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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yogibear
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.


How about blaming ourselves for all the ills in the world!!! We need to start taking responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming theme on the "Gods"




posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   


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.


Is satan not supposed to watch over the physical realm, and God a higher dimension, realm?

Deep



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   



How about blaming ourselves for all the ills in the world!!! We need to start taking responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming theme on the "Gods"


True say!

Iv stated this before many times, Its such an easy task to label "God" the ulitmate Scapegoat.
It is our own actions that will prevade through out lifetime.

Deep



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I hope that nobody reads this thread and thinks to themselves:

Gee I'm glad I'm a satanist, such a noble endeavour!

It isn't now or ever.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

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.


Best information on this subject so far



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
Well, I think it has to do with the way each of us percieve "God".


From your own logics. Wouldn't it be impossible for God to exist if he weren't challenged? How can God be unchallengable when he is unchallenged? The thing with challenging God, is that we don't do it on purpose, for if God has said something he is willing to proove it for any cost. If it so means to plogue up the whole Earth and put it on fire. Another thing is that you shall not put God to the test. There is a question of intent here. And the question of conciousness,

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
I hope that nobody reads this thread and thinks to themselves:

Gee I'm glad I'm a satanist, such a noble endeavour!

It isn't now or ever.


In your opinion!

As for the 2 side s of the same coin argument - surely if you have a positive and a negative they would cancel each other out leaving...wait for it...Nothing at all!



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius
Wouldn't it be impossible for God to exist if he weren't challenged?


Not the way I see it. I'll use and example to help explain.

In terms of Taoist thought
God is the Primordial Unborn
The Infinite Knowingness Before the Origin of All Ideas
All that is beyond & Before that which it is not
The name that can not be named

In terms of Abstract Mental Reasoning
God is the Potential that within the first moment had already surpased all was possible
God is the Creation of the Destruction of the Creation
God is the Mirror's own Reflection

In terms of Finite "Human" understanding
God is the larger sum of God's own separate parts
God is the unlimited and unknowable concept that is needed before One could define all other concepts
To Be in the state of Being

Even that is obviously Overstated. That is the only was to express the idea while keeping it Open and Free from limits. It's like "Proof-ing" a form of 0=infinity Paradox into words using as few words as possible. We may simply be thinking of the word "challenge" in different ways too, ie. Challenge=Compete vs. Challenge=Dis-obey. Either one doesn't change my perspective though, but I can see how it alters the meaning of what's written.

But now you hopefully understand why from my point of view, thoughts of challenge fail when applied to God. Unless I make up some fictional boundaries to include with an idea of Limiting what is beyond me to Limit. I've spent lots of time understanding what is meant by "Quiet Thinking" and how it helps remove the static Dualism for better clearity of thought. I'd hate to go back too, cause it makes more sense to me this way.
]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Nice try but no banana...

1 Of course there would be God, satan is not "equal but opposite" he is a created being, an ex angel.

2 Do people really pray just because they don't want to go to hell? I doubt it. Besides there is "hell" and "hades". Both are different places. One is for satan, and really bad humans (hell), and the other is for humans who aren't so bad but just arn't christian. (hades also known in the bible as "sheol")




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?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
There is no satan, no devil just spirits, angels and physical life. God does not need Satan, organized christian religion needs Satan. Satan is CEO, CFO, COO
of Organizated Christian Religions of the World, Inc.

Read this book...

The Origin of Satan
by: Elaine Pagels
Publisher: Vintage (30 April, 1996)



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by mikromarius
(Added the italics for context) Using your logic: Wouldn't it be impossible for God to exist if he weren't challenged?


Not the way I see it. I'll use and example to help explain.

In terms of Taoist thought
God is the Primordial Unborn


Will God cease to exist when he is born? Can something unborn exist forever? Wouldn't that be just an illusion?


In terms of Abstract Mental Reasoning
God is the Creation of the Destruction of the Creation


I can follow you on that one. Destruction is nessasary for creation. But to link God to our limited sense of perception in a way to conditon his existance by saying he is very ancient and unborn is to me a little strange. Had some ideas like that on acid once. But God is Love. I believe you speek of his sons.


In terms of Finite "Human" understanding
God is the larger sum of God's own separate parts


No God is the plain simple truth which lives in the heads of his evening and morning stars. God is the Light. The truth. You are surrounded by his language. But they hide the truth, for it somehow makes them a bit uneasy to say the least.


Even that is obviously Overstated. That is the only was to express the idea while keeping it Open and Free from limits. It's like "Proof-ing" a form of 0=infinity


Only an omni-God would be able to know if that was even possible to compute, so why even bother? Nothingness can't exist, it will always be filled with something. God creates through sudden microgigantic transformation. If you are there, you will get burnt, but if you stand God knows how many lightyears away, you would perhaps not even notice the blast. For 0=infinity most certainly is impossible to proove it in the physical world. God is in everything, not nothing. Lights, Powers, Forces, Balances, all these things and held together by a strange omni power person called Love, who lives inside the mind of the son of God from eternity to eternity through the immaculent mechanics of the Spirit.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join