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.
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.
I don�t think so for the simple fact that I don�t believe in Satan as an entity that is �god� like. I think evil is the absence of good. Something that is purely evil couldn�t not exist because God created everything in his image, and God is good.
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"
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.
Originally posted by mOjOm
Well, I think it has to do with the way each of us percieve "God".
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.
Originally posted by mikromarius
Wouldn't it be impossible for God to exist if he weren't challenged?
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?
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
In terms of Abstract Mental Reasoning
God is the Creation of the Destruction of the Creation
In terms of Finite "Human" understanding
God is the larger sum of God's own separate parts
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