the point

Nothing was mentioned about what occurs before first man

What are you prattling on about?

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Absum!

All that was before the first man is fantasy. No one was there to see or record.

Do you see God sitting back in His easy chair and dictating to a scribe thousands of years after creation describing what is irrelevant.

If relevant then tell why. Does a frog need to know where the tadpole came from before he eats it?

Regards
DL

It appears you totally miss the point

Nothing was mentioned about what occurs before first man

What are you prattling on about?

If I missed the point then give it in in another way. No need to prattle.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Absum!

All that was before the first man is fantasy. No one was there to see or record.

Do you see God sitting back in His easy chair and dictating to a scribe thousands of years after creation describing what is irrelevant.

If relevant then tell why. Does a frog need to know where the tadpole came from before he eats it?

Regards
DL

It appears you totally miss the point

Nothing was mentioned about what occurs before first man

What are you prattling on about?

If I missed the point then give it in in another way. No need to prattle.

Regards
DL

If you had any awareness of religion, it's traditions and history, then I wouldn't need to put it another way.

Try doing your homework and your own thinking instead of relying on others to painstakingly show you where the door is, when you should open your eyes and find it for yourself.

Why involve yourselves in discussions you obviously have little knowledge of and impose a viewpoint that may as well have been formed out of play dough?

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Lol thats more reasonable than your idea of God.

Once again though, I shall say that I am not a christian...

What your not does not matter. What you are does.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Lol thats more reasonable than your idea of God.

Once again though, I shall say that I am not a christian...

What your not does not matter. What you are does.

Regards
DL

If your responses had more sense in them, you might get better replies

It is obvious Greater I Am that when you are faced with a poster who knows more about a subject than you, you run scuttling into your hole of ignorance and resply with meaningless obscurity.

It doesn't show your thinking to be profound or enlightened or even slightly wise or knowledgeable.

On the contrary it shows ignorance and immaturity.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sox

No, you did not CREATE the life of your boys in the sense I am talking about creation.

I see, a believer in miracles and talking snakes eh.

Regards
DL

Lol thats more reasonable than your idea of God.

Once again though, I shall say that I am not a christian...

What your not does not matter. What you are does.

Regards
DL

If your responses had more sense in them, you might get better replies

It is obvious Greater I Am that when you are faced with a poster who knows more about a subject than you, you run scuttling into your hole of ignorance and resply with meaningless obscurity.

It doesn't show your thinking to be profound or enlightened or even slightly wise or knowledgeable.

On the contrary it shows ignorance and immaturity.

If you do not see the wisdom of my words or cannot understand them then simply ignore me or go away.

Regards
DL

ok, I have a serious question. If god and jesus were actually one (god transfering himself to human form through mary thus creating jesus) who was jesus talking to on the cross "father why have you forsaken me?" and who is jesus referring to when he says "father" is he referring to the part of himself that was not transfered to earth? The trinity always confused me

Originally Posted by Elen

ok, I have a serious question. If god and jesus were actually one (god transfering himself to human form through mary thus creating jesus) who was jesus talking to on the cross "father why have you forsaken me?" and who is jesus referring to when he says "father" is he referring to the part of himself that was not transfered to earth? The trinity always confused me

Luke
18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Most Fundamentals stupidly tell me that this quote is saying that Jesus is saying, I am God.

I really cannot see how they can read it this way but stupid is stupid.

Regards
DL

God + woman = abomination.


Consider God as a species and man as a different species.

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

God with Goddess is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Goddess is then Not OK.

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Consider also, the trinity.

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

God + woman = abomination.


Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God + woman = abomination.


Consider God as a species and man as a different species.

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

God with Goddess is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Goddess is then Not OK.

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Consider also, the trinity.

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

God + woman = abomination.


Regards
DL

Unbelievable twaddle!

I thank God that some people only have a small part to play in mankind.

Lets hope Greatest I Am sticks only to propagating his ideology on the science forum.

Or there could always be the scope of writing a situation comedy from it?

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God + woman = abomination.

Not sure about this proposition. You appear to take a lot for granted...

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Not to shatter your faith in the WORD but consider.

OK. Let's consider:

Krsna, who is God, and is the complete God, not a chimera, mated with women and reproduced. His children were great heroes and heroines.

Ergo, by a counterfact to your theory, I have disproven it.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God as a species and man as a different species.

The notion of species only makes sense in terms of biology. Therefore to invoke it here begs the question in the philosophical sense of the word - petitio principi.

The fact is that there is little difference, in terms of reproduction, between humans, Gandharvas, and the lesser gods of heaven. Of course Indra and Varuna reproduced with humans. Goddesses too, reproduced with humans otherwise we would never have had the wise, celibate grandsire Bhishma!

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

Just disproved that above.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God with Wogod is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Wogod is then Not OK.

Meaningless. The only stricture to be observed with regard to reproduction and higher and lower is caste. A woman may never marry into a caste below her, but may do so into a caste above (and only by one step, and only if the family of the boy are satisfied with it).

This only applies, however, to humans - the Gods have no castes so these strictures are irrelevant to them.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Again, before the Krsna incarnation, Vishnu actually took the form of these animals you so despise and mated - Matsya (the fish), Kurma (the turtle), Varaha (the boar) and so on.

On occasion, one of the minor/false gods, Zeus of Greece, took the form of animals - like a horse or a bull - in order to engage in reproductive activity with women. Again, the chidlren resulting from these matings were famous heroes and heroines.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Consider also, the trinity.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, the Trinity, are but aspects of each other, and what can be said about one (as I have above) can be said about them all.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

You seem to have the strange impression that this Jesus person was somehow connected with Krsna. What scriptures have you read to get this idea?

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

He does, He has done. He continues to do so - He is above the laws He recommends to humans, and not bound by them.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God + woman = abomination.

Actually,

God + Woman = Ardhanari Nateshwar (Half-man/half woman, lord of the dance)

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Regards
DL

You really need to read the true scriptures, DL - the Vedas, and not the johnny-come-lately human inventions that seem to be clouding your thinking.

Best regards

shanks

sunshinewarrior

There are already enough Gods to do every human on earth. We are not a universal brothel for Gods. They have other tastes. Myth is myth regardless of it's birth. Gods Gods everywhere but not a one that speaks but the one I know. Oh well.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

You really need to read the true scriptures, DL - the Vedas, and not the johnny-come-lately human inventions that seem to be clouding your thinking.

Best regards

shanks

I'll second that!

NOTE - Any youngsters on here trying to find the meaning and answers to religion.

I would advise you find another more authoritative source you to your questions.

The religion section seems to attract weirdos babbling in nonsense tongues!

It is therefore difficult if not impossible to have intelligent enlightening discussions here.

The only real understanding you will come to here is the realization that the subject of religion breeds nut jobs!

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

sunshinewarrior

There are already enough Gods to do every human on earth. We are not a universal brothel for Gods. They have other tastes. Myth is myth regardless of it's birth. Gods Gods everywhere but not a one that speaks but the one I know. Oh well.

Regards
DL

And so say all of us... each about his own.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

You really need to read the true scriptures, DL - the Vedas, and not the johnny-come-lately human inventions that seem to be clouding your thinking.

Best regards

shanks

I'll second that!

NOTE - Any youngsters on here trying to find the meaning and answers to religion.

I would advise you find another more authoritative source you to your questions.

The religion section seems to attract weirdos babbling in nonsense tongues!

It is therefore difficult if not impossible to have intelligent enlightening discussions here.

The only real understanding you will come to here is the realization that the subject of religion breeds nut jobs!

A quick highlight of your Bible might draw interest.

How does it deal with woman's rights of equality, Gays and slaves?
Does it have a hell or how does it explain evil?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

sunshinewarrior

There are already enough Gods to do every human on earth. We are not a universal brothel for Gods. They have other tastes. Myth is myth regardless of it's birth. Gods Gods everywhere but not a one that speaks but the one I know. Oh well.

Regards
DL

And so say all of us... each about his own.

Yes but how many say that they have touched the mind of God. I have.

Why in hell would a God want to be an animal anyway? What is the gain in mental development for surely this is a God's focus, not the animal instincts.

They are meat to us.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

sunshinewarrior

There are already enough Gods to do every human on earth. We are not a universal brothel for Gods. They have other tastes. Myth is myth regardless of it's birth. Gods Gods everywhere but not a one that speaks but the one I know. Oh well.

Regards
DL

And so say all of us... each about his own.

Yes but how many say that they have touched the mind of God. I have.

6,000,000,000?

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Why in hell would a God want to be an animal anyway? What is the gain in mental development for surely this is a God's focus, not the animal instincts.

They are meat to us.

Regards
DL

What God wants to do is what God wants to do. After all, God made mosquitoes too... and leprosy... and the virus that, combined with an infestation of moths and a two year drought is killing off the horse chestnuts in the South East of England.

And if an animal is too mean for god, so is a human, and discussing God's mind, just because we have the ability to flap our tongues and make sounds, is not necessarily something we are qualified to do. Certainly applying your human logic is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Absum!

NOTE - Any youngsters on here trying to find the meaning and answers to religion.

I would advise you find another more authoritative source you to your questions.

Sound advice, especially if you insert the word "serious" in front of the word "answers".

Originally Posted by Absum!

The religion section seems to attract weirdos babbling in nonsense tongues!

Babbling with incoherent rage, yes.

Originally Posted by Absum!

It is therefore difficult if not impossible to have intelligent enlightening discussions here.

Difficult yes. Impossible no. It is certainly not a recommended place for children.

Originally Posted by Absum!

The only real understanding you will come to here is the realization that the subject of religion breeds nut jobs!

Now isn't that the truth! Unfortunately this seems to be only a realization that comes to people about other nut jobs.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

sunshinewarrior

There are already enough Gods to do every human on earth. We are not a universal brothel for Gods. They have other tastes. Myth is myth regardless of it's birth. Gods Gods everywhere but not a one that speaks but the one I know. Oh well.

Regards
DL

And so say all of us... each about his own.

Yes but how many say that they have touched the mind of God. I have.

6,000,000,000?

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Why in hell would a God want to be an animal anyway? What is the gain in mental development for surely this is a God's focus, not the animal instincts.

They are meat to us.

Regards
DL

What God wants to do is what God wants to do. After all, God made mosquitoes too... and leprosy... and the virus that, combined with an infestation of moths and a two year drought is killing off the horse chestnuts in the South East of England.

And if an animal is too mean for god, so is a human, and discussing God's mind, just because we have the ability to flap our tongues and make sounds, is not necessarily something we are qualified to do. Certainly applying your human logic is irrelevant.

Thanks for the critique and not answering the question.
A good indication of your religion.

Man has cloned sheep but in no way wants to be one. This is logic.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Thanks for the critique and not answering the question.
A good indication of your religion.

Man has cloned sheep but in no way wants to be one. This is logic.

Regards
DL

This is not logic, it is a statement. And it is only a statement about the way in which a man's mind works - it has nothing to do with the nature of god.

But thank you for the gratuitous insult anyway.

If I may, you seem to think that man is a lower species than God. May I ask why? Perhaps man is higher than God.

You seem to think that the creator is greater than the creation, which doesn't always have to be true. That is the kind of thinking Hitler espoused, that different races are higher or lower than others.

Why does God have to be higher than man?

Anyway, God can choose to marry a woman and be with her. There is nobody higher or lower, so God+Woman is definitely not an abomination.

Sexual=reproduction.

Why is God a sexual being?

Originally Posted by Liongold

If I may, you seem to think that man is a lower species than God. May I ask why? Perhaps man is higher than God.

You seem to think that the creator is greater than the creation, which doesn't always have to be true. That is the kind of thinking Hitler espoused, that different races are higher or lower than others.

Why does God have to be higher than man?

If he were not then he would be a man and not a God.

Anyway, God can choose to marry a woman and be with her. There is nobody higher or lower, so God+Woman is definitely not an abomination.

If God is so high then he should not need a human female. Men should not drop to reproduce with lower species, neither should or would a God.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Sexual=reproduction.

Why is God a sexual being?

Because He is in our image.

Regards
DL

Hmm so your idea of God is someone who looks like a man and has a sexual partner. Do they reproduce?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Hmm so your idea of God is someone who looks like a man and has a sexual partner. Do they reproduce?

I was speaking of a mental image. Not physical.

Regards
DL

So God is only mentally a sexual being? What would be the purpose of that besides a bucketload of fantasy sex?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

So God is only mentally a sexual being? What would be the purpose of that besides a bucketload of fantasy sex?

You are a mind, God is a mind.
Are your sexual memories, fantasy sex? Are God's?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Sexual=reproduction.

Why is God a sexual being?

This is a false statement.

Many sexually minded do not reproduce. This is a true statement.

Regards
DL

Does this include rapists, homosexuals and pedophiles? What about those who want to have sex with their bicycles, the neighborhood chicken or simply the dead? Is God made in the image of these people too? Or are we applying an exceptionalism principle here?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Does this include rapists, homosexuals and pedophiles? What about those who want to have sex with their bicycles, the neighborhood chicken or simply the dead? Is God made in the image of these people too? Or are we applying an exceptionalism principle here?

Hell of a way to kill a chicken??

No rants now.

I note that you do not like to answer any questions. Are you an inquisitor or debater?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Hell of a way to kill a chicken??

No rants now.

Regards
DL

I'm trying to understand how your philosophy works. How the whole "God is a mind is a fantasy which is a memory and is having sex with a woman which is an abomination" falls together.

I note that you do not like to answer any questions. Are you an inquisitor or debater?

Forgot to answer that, lol. I tend to be very focused on what I want to know. Sorry, just point it out so it gets through my thick head. I'm interested in first understanding a point of view, so I keep asking questions to clarify that I am understanding it. :P

You're a fun person to debate with, btw, so few people can debate without getting aggressive and offensive.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by Liongold

If I may, you seem to think that man is a lower species than God. May I ask why? Perhaps man is higher than God.

You seem to think that the creator is greater than the creation, which doesn't always have to be true. That is the kind of thinking Hitler espoused, that different races are higher or lower than others.

Why does God have to be higher than man?

If he were not then he would be a man and not a God.

Anyway, God can choose to marry a woman and be with her. There is nobody higher or lower, so God+Woman is definitely not an abomination.

If God is so high then he should not need a human female. Men should not drop to reproduce with lower species, neither should or would a God.

Regards
DL

I actually meant to say that there is no such thing as being lower or higher than anybody; God and man are equal, mainly because there is no way of telling which is higher. So God and woman cannot be an abomination.

[quote]

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Hell of a way to kill a chicken??

No rants now.

Regards
DL

I'm trying to understand how your philosophy works. How the whole "God is a mind is a fantasy which is a memory

I did not say this. What most call God is a cosmic consciousness. Our next evolution as thinking creatures.


and is having sex with a woman which is an abomination" falls together.

quote]

If God is his own species or part of a species that is other than human, then it is not good to cross breed with another breed.

We do not bread with lower animals and God should not and would not breed with us as lower animals than himself.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Liongold

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by Liongold

If I may, you seem to think that man is a lower species than God. May I ask why? Perhaps man is higher than God.

You seem to think that the creator is greater than the creation, which doesn't always have to be true. That is the kind of thinking Hitler espoused, that different races are higher or lower than others.

Why does God have to be higher than man?

If he were not then he would be a man and not a God.

Anyway, God can choose to marry a woman and be with her. There is nobody higher or lower, so God+Woman is definitely not an abomination.

If God is so high then he should not need a human female. Men should not drop to reproduce with lower species, neither should or would a God.

Regards
DL

I actually meant to say that there is no such thing as being lower or higher than anybody; God and man are equal, mainly because there is no way of telling which is higher. So God and woman cannot be an abomination.

God is a deity in theist and deist religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[4] attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Michelangelo's David is the classical image of youthful male beauty in Western art.This article is about adult human males. For humans in general, see Human. For the word "man", see Man (word).
"Men" redirects here. For other uses, see Man (disambiguation). For other uses, see Men (disambiguation).
A man is a male human. The term man (irregular plural: men) is used for an adult human male, while the term boy being the usual term for a human male child or adolescent human male. However, man is sometimes used to refer to humanity as a whole. Sometimes it is also used to identify a male human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "Men's rights".

The term "manhood" is used to refer variously to the condition of being male, male sexuality, or the actual reproductive organs.


Just thought I would show some differences.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I did not say this. What most call God is a cosmic consciousness. Our next evolution as thinking creatures.
If God is his own species or part of a species that is other than human, then it is not good to cross breed with another breed.

We do not bread with lower animals and God should not and would not breed with us as lower animals than himself.

Regards
DL

Is "cosmic consciousness" a species?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I did not say this. What most call God is a cosmic consciousness. Our next evolution as thinking creatures.
If God is his own species or part of a species that is other than human, then it is not good to cross breed with another breed.

We do not bread with lower animals and God should not and would not breed with us as lower animals than himself.

Regards
DL

Is "cosmic consciousness" a species?

I don't know. Is a frog the same species as a tadpole? Probably yes. By this standard then, we would say that the cosmic consciousness is human.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I don't know. Is a frog the same species as a tadpole? Probably yes. By this standard then, we would say that the cosmic consciousness is human.

Regards
DL

Umm tadpole is a species?

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I don't know. Is a frog the same species as a tadpole? Probably yes. By this standard then, we would say that the cosmic consciousness is human.

Regards
DL

Umm tadpole is a species?

The frog is an amphibian in the order Anura (meaning "tail-less", from Greek an-, without + oura, tail), formerly referred to as Salientia (Latin saltare, to jump). The name frog derives from Old English frogga,[1] (compare Old Norse frauki, German Frosch, older Dutch spelling kikvorsch), cognate with Sanskrit plava (frog), probably deriving from Proto-Indo-European praw = "to jump".[2]

Most frogs are characterized by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits (fingers or toes), protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle, but move easily on land by jumping or climbing. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable by their call, which can be widely heard during the night or day, mainly in their mating season.

The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, but most species are found in tropical rainforests. Consisting of more than 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, populations of certain frog species are significantly declining.

A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, caused by the convergent adaptation among so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis. The only family exclusively given the common name "toad" is Bufonidae, but many species from other families are also called "toads," and the species within the toad genus Atelopus are referred to as "harlequin frogs".

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I don't know. Is a frog the same species as a tadpole? Probably yes. By this standard then, we would say that the cosmic consciousness is human.

Regards
DL

Umm tadpole is a species?

The frog is an amphibian in the order Anura (meaning "tail-less", from Greek an-, without + oura, tail), formerly referred to as Salientia (Latin saltare, to jump). The name frog derives from Old English frogga,[1] (compare Old Norse frauki, German Frosch, older Dutch spelling kikvorsch), cognate with Sanskrit plava (frog), probably deriving from Proto-Indo-European praw = "to jump".[2]

Most frogs are characterized by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits (fingers or toes), protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle, but move easily on land by jumping or climbing. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable by their call, which can be widely heard during the night or day, mainly in their mating season.

The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, but most species are found in tropical rainforests. Consisting of more than 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, populations of certain frog species are significantly declining.

A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, caused by the convergent adaptation among so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis. The only family exclusively given the common name "toad" is Bufonidae, but many species from other families are also called "toads," and the species within the toad genus Atelopus are referred to as "harlequin frogs".

ahaahah God mating with human females hahaaha you funny and stupid...nooooooo you are a fooolllll!

Originally Posted by Gods servant

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by samcdkey

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I don't know. Is a frog the same species as a tadpole? Probably yes. By this standard then, we would say that the cosmic consciousness is human.

Regards
DL

Umm tadpole is a species?

The frog is an amphibian in the order Anura (meaning "tail-less", from Greek an-, without + oura, tail), formerly referred to as Salientia (Latin saltare, to jump). The name frog derives from Old English frogga,[1] (compare Old Norse frauki, German Frosch, older Dutch spelling kikvorsch), cognate with Sanskrit plava (frog), probably deriving from Proto-Indo-European praw = "to jump".[2]

Most frogs are characterized by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits (fingers or toes), protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle, but move easily on land by jumping or climbing. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable by their call, which can be widely heard during the night or day, mainly in their mating season.

The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, but most species are found in tropical rainforests. Consisting of more than 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, populations of certain frog species are significantly declining.

A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, caused by the convergent adaptation among so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis. The only family exclusively given the common name "toad" is Bufonidae, but many species from other families are also called "toads," and the species within the toad genus Atelopus are referred to as "harlequin frogs".

ahaahah God mating with human females hahaaha you funny and stupid...nooooooo you are a fooolllll!

Hey hey hey!

If you knew what a God was you wouldn't find that so absurd!

Do you think Gods and humans are different things?

listen, you saying "God" lust for woman, there is no biblical scripture to back you sugeestion therefore you must mean another religion, the fact that think that you GOD WILL LUST FOR WOMEN, is loll the most ridiculosy question, it unthinkable.....
as religious perso you have in sulted me big time , fam. if thin gods not my god but other gods are lustful for other human beigns then fine but do not impliment that my GOD IS LUSTS OVER WOMEN, WHAT BIBLICAL PROVE DO YOU HAVE! if you were to tell the islamics about the question the will most likly cut ur head of, it is ridiculosy you sateting that GOD is some form of being or alien then if you saying this, dude .......lol, i dno were you get you biblical scriptures from but wow, GOD WHO'S mian discription is that his is full of love and without sin and is lusting for women, or wo God ,... wow! that is funnish sh&5% i have heard....lololool

Originally Posted by Gods servant

listen, you saying "God" lust for woman, there is no biblical scripture to back you sugeestion therefore you must mean another religion, the fact that think that you GOD WILL LUST FOR WOMEN, is loll the most ridiculosy question, it unthinkable.....
as religious perso you have in sulted me big time , fam. if thin gods not my god but other gods are lustful for other human beigns then fine but do not impliment that my GOD IS LUSTS OVER WOMEN, WHAT BIBLICAL PROVE DO YOU HAVE! if you were to tell the islamics about the question the will most likly cut ur head of, it is ridiculosy you sateting that GOD is some form of being or alien then if you saying this, dude .......lol, i dno were you get you biblical scriptures from but wow, GOD WHO'S mian discription is that his is full of love and without sin and is lusting for women, or wo God ,... wow! that is funnish sh&5% i have heard....lololool

It is said that the sons of God lusted after the daughters of men.

If they too are in God's image or even closer to Him as His direct non human sons then we can say that their lustful instincts are the same as the Fathers. Therefore, can we say that God can lust after human females? Yes. The same way his sons can with their inherited attributes.

Regards
DL

you are [/img]

All this talk about Gods lusting after women is making me horny!

Why don't you get back to basics about what sex actually is.

On a fundamental level it's about two things coming together and giving birth to a third thing which partakes of the nature of the two but also has it own unique identity.

We can safely apply that to sex & a man & woman coming together and conceiving a child.

You can also apply that formula to everything.

E.g -

The weather - a cold front meeting a warm front creating a storm.

Electricity - positive & neg creating a current.

Chemistry - combining two chemicals or elements creates a third new compound

Physics - Magnetism (see electricity) Friction creating energy due to two surfaces moving together. Force and resistance.

Art - Mixing two colours to produce a new colour

Anything which is created follows this formula.

The word and idea of sex can be applied to all of the above.

Even sex between two humans which doesn't produce a child creates something. It creates a 'relationship' between the two people involved. It creates love on the physical plane.

This is the whole Christian symbolism behind the vesica pisces or the shape of the fish bladder. If you take two whole circles and overlap them, in the middle you will get the shape of the vesica pisces. This represents Divine union, the third thing produced by the two is holy. God is regarded as the creator. It is Gods creation and it is holy. This understanding puts a whole new light on all the relationships you have.

To obtain this Divine union you have to incorporate your whole being and all your faculties. (body, emotions and mind)
Sex on a physical level which just fulfills a primal hunger is never as satisfying as sex incorporating the whole human, it just temporarily relieves a craving.
The whole purpose of religion and all it's practices is to obtain union with Divinity.

The physical act of sex can be a springboard into union with the divine when you understand the formula and the meaning behind the act and it becomes much more than just a physical craving.

Us humans get to know each other by identifying with one another, where our differences begin to dissolve or become less important as we identify our similarities.

This is just the same as the type of relationship we form with Divinity. Religious doctrine did a great disservice by manifesting God as a wrathful, harsh judgmental being who demanded we supplicate ourselves to God in order to become worthy.
Older interpretations and the various doctrines of the ancient mysteries state this not to be the case.

All God seems to require of us is to get to know, and this is done by identifying with God and realizing the similarities. And then realizing those Divine qualities within ourselves. To become 'God-like'. We naturally then become superior not inferior, and good living and good thinking and good behaviour comes naturally. It can't not! It would be impossible to act 'evil' if we are identifying with the highest idea and aspect of ourselves.

Religion talks of becoming 'elevated' and the experience of ecstasy in divine union.
We should seek to make love to God.

That's the only way anything new is created. That's the only way things are ever regenerated. Is by two things coming together, and the 'ecstasy' coming from the joy of that union, which serves to make the spirit soar and reach new heights.
That experience is brought back to earth where we walk with our heads held higher and our hearts filled up and share that 'high' by being good loving happy fullfilled people.

It's important to have regular sex with God and build up a good solid relationship.

This principle is applicable to everything you do even with non living material objects.

We have our hobbies, we partake of activities, we do and make things because we just love it. Some people even love their jobs. That's because they are 'absorbed' by it and concentrate on it, you fuse into it, and have a 'relationship' with it. Notice the word love, which is synonymous with union. You form a sacred vesica pisces with the object, be it your garden, your knitting, your stamp collection, a workout at the gym, watching a play, listening to music anything. It makes your 'spirit soar' you enter into Divine union through that object and from it you create a new outlook, new ideas, a new mood etc etc.

So back to the issue of 'God lusting after women' of course he/she does. God seeks unity because God is creator. It's absurd to think that Divinity doesn't.
To think that God denies sex is ridiculous, and i think you are being influenced by the thinking that sex in general is a dirty thing not partaking of Divinity.

The only act of sex which might be considered 'evil' is purely of the flesh and doesn't aspire to anything higher, such as love or Divine ecstasy. And the only reason it could be considered bad is because, well you don't get anything out of it, it simply fills a gap temporarily. It doesn't cause you to reach great heights in the spirit. It doesn't show you God and fill you up with love. More often the case it's disappointing, hurtful and simply teaches you about feeling empty and never being truly satisfied.

Anything which is done without love can be considered evil even down to mowing the lawn, because if you moan and gripe about it, you bring yourself suffering. If, instead you 'get into' it, make the most of it and enjoy it, you bring yourself enjoyment and satisfaction.

I know which of the two I'd rather have.

lol, that funny