bloodofthelamb:
Bro muttleylaff, how does pleasure and worship correlate? The truth is that we will freely and willing worship and honour Him when we realize how beautifully and wonderfully He made us in love.

Years ago whilst meditating on the words of God, I did ponder with a friend of mine about the relationship between pleasure and worship plus what their mutual relationship is, if there's any. The explanation, I came up with, was this:

When I go to the pub, out of pleasure, I might decide to buy a pint or get a glass of rouge to bottoms up with. Whilst nursing my drink, I am being worshipped by the drink, each time when downing or sipping it. The drink is devoted to giving me a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of enjoying drinking it inconjunction of being in the relaxed ambience surrounding it.

It is a similar thing with when I pleasurably buy an expensive oil paint canvas to put and place on the space above my fireplace mantelpiece. Now, the canvas, on my living room above my fireplace mantelpiece is devoted to giving a feeling of great aesthetic pleasure. The pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, in their peculiar individual and special ways, are exuding a form of love to me. Incidentally that is what worship is all about. When something, like the pint or red wine loves you, it worships you, it holds you in high regard, it thinks highly of you, it wants to serve you, it wouldnt want to upset your metabolism, it'll be gentle on you, not wanting you to puke or throw up, wants to nourish you. If it is the oil paint canvas, it too loves you, so worships you as well, lights up living room with its rich oil painting colors, decorates the expanse above the fireplace mantelpiece for you, giving the place, an air of designer chic etcetera

The truth is that, the moment the pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, stops freely and willing worshipping and honouring me and stops anymore from being wonderful, beautiful and/or decorative, from when I first got them, then judgement comes, as in, to either pour into the kitchen sink and down the drain, or end up in the kitchen waste bin or trash can

The poetic licence. I know, forgive it. Hope you saw the pleasure and worship correlate in it all.

Originakalokalo:



OK.

budaatum:

You will not be good without a reason! It's just way too much work to do for nothing. And claiming "you are just being yourself" makes you sound as if you are just naturally good to me, like born to be good, which is unlikely. The truth more likely being that if you truly are as effortlessly good to me as you say you are, it would have taken you a lot of effort and practice and learning through the years to become so good. And to do so much work to be so good you must be fulfilling a need. And that need cannot be "no need".

I put it to you to consider that, in your, "just living", "just being myself", being "good to you", and being the "I am", you are fulfilling a need but might be unaware of the need you are fulfilling.

I am good, not that I am born to be good or learn how to be good. This is who I am! Remember, we are talking about God here and who He is.

God need not to have a need to be who He is. Who God is, is the basics for all He does. "For God so love the world, that he gave ( John 3:16)." The love of God is a precursor to all that he does now and forever.

You can simply say, "God was so full of love that he created things."

MuttleyLaff:
Years ago whilst meditating on the words of God, I did ponder with a friend of mine about the relationship between pleasure and worship plus what their mutual relationship is, if there's any. The explanation, I came up with, was this:

When I go to the pub, out of pleasure, I might decide to buy a pint or get a glass of rouge to bottoms up with. Whilst nursing my drink, I am being worshipped by the drink, each time when downing or sipping it. The drink is devoted to giving me a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of enjoying drinking it inconjunction of being in the relaxed ambience surrounding it.

It is a similar thing with when I pleasurably buy an expensive oil paint canvas to put and place on the space above my fireplace mantelpiece. Now, the canvas, on my living room above my fireplace mantelpiece is devoted to giving a feeling of great aesthetic pleasure. The pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, in their peculiar individual and special ways, are exuding a form of love to me. Incidentally that is what worship is all about. When something, like the pint or red wine loves you, it worships you, it holds you in high regard, it thinks highly of you, it wants to serve you, it wouldnt want to upset your metabolism, it'll be gentle on you, not wanting you to puke or throw up, wants to nourish you. If it is the oil paint canvas, it too loves you, so worships you as well, lights up living room with its rich oil painting colors, decorates the expanse above the fireplace mantelpiece for you, giving the place, an air of designer chic etcetera

The truth is that, the moment the pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, stops freely and willing worshipping and honouring me and stops anymore from being wonderful, beautiful and/or decorative, from when I first got them, then judgement comes, as in, to either pour into the kitchen sink and down the drain, or end up in the kitchen waste bin or trash can

The poetic licence. I know, forgive it. Hope you saw the pleasure and worship correlate in it all.

Bro muttleyLaff, all things came to be by his will, not necessarily out of need, but out of love. By the way here is Revelation 4:11 in NKJV

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power ; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created." Old king James made it seem as if God created out of need for derivation of pleasure. I new something was wrong somewhere, so I went searching and digging.

God was full of pleasure when he made all things, infact in his eternal pleasure he created all things that we might share in it.

bloodofthelamb:
Bro muttleyLaff, all things came to be by his will, not necessarily out of need, but out of love. By the way here is Revelation 4:11 in NKJV

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power ; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created." Old king James made it seem as if God created out of need for derivation of pleasure. I new something was wrong somewhere, so I went searching and digging.

God was full of pleasure when he made all things, infact in his eternal pleasure he created all things that we might share in it.

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
- Revelation 4:11

Remember the above, is how I previously posted the Revelation 4:11 verse, and that was, with "for thy pleasure" emboldened and pleasure underlined for the obvious reason(s).

The thing is, Revelation 4:11, states that, we are and were created for God's pleasure. It means, God, accepted and agreed, us worthy to be created and do, for Him to have a sense or feeling happiness, satisfaction and enjoyment out of the enterprise. God didnt need to create us, didnt have to create us but because God is agape love, and importantly to note, without necessarily any reason and/or justification, decided to let His creativity go wild, win the day and so boom, here on the scene, we came.

Even, if KJV made it seem as if God created out of need for derivation of pleasure, it hasnt really strayed from the truth because pleasure and desire are synonymous words. God had a desire, strongly wished for and/or wanted us, so He created us. It is the same way I wished and/or wanted that pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, and so had them

nwanne, let me ask you a serious question erh. 99 times out of 100, why do you make love? Is it for pleasure or chore? The creation of us, the project, is it then, a pleasure or chore nwanne bloodofthelamb?

Watch what will soon crawl and come out of the woodwork, as truthful posts, always fairk up, a guilty conscience, every time!

*sigh*

SMH

bloodofthelamb:

I am good, not that I am born to be good or learn how to be good. This is who I am! Remember, we are talking about God here and who He is.

Have you read Exodus lately? God hardened Pharaoh's heart not to let the Egyptians go so many times just to demonstrate God’s power. That demonstration is the fulfilment of a need.

bloodofthelamb:
God need not to have a need to be who He is. Who God is, is the basics for all He does. "For God so love the world, that he gave ( John 3:16)." The love of God is a precursor to all that he does now and forever.

Do you not see a need in what you quoted? Love, is a need, but in case it's not clear enough, "because God so loved the world, God gave....".

bloodofthelamb:
You can simply say, "God was so full of love that he created things."

You can say that if that's what you think, but I'd rather say, "God was so full of love for what God created" since its what I think.

bloodofthelamb:

God was full of pleasure when he made all things, infact in his eternal pleasure he created all things that we might share in it.

"Pleasure" is precisely what is derived from the fulfilment of a need.

Do you not understand English at all!

IAmSabrina:
*sigh*

SMH

Lmaooo

My name is Bond. James Bond. The pleasure is mine, please sit down Mr Bond.

bloodofthelamb, God is agape love, hence doesnt need to have a need to give this agape love because agape love intrinsically is Him and His nature

Horiolah:


Lmaooo

Lol. Don't mind me o. I just dey here dey observe the proceedings of the thread

budaatum:

"Pleasure" is precisely what is derived from the fulfilment of a need.

Do you not understand English at all!

You are the one that is slow of understanding. The "bone of contention" here is, why did God created things? Did He creat because he needed to meet His needs that was lacking? As if he was lacking anything before He created. This is my stand and will always be, "the will of God for creating was born out of love, and not of any need nor lack in His part."

MuttleyLaff:
My name is Bond. James Bond. The pleasure is mine, please sit down Mr Bond.

bloodofthelamb, God is agape love, hence doesnt need to have a need to give this agape love because agape love intrinsically is Him and His nature

This is definitely what I am talking about. It was sounding as if God lacked pleasure and joy prior creation, and because of that He created us to fill in that gap.

Mr Bond ride on!

The Concept is not absurd but The Understanding of The Totality and Nature of God is Difficult to the Simple, the Atheist and the Unthinking.

bloodofthelamb:


You are the one that is slow of understanding. The "bone of contention" here is, why did God created things? Did He creat because he needed to meet His needs that was lacking? As if he was lacking anything before He created. This is my stand and will always be, "the will of God for creating was born out of love, and not of any need nor lack in His part."

So, according to you, God created Adam and Eve out of love but not to fulfil a need to express that love?

You do know that God specifically quality checked everything God created? Even acknowledging that "it was good" is the fulfilment of the act of creation, which is a need to express oneself. You, being in God's image, share this needy attitude. You state your position to affirm your opinion and thereby fulfil the need of self validation.

The need God had is not the sort you feel when you are starving and lack food or need oxygen, since God does not lack anything, but a need to burst forth and multiply as is God's nature to fill the earth it created and to dominate it.

bloodofthelamb:
This is definitely what I am talking about. It was sounding as if God lacked pleasure and joy prior creation, and because of that He created us to fill in that gap.

Mr Bond ride on!

bloodofthelamb, the point I was making with that James Bond phrase and similar, is that, pleasure doesn't necessarily have a need. God will not diminish or increase if God does or doesn't make Man. Pleasure is a phenomenon, independent of need or want. It is a will or desire to do or have something done. It is God's pleasure, to out of love create man, that is primary, every other thing is secondary and incidental.

IAmSabrina:

Lol. Don't mind me o. I just dey here dey observe the proceedings of the thread

Lol. You're nt alone.

MuttleyLaff:
bloodofthelamb, the point I was making with that James Bond phrase and similar, is that, pleasure doesn't necessarily have a need. God will not diminish or increase if God does or doesn't make Man. Pleasure is a phenomenon, independent of need or want. It is a will or desire to do or have something done. It is God's pleasure, to out of love create man, that is primary, every other thing is secondary and incidental.

Okay, I get you.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

Good is stronger than evil as sinner is inferior to saint. God is most powerful because he is purely righteous. He doesn’t need humans. If he created something, it would be good and perfect like him. Ergo, God did not create humanity.

Humanity appeared as a stain on existence and God reacted. Earth = Extremely Artistic Reality Torturing Humanity.

The assured conclusion for all humanity is death.
Death = Dying Eternally After Troubling Heaven.

Now you know, Good is a simple-minded English magician.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

This is not true. Creation can occur simply because the creator decides to create. That is, without any compunction at all, an entity possessed of ability may choose to create. It may even be on a whim.

TheArranger:
An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

Consequent upon my response above, it is not true that it would go against the nature of God to create. God being God has no limits upon His Will. He does exactly as He pleases. This means that if He is pleased to create, then He does.

TheArranger:
One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

Obviously, what I think is that this is another poor excuse for atheism.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

I don't have much thoughts to spare about this as I'm not a theist. And the way I see God is quite different from how the concept is expounded in theism, deism, and religions.

For instance, I feel God is Existence itself, and the Universes and all that's in existence reside within God as mental images. Just like our thoughts, feelings are "living things" residing in our brain.

IMO, God is unknowable and has needs. The mere fact that humans, animals, plants, planets, universe exist as creations of God, shows that It/He/She has needs/reasons to create.

The theist concept of God as portrayed by My anonymous friend mr MuttleyLaff, is somewhat incomprehensible by the human mind because the entity(s), viz; the Godhead or/and Allah, make themself(elves) or itself logically incomprehensible.

They readily submit to a foriegn religious doctrine imported by our slave masters who brilliantly utilized the power of YVHW to convert us-pagans, inferior specie/race(as depicted by the europeans) into the beautiful Christian "field plucker", "dispensable minners", etc.

The most fascinating part of the whole tale is that YVHW empowered the whites( it make one wonder if God is racist) to conquer the inferior black(as believed by the whites) just like he did for his precious children-the isrealites, the true white lineage. God never changes does he?

Now, God(Yahweh) has given us a choice, either you "believe" or you "die". This so called wise God never considered the fact that this same operus mandi is been utilized by other entities whom claim to also be the Most high like UBANJIGI, OLODUMARE, ZEUS, ALLAH, RA, Thanos(lol) just to name a few.


Another logical pandemonium. This issue been discussed has turned the whole world into a pandemonium. God did it! Gods not dead!


Lets do some philosophy shall we

In the universe, each and every entity is a monad, buda, muttley, loj are all monads existing at a point in spacetime. the first cause is being referred to as "THE MONAD". Some say *ein sof*, yaweh, allah etc. But the nomenclature doesn't matter.

The heoric monads of physics like Sir isaac newton, Albrrt Einstein, telsa, etc have carried out, previously thought - incomprehensible thoughts/thinking and have unveiled that the universe is indeed omnipresent. We are not just in the universe but the universe is in us. In more scientific terms, we are made up of spacedust. The universe is the alpha and omega, the uncreated. The essence in which all of life and existence is/be, is the universe.

Now each monad must exist in "A space and time" or a cordinates in the geometry of the infinite universe. Its is written, "in the beginning... GOD CREATED..." which means nothing existed. But, does the writer of that famous verse really know what "nothing" means?

Do the subscribers of theistic belief ever wonder what was the time gap between the "time" God was and the time God created.
Does God also experience today and tomorrow? Or rather, does God have a past and a future? What is God's past, what would be his/its future?

"My philosophy is the sword that would pierce through the heart of theism until it bleeds out ever ounce of blindness"
Kkins(2019) .

"we cannot comprehend God because we keep searching for more good adjectives to define him with" - kkins(2019)


"if all souls agree that - they can't concur on the concept of God, then God's infinite domain is within the minds of each soul" - kkins(2019)

Lets continue with analysis.

if God can cruise through the past, present and future then does this affect other monads? Can God alter the past of another? If yes then he is not knowledgeable of the future. If no, then he is not omnipresent after all. Should i explain my philosophy?

God is depicted to exist in three modes, namely, sage mode, jinchiruki mode, six paths mode- ooooops sorry, i meant Father son and holy spirit. However this again throws logic into a cyclone. When God exist as the son, what happens to the other modes?
If they are made up of the same essence, then shouldn't they be of equal power? Why do two of them subscribe or voluntary bow to the will of one(the father)..
Becareful which words you use to reply. Also bold the question you choose to answer. Please MuttleyLaff, answer mine befor you asks your.

It's Entelechy.

kkins25:
The theist concept of God as portrayed by My anonymous friend mr MuttleyLaff, is somewhat incomprehensible by the human mind because the entity(s), viz; the Godhead or/and Allah, make themself(elves) or itself logically incomprehensible.

They readily submit to a foriegn religious doctrine imported by our slave masters who brilliantly utilized the power of YVHW to convert us-pagans, inferior specie/race(as depicted by the europeans) into the beautiful Christian "field plucker", "dispensable minners", etc.

The most fascinating part of the whole tale is that YVHW empowered the whites( it make one wonder if God is racist) to conquer the inferior black(as believed by the whites) just like he did for his precious children-the isrealites, the true white lineage. God never changes does he?

Now, God(Yahweh) has given us a choice, either you "believe" or you "die". This so called wise God never considered the fact that this same operus mandi is been utilized by other entities whom claim to also be the Most high like UBANJIGI, OLODUMARE, ZEUS, ALLAH, RA, Thanos(lol) just to name a few.


Another logical pandemonium. This issue been discussed has turned the whole world into a pandemonium. God did it! Gods not dead!


Lets do some philosophy shall we

In the universe, each and every entity is a monad, buda, muttley, loj are all monads existing at a point in spacetime. the first cause is being referred to as "THE MONAD". Some say *ein sof*, yaweh, allah etc. But the nomenclature doesn't matter.

The heoric monads of physics like Sir isaac newton, Albrrt Einstein, telsa, etc have carried out, previously thought - incomprehensible thoughts/thinking and have unveiled that the universe is indeed omnipresent. We are not just in the universe but the universe is in us. In more scientific terms, we are made up of spacedust. The universe is the alpha and omega, the uncreated. The essence in which all of life and existence is/be, is the universe.

Now each monad must exist in "A space and time" or a cordinates in the geometry of the infinite universe. Its is written, "in the beginning... GOD CREATED..." which means nothing existed. But, does the writer of that famous verse really know what "nothing" means?

Do the subscribers of theistic belief ever wonder what was the time gap between the "time" God was and the time God created.
Does God also experience today and tomorrow? Or rather, does God have a past and a future? What is God's past, what would be his/its future?

"My philosophy is the sword that would pierce through the heart of theism until it bleeds out ever ounce of blindness"
Kkins(2019) .

"we cannot comprehend God because we keep searching for more good adjectives to define him with" - kkins(2019)


"if all souls agree that - they can't concur on the concept of God, then God's infinite domain is within the minds of each soul" - kkins(2019)

Lets continue with analysis.

if God can cruise through the past, present and future then does this affect other monads? Can God alter the past of another? If yes then he is not knowledgeable of the future. If no, then he is not omnipresent after all. Should i explain my philosophy?

God is depicted to exist in three modes, namely, sage mode, jinchiruki mode, six paths mode- ooooops sorry, i meant Father son and holy spirit. However this again throws logic into a cyclone. When God exist as the son, what happens to the other modes?
If they are made up of the same essence, then shouldn't they be of equal power? Why do two of them subscribe or voluntary bow to the will of one(the father)..
Becareful which words you use to reply. Also bold the question you choose to answer. Please MuttleyLaff, answer mine befor you asks your.

This my dear friend kkins25 will bark at everything, even if something isn't there, he'll still just bark at trees. Thinking is good, as you are to think God over but not overthink God, so stop overthinking, as overthinking, leads to negative energy and thoughts and you only be creating problems that aren’t in the first place there with it. Overthinking ruins you. It is a poison that kills and gradually narrows your horizon. It ruins situations, twists things around, makes you worry, just makes everything much worse than it actually is and dragging you to deep dark abyss. So don't overthink dear friend nwanee kkins25, just overflow with good vibes and dont spoil the good moods

Critical thinking is "overthinking" to brainwashed religionists with single-digit IQs.

MuttleyLaff:
This my dear friend kkins25 will bark at everything, even if something isn't there, he'll still just bark at trees. Thinking is good, as you are to think God over but not overthink God, so stop overthinking, as overthinking, leads to negative energy and thoughts and you only be creating problems that aren’t in the first place there with it. Overthinking ruins you. It is a poison that kills and gradually narrows your horizon. It ruins situations, twists things around, makes you worry, just makes everything much worse than it actually is and dragging you to deep dark abyss. So don't overthink dear friend nwanee kkins25, just overflow with good vibes and dont spoil the good moods

Hahaha.. Thanks for the corncern and advice. Dont worry about me, this thoughts were caused by the OP, I've only just conjured them up. Its entertaining for a little while though. Greetings dear one.

The mind knows no boundaries. Don't blame me sir.

kkins25:
Hahaha.. Thanks for the corncern and advice. Dont worry about me, this thoughts were caused by the OP, I've only just conjured them up. Its entertaining for a little while though. Greetings dear one.

The mind knows no boundaries. Don't blame me sir.

The mind is a beautiful servant or a dangerous master. For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, the very mind will be the greatest enemy. Make sure your worst enemy doesn't live between your own two ears

MuttleyLaff:
This my dear friend kkins25 will bark at everything, even if something isn't there, he'll still just bark at trees. Thinking is good, as you are to think God over but not overthink God, so stop overthinking, as overthinking, leads to negative energy and thoughts and you only be creating problems that aren’t in the first place there with it. Overthinking ruins you. It is a poison that kills and gradually narrows your horizon. It ruins situations, twists things around, makes you worry, just makes everything much worse than it actually is and dragging you to deep dark abyss. So don't overthink dear friend nwanee kkins25, just overflow with good vibes and dont spoil the good moods

Wait a minute... 8m thinking again. This are some valid questions that the council meetings of nicea also debated.. Kindly answer.

kkins25:
Wait a minute... 8m thinking again. This are some valid questions that the council meetings of nicea also debated.. Kindly answer.

Get to the point and be specific nwanne please.

MuttleyLaff:
Get to the point and be specific nwanne please.

Scientific?? Ohh so now can can be observed using scientific parameters?? We can only philosophies dear sir.

Lets start with this..

God is depicted to exist in three modes viz; Father, son and holy spirit.

Q1) When God exist as the son, what happens to the other modes?
Q2) Are all members of the God head co-equal and co-eternal?

The Christian tenet is that: God is not the son not the holy spirit however the three is God. (we have to be careful with English here because if we use "are" then we imply that the three are different monads ie three different intelligentia)

Q3) what the deuce those this even mean? "The father is God(but not the son nor holy spirit), the son is God(but not the other two), the holy spirit is God(but not the other two)

Q4) can God experience time?

kkins25:
Scientific?? Ohh so now can can be observed using scientific parameters?? We can only philosophies dear sir.

You will have to rephrase this because I am not understanding what you typed

kkins25:
Lets start with this..
God is depicted to exist in three modes viz; Father, son and holy spirit.

Correction, God has manifested Himself, in those three modes

kkins25:
Q1) When God exist as the son, what happens to the other modes?

Unlike you and I, it is no biggie for God, to concurrently and/or simultaneously exist as Son

kkins25:
Q2) Are all members of the God head co-equal and co-eternal?

Of course, they are. Are all members of your body co equal or not ni?

kkins25:
The Christian tenet is that: God is not the son not the holy spirit however the three is God. (we have to be careful with English here because if we use "are" then we imply that the three are different monads ie three different intelligentia)

Correction, God is the Son, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God

kkins25:
Q3) what the deuce those this even mean? "The father is God(but not the son nor holy spirit), the son is God(but not the other two), the holy spirit is God(but not the other two)

God did not become a Father, before Jesus was begotten

kkins25:
Q4) can God experience time?

God can be in time and out of time