Anyone Who Even WANTS, Much Less Needs, Worship, is NOT Divine!

Think about it: How can a TRULY higher being be anything even SLIGHTLY, even very vaguely resembling, say, Saddam Hussein, who very much craved worship and praise? How can the murderous egomaniac "Yahweh" (like Saddam), as exemplified multiple times in the Old Testament, be the Single Creator of the infinite, incomprehensible universe? And from the Christian perspective, how can said alleged psychopathic Creator have an alleged "Only Begotten Son" born right here on this planet in the dark outer rim hinterlands of a nondescript galaxy, that obviously (*sarcasm*) HAS to be the center of the universe?

It's clear that religion, and particularly the Abrahamic song and dance routine of a single "God," is, in addition to being an obvious enslaving-controlling mechanism for the populations, a mere projection of entirely (world-as-we-know-it) human ego, insecurity and fear upon (a) supposedly "higher" being(s). Any truly higher being would be interested in only actions or deeds, not words or beliefs, no matter how passionately heartfelt... And probably THE biggest mistake humanity has collectively made is to separate science from the SO-CALLED "paranormal" or "supernatural." Everything is science, including and especially that which is simply undefined, unexplained.

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


And what do you think is the source of the infection which, from time to time, inflames members of ATS into directing intemperate outbursts of abuse at other people's faith?

Has this ever been diagnosed?



[edit on 9-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

God is everthing, maybe some things he doesnt choose.
If he doesnt have choice, he ends up with free will.

Maybe going wrong is part of going right.
Not as in the intend of going wrong,
but more as in the faillure of going right first.

Woud god choose not to be all ?
Even when his destiny was decided,
before he could say no ?
If he can think, he existed,
and what exsisted doesnt have choice,
only in itself through you.

Maybe the biggest lie in history,
is that god doesn't need,
when he DOES need himself to be,
by loosing choice.

Maybe God becomes all,
through the divisions he allow in himself,
so he can be all and good,
and where he decides to have choice in us,
being nothing and 'bad',
and this makes him be everything,
in need of himself, but free of himself.


I dont know if i help you with this,
but maybe someone needs this.

Try to skip the lies. A god that is free lives
on his desires. But A god that is all,
avoids hurting himself. This is called paradox,
and its through the duality of it, that you can
understand evil and the good and bad side
of desires. God is One, and in his oneness he is divided as free,
OR God is divided, and in his division he is a tool of one.
The stone with seven eyes, or the dragon with seven heads.
Here comes together both Torah (and spin offs) and Buddhism,
both A god and no God, as One.
Water can be described by opposite explinations,
and still be water.

Truth is not subject to deeds, but to beliefs.
A deed is a belief, a belief is not always a deed.
It's intend that allows people to go wrong before
they go right, and its our deeds that blind us to think we are better
then the others.

Gods or Truths mystery is not difficult to see,
but difficult to grasp.

The only begotten son of god is
god himself, thats why the father is alone.
And that's why christ, oneness, existed
before time, and still was in the flesh,
and will be. And that's why the lie,
was, is not.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by pasttheclouds]

reply to post by DISRAELI


Yawn. Am just hanging around waiting for feedback on the actual content of the post, not the predictably baseless ad hominem attacks, though am prepared for as much. I'm not one to try to argue with various true believers. True believers, religous and political, aren't interested in the pursuit of objective (by definition) facts.

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


All right, now that we're away from the excitable atmosphere of the main forum, it might be possible to have a calm discussion.

In the first place, the suggestion that the Biblical God is attributed with a "craving" for worship is overstated. The emphasis is more on the point that (since they're going to be worshipping something anyway) they should not be recognising other gods.

Is that so unreasonable? On the hypothesis that this was the Creator of the world, anyone who recognised that he was the Creator would have a better understanding of the world than people who did not. Is it not reasonable that he should want them to have the most truthful understanding of the world, including therefore his own role in bringing it into existence? Especially if that recognition would enable him to start a long, long, training process, designed to lead them away from murder and into its opposite?

And on the point of "projection". If the "exclusivity" aspect of Biblical religion were a projection of human nature, you would expect it to be universal. It is not universal. All over the world, for most of human history, humans have been "projecting" gods who did not care tuppence what other gods were being worshipped, as long as they got their own share. An attitude of "live and let live", and outright syncretism, is normal in human religion. The exclusive nature of Biblical religion stands out like a sore thumb as something fairly unique.

This being the case, consider the possibility that the "exclusive" clause is not human in origin but has come from "outside", in the sense of being genuinely communicated from a Creator God.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 10-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
It's clear that religion, and particularly the Abrahamic song and dance routine of a single "God," is, in addition to being an obvious enslaving-controlling mechanism for the populations, a mere projection of entirely (world-as-we-know-it) human ego, insecurity and fear upon (a) supposedly "higher" being(s).

I think any student of religion who has ever worked in a psychiatric hospital knows all too well what the ego of the Abrahamic god derives from.

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


Two completely unrelated events, justbecause sadistic men have desired worship for their own evil wishes doesn't mean that God's wishes are evil as well.

It only means the Saddam's wishes were evil. Anything beyond that is arbitrary opinions.

Epic fail.

Yea yawn back.. times 5. another thread like this another attack, it continues with a new breed of posters.

Not only was it an epic fail, but an immature one too IMO.

and lilitu that goes both ways.

peace.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by JesusisTruth]

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
Yea yawn back.. times 5. another thread like this another attack, it continues with a new breed of posters.

Not only was it an epic fail, but an immature one too IMO.

and lilitu that goes both ways.

peace.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by JesusisTruth]

Well nobody is attacking you as a person so why the ad hominem attack coming from you? It is the imaginary Abrahamic god being dissected here. It is quite obvious that the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam each have multiple authors who suffered from a raft of personality disorders. The trained mind can recognize that these authors suffered some of them from schizophrenia, paranoid personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, manic depression, temporal lobe epilepsy and the list goes on. All untreated I might add. Your god if a real person, would need to be committed to an institution for the criminally insane.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Lilitu]

No litlitu I wasn't attacking. Just saying it's a fail. Forgot to say IMO... I apologize if it seemed I attacked.


But as for this

" The trained mind can recognize that these authors suffered some "

No that's called the biggoted agenda mind can recoginze that. I don't recognize anything other than how people spoke in the biblical era.

and atheist according to some of their writing, I can claim the same exact disorders.


" Your God if a real person would have to be commited "


ofcourse the ultimate I'm so sane statement without any recognition of the good fruits of Christ and the same authors of the bible and the 1,000s of saints who didn't harm a fly who gave their lives for the homeless and God and good works.


let's not add them since all believers are insane lunitics. is that what you're saying because I hope it's not.


so again, for the record. OP. I wasn't trying to attack you. I think it was a fail post, but no personal attack.

I'm insane what do I know.

peace.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by JesusisTruth]

[edit on 9-4-2010 by JesusisTruth]

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Dean Goldberry

 

And what do you think is the source of the infection which, from time to time, inflames members of ATS into directing intemperate outbursts of abuse at other people's faith?

Has this ever been diagnosed?

Yes it has, it's called "STIU Disorder".

Suppresing Truth In Unrighteousness Disorder.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
But as for this

" The trained mind can recognize that these authors suffered some "

No that's called the biggoted agenda mind can recoginze that.

Thank you. I wasn't aware being a Doctor of Psychology involved a bigoted agenda but who besides the social scientist knows what lurks in the conspiratorial mind, hmm?

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
I don't recognize anything other than how people spoke in the biblical era.

You are a linguist then?

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
and atheist according to some of their writing, I can claim the same exact disorders.


" Your God if a real person would have to be commited "


ofcourse the ultimate I'm so sane statement...

(My bolding). It has nothing to do with this juvenile form of confrontation which you may be accustomed to.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
...without any recognition of the good fruits of Christ and the same authors of the bible and the 1,000s of saints who didn't harm a fly who gave their lives for the homeless and God and good works.

You mean like Mother Teresa?

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
let's not add them since all believers are insane lunitics. is that what you're saying because I hope it's not.

That is simply untrue. For example, I do not consider the christians who run this site to be the least bit insane or even slightly disturbed.

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


I agree with you. It reminds me of the cult leaders and cult families that demand worship from their children/subjects/victims which usually results in the total abuse of these poor souls by the leader/leaders/prophets of that group.

In my opinion, worshiping is the primary requirement of most, if not all malevolent groups, it is not hard to see why.

Why would an enlightened being require worship?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by ixiy]