It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God needs Satan

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Balance, Yes.

Most religious Doctrines started off from a handfull.
Judiasm, and Hinduism being the largest contribiuting factors.

Each of which practiced "Cosmic Balance".

Though these would stem to modern day religious doctrines we see before us, the tenants were derived from these handfulls philosophies.

I have no Idea where Im going with this at all.

Im gonna go shave.

Cheers folks!

Deep




posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberGhost
1. if there would be no Satan, there would be no God!
2. why do we pray? cause we don't want to go to hell! if there would be no hell, what would u be afraid of? why would you need to pray?


That is just about the silliest thing I have ever heared. If there were not deceit there wouldn't be love? Get real and eat a hotdog!

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
On another discussion forum someone quoted Benjamin
Disraeli as saying that no government can exist long without
an opposition.

When the bolshiveks launched their marxist revolution in Russia they had to find and make enemies of the state.
Otherwise how could they fool the masses into believing
that there were some evil people out there who would enslave them
under a capitalist yoke?
Or maybe even bring back the czarist regime with all it's reactionary oppression?

If there is no danger or emergency then there's no need
of martial law or the suspension of normal democratic rule.

In reference to satanism I remember Anton Lavey stating
that Satan is the best friend the church ever had.
Because without a devil what hold could christianity have
over anyone?
You need a scapegoat or a villian to blame all that's wrong
in the world.
Or else the only alternative is to blame it on god.
And of course the church can't do that and hold onto their
flock of followers.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
so the war will never end! neither of them will ever lose!



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Shiva is the destroyer and Vishnu the sustainer, is some sense, as Jesus is to Satan.

Brahma is the creator.

Deep


but vedic text say that Shiva, Vishnu and even Brahma are just manifestations of the same and only "God the eternal conciousness"
[Edited on 1-23-2004 by worldwatcher]


WorldWatcher, I believe the "Eternal One God" in which Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are manifistations of is known as Brahman. Upon first reading about Hindu Theology that was kinda confusing for me personally, mainly just because of the similar spelling of Brahma and Brahman. But I see it as being similar to how Jesus is the Son of God and yet also God at the same time in a way. Or similar to how some refer to God as One yet a Trinity at the same time, father-son-spirit. Probably because of the fact that "Infinite/Omnipresents/Omniscients/Omnipotents" is conceptually impossible to grasp mentally or in understandible terms without some kind of abstract principles to help define it.

I read something pertaining to Shiva(Destroyer), Vishnu(Sustainer) and Brahma(Creator) that made sense to me and helped me better understand the idea behind it. If you associate for example Brahma=Yang, Shiva=Yin and Vishnu=Balance it helps break down or clearify the reasoning while allowing a better understanding by removing the dualistic struggle. Brahman=Eternal Source or Tao or the balance to Nothing without limitation of being a definable Something. Brahma creates and Shiva Destroyes and Vishnu Sustains, because without Vishnu Brahma and Shiva would simply cancel each other out in a sense.

I'm not sure it that helps out or not, but it made sense to me when I read it. I find it similar to Buddhist & Taoist "Emptiness/Oneness/Non-Duality" in the sense that when trying to understand the concept that "up/down, good/bad, right/wrong, Yin/Yan" are illusionary concepts of duality. They are opposites that compliment each other and actually need the other to have meaning itself. So it's not that the balance of Yin/Yang means they cancel out to Nothing, it's just not exaclty a defined Something in terms of "this or that' thinking anymore. It's Sustained Balance, or Harmony.



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberGhost
1. if there would be no Satan, there would be no God!


The way I figure it, you've got it all wrong. Satan wasn't orignally evil. He use to be an angel. So, before he turned evil, there was no evil. So therfore, good does not need evil to exist.



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by yogibear
On another discussion forum someone quoted Benjamin
Disraeli as saying that no government can exist long without
an opposition.


That dipends uppon the goals of such a government. If it is based on money or rather growth, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that such a gov, if it didn't have competitors, would fall pretty quick. But if the goal was to secure the weak among the people, and keep man from developing destructive systems, like bank systems, armies, false religions, unrightiousness etc. such a gov, would have great success I believe. But it wouldn't generate much money ofcourse. But Mammon is the grandest tool of Satan, which can turn the most virtous man into a shaddow of darkness.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Well, God doesn't need Satan to exist. God created everything, right? God created Satan and God created evil. In the beginning, pre Genisis, there was nothing. So there was a time when god existed, without evil. The time-before-time, so to speak.

If God created everything, that means everything. Even the things that are evil. Sin, Temptation, etc... all creations of God. So, if he had to create these things, he can/did exist without evil.



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
imo all this "there was pure good before evil" is an easy answer to explain, i think God and Satan are both "sides" of one entity they always existed



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Well, that is right, without a Satan there is no God, but without God there can be no Satan, because evil and good always balance eachother. Like, ying ang yang...sort of, in a sense. Interesting thoughts, Cyber, but I hate it when the 2 lined threads come up = /
-wD



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberGhost
imo all this "there was pure good before evil" is an easy answer to explain, i think God and Satan are both "sides" of one entity they always existed


I didn't say that there was pure good before evil. I said that there was nothing before evil. Just God.



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   


Brahma creates and Shiva Destroyes and Vishnu Sustains, because without Vishnu Brahma and Shiva would simply cancel each other out in a sense.


Well said Mojo.

Now, the vedics dont identify a "God" force in the physical realm do they?

From what I know, from the lesser Hindu part of my family, We are Gods, as in our consciousness is the eternal Bhraman.
Our souls yearn to be reunited with bhraman, as in To achieve a sate of "nirvana", "pure consciousness", "God".

Correct me if im wrong please.

Deep



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Now, the vedics dont identify a "God" force in the physical realm do they?


I'm not sure about this. What do you mean by a "God" force on the physical realm exactly? Do you mean something like a lesser "Diety" form who kinda runs around, at least some of the time, on earth or something and interacts with normal physical reality, earth and people? Similar to how Satan is supposed to control Earth or something?

I have also read that Hinduism has "Many, Many" Gods or God-like figures to represent various things. Some are only within certain branches of Hinduism though, of which there are many. Once again all of those are of course just manifistations of Brahman like everything else.

It should also be noted that I'm certainly not an expert on the Hindu Religion or it's writings. Most of what I've learned has come about due to studying Buddhism and it's root origins which lead to some reading and understanding of Hinduism. I also tend to stay clear of some of the more specific "Dogmatic" details & Offshoot Versions in most of my research and concentrate more on their Root or Original Theology if possible. Simply because within all Religions or Spiritual Philosophies, as they branch out and change they sometimes conflict or alter aspects of the original idea either from mistranslation or political/socialogical reasons.

Hinduism has certainly expanded into a variety of "paths" over it's time, although the core is usually the same of course. This isn't a problem for Hinduism though as it's extremely accepting of other ideas. From what I understand, even if two people have chosen paths that seem to conflict with one another, that conflict is insignificant and beyond our finite understanding and not a conflict at all. For "All Paths" eventually lead to Brahman anyway.


From what I know, from the lesser Hindu part of my family, We are Gods, as in our consciousness is the eternal Bhraman.
Our souls yearn to be reunited with bhraman, as in To achieve a sate of "nirvana", "pure consciousness", "God".

Correct me if im wrong please.

Deep


That is as good as any other way I've heard. Then again I also know what you're trying to say too. I'm sure some would read that statement and say "You are not a God!" or that "God" and "Brahman" are not the same and the Lord Creator came before all, or whatever. Personally, I think what you wrote sounds right according to how I understand it as well.

In fact it's obviously very similar to the Buddhist idea of "Buddhahood", "Zen", "Godhead", "Eternal Mind", etc. to name a few. It's also what a Taoist might call "Being One with the Tao" or experiencing the "Eternal Now" or something similar.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
God does not need Satan, but he has always loved a challenge. God doesnot need any of us. We need God. To say Love needs enemies is to say it is good not being able to feel love. It's absurd. The very thing which happened was that he got fired. Now I don't know about you, but being fired to me, means just that, he is unwanted, useless, whatever. Anything but needed. He is a lie in the first place. He never even belonged there. Falseness was his path since the beginning. He is nothing but a visualisation and a posibility or consequence which has been deemed obsolete.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by mikromarius]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius
God does not need Satan, but he has always loved a challenge. God doesnot need any of us. We need God. To say Love needs enemies is to say it is good not being able to feel love. It's absurd. The very thing which happened was that he got fired. Now I don't know about you, but being fired to me, means just that, he is unwanted, useless, whatever. Anything but needed. He is a lie in the first place. He never even belonged there. Falseness was his path since the beginning. He is nothing but a visualisation and a posibility or consequence which has been deemed obsolete.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by mikromarius]


That is an interesting view point. More creative and from a more personal perspective than your usual posts mikromarius. Not that your usual posts aren't creative, they most certainly are, but they typically include quoted examples from scripture or something.

I find the idea of "God always loves a challenge" to be strange though. What could possible challenge God? Even if he/she/it desired such a challenge, all parameters that would made to cause more than a micro-divine-millisecond of a challenge would be under the command of God.

Then the part about Love & Enemies. I would think that the Truest Form of Unconditional Love would have NO Enemies whatsoever. In fact it would be impossible, since the concept of an enemy is a negative opposing entity other than self. Ultimate Love & Ultimate Compassion of Divine magnitude has moved beyond separative concepts that see things as Self and Other. There is only One and that One is Pure Love.


He (Satan) is nothing but a visualisation and a posibility or consequence which has been deemed obsolete.


Now that statement I personally do agree with. I don't think everyone has reached a level of deeming it obsolete yet, but I have a positive outlook for the future and do hope they see it soon!



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
I find the idea of "God always loves a challenge" to be strange though. What could possible challenge God?


Exactly. It is impossible to win over God, for he is the First and the Last. He has all the time of the world to make things right.


Even if he/she/it desired such a challenge, all parameters that would made to cause more than a micro-divine-millisecond of a challenge would be under the command of God.


Why? God has never said no to a challenge. There has been challenges. He won them all. By losing some he won them all. He likes the idea of winning. For he is love, and love is better than a broken heart.


Then the part about Love & Enemies. I would think that the Truest Form of Unconditional Love would have NO Enemies whatsoever. In fact it would be impossible, since the concept of an enemy is a negative opposing entity other than self. Ultimate Love & Ultimate Compassion of Divine magnitude has moved beyond separative concepts that see things as Self and Other. There is only One and that One is Pure Love.


If you like to put it that way, then, yes, I guess. Except for the part about "impossible". Impossible is inself impossible, it's a weak word which falls quickly.



He (Satan) is nothing but a visualisation and a posibility or consequence which has been deemed obsolete.


Now that statement I personally do agree with. I don't think everyone has reached a level of deeming it obsolete yet, but I have a positive outlook for the future and do hope they see it soon!


Obsolete indeed. It was obsolete 2000 years ago or even when it arrived, attempts at regen vengeance the way I see it. Vain attempts. He somehow managed to sneak up again pretty quickly back then. With good help from those who call themselves Holy Fathers and live in Rome, and the kings and queens in the world and the art of science. Satan is a large section in a giant library, with ways to draw constellations and write prophetic plans, how to live and not live etc. It's a system which because of it's obsoleteness and useless, incomplete nature it will be hid and sealed until my God returns. When it will be utterly destroyed.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by mikromarius]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius

Even if he/she/it desired such a challenge, all parameters that would made to cause more than a micro-divine-millisecond of a challenge would be under the command of God.


Why? God has never said no to a challenge. There has been challenges. He won them all. By losing some he won them all. He likes the idea of winning. For he is love, and love is better than a broken heart.


Well, I think it has to do with the way each of us percieve "God". Ultimately such things are really beyond human perspective and language anyway. I don't, and can't, attribute limited humanistic type conceptual thinking when considering God's perspective on such issues. It almosts seems insulting to think in terms of "God likes winning" or "God likes challenges". For God to like something insinuates that God dis-likes something. God, from my perspective, is beyond dualistic concepts of Like/DisLike, Good/Bad, This/That. For God to Like a Challenge insinuates that such a challenge could even exist.


Then the part about Love & Enemies. I would think that the Truest Form of Unconditional Love would have NO Enemies whatsoever. In fact it would be impossible, since the concept of an enemy is a negative opposing entity other than self. Ultimate Love & Ultimate Compassion of Divine magnitude has moved beyond separative concepts that see things as Self and Other. There is only One and that One is Pure Love.


If you like to put it that way, then, yes, I guess. Except for the part about "impossible". Impossible is inself impossible, it's a weak word which falls quickly.

Ok, you caught me on that one. Impossible in this case may have been the wrong word to use I guess, but you obviously understood what I was meant.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I beleve it says in the bible that

God and the Devil work as togther (or as one)

Dont quote me tho as im not sure if i am right or not



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crash
I beleve it says in the bible that

God and the Devil work as togther (or as one)

Dont quote me tho as im not sure if i am right or not


I don't know exactly what part of the bible you're speaking of but something similar to what you're saying may be Job. In the story of Job, The LORD and SATAN basically use Job (God's most devoted and righteous follower) in a sort of "Faith Testing Game" that was literally almost "Hellish".

From one point of view it is basically a lesson of Keeping Faith even if there are no justified reason for the horrible "Punishments" that are happening. To do so is to Question God's Authority and Judgement as if you know better or even that God is Totally Wrong in doing or allowing such things to happen. At the end it does actually have a reward for such "Acts of Faith" which Job is given.

From another point of view however it is a Twisted, Dark and Selfish tale of Powerful Authority Figures abusing the innocence within the world in an unjustified wager between Egos. Even the Reward at the end of the "Suffering, Pain & Loss Game" is a reward of Materialistic Nature and in many ways fails to balance the reason behind getting them.

It's quite an interesting read as far as Biblical Stories are concerned and the Lesson it is trying to teach. Personally, I have mixed feelings toward both the Moral of the Story and even the peticular way it's written. It can be a good example of "The Ends not Justifying the Means".



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
ok i found this regarding Islam, but I still don't know about Judaisim.

A unique creation of Islam is a belief in a multitude of creatures call jinn. These creatures, supposedly created from smokeless flames are neither humans nor angels. They are divided into two categories, good and evil, perform a variety of functions. Good jinn perform the religious duties of Muslims. (20) Jinn can apparently take on the forms of cats, serpents, and even humans. It is also recognized that a human can become possessed by jinn.

Islam, like Christianity, believes in the existence of the devil. The devil in Islam is thought to be either a fallen angel, or a jinn who was disobedient to the command of God. The devil is now the tempter in the world as well as the progenitor of evil jinn.

goodnewsiowacity.homestead.com...


Actually I have studied the Koran It states the Jinn were made from light hence the smokeless flame. Theses jinn manipulate the hearts and minds of men. They saw Mohammed and said that he was truly one of the great. But think about it these Jinn could be Aliens.

But going back to the topic of this discussion. Does God need Satan? I dont think so for the simple fact that I dont believe in Satan as an entity that is god like. I think evil is the absence of good. Something that is purely evil couldnt not exist because God created everything in his image, and God is good.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join