Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Psychology of God and mysticism


Duke Wellington

Recommended Posts

Why would a God need to create a universe with human beings in it?

Looking at the relationship between us it says that God needs humans as a source of entertainment, attention, self-esteem, power or control. Upon self-reflection I realise that I have either praised, hated or raged against God at various points in my life including refusing to believe that a God who lets such and such happen exists. However I now realise that I have spent my life either supplying God with positive or negative attention.

So I have God down as an attention seeker who needs us to provide it with either positive (praise, admiration, appreciation) or negative (hate, rage, criticism) attention. That seems to be the whole basis of the relationship and its something God tries hard to force out of us.

Is this the essence of mysticism? and what happens if you totally refuse to provide any attention (positive or negative) at all?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, if you have enough emotional steam to spend negative energy toward something, then you still care about it on some level.

True apathy is the outward reflection of the internal condition of a lack of concern, regard or notice, good or bad, about another 'thing' be it a chair, car, or idea. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Much more reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exists and that all the good and bad in the world is down to us or chance.

 

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why it got moved into the scepticism part of the forum because my post isn't about questioning the existence of God. Anyway I'm asking if mysticism says God is an attention seeker and thats the nature of our relationship with the entity? Is that why we are created and is the cause behind everything that occurs God trying to illicit positive or negative attention out of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

Much more reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exists and that all the good and bad in the world is down to us or chance.

 

Br Cornelius

It may be more reasonable, rational and quantifiable but it leaves humanity with hope only in ourselves.  It also denies any creative force and calls everything in the universe a random event.  The best minds in physics can only come up with the "big bang" yet cannot begin to speak to what was happening in the moment before it.  Some seem to believe that humanity is capable of a new, enlightened age.  I haven't seen much evidence of it, only recriminations against those assessed to be the "problem".  People here regularly scoff at prophecies yet they actually know nothing of them.  There are descriptions of nuclear effects on human bodies, mushroom clouds and the effects of a general nuclear war.  Very large fractions of human life exterminated.  It could begin today or next year.  The only unbelievable assumption is that it will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

You can ask whatever question you like - but it doesn't make the question meaningful and thus ultimately answerable.

I put this question firmly in that category.

 

Even if God did exist it would be impossible to actually know its intention for the universe. To imagine that we could is simply projecting out a human need for an understanding which would ultimately remain out of our grasp.

 

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To these kinds of questions I think we have to include all the gods that have been worshiped throughout history since humans thought of the idea. There is no singular God that is the True God independent of human thought and conception.

If what you mean by God is this One True God, you are just inventing another concept, as all humans have done since the beginning. Any definition of God is just one's idea of God.

In this sense, is it possible for mysticism or spirituality to be expressed without any inferred definition, a subject without object?

Perhaps some silent emotional and intellectual expression of ineffable wonder, astonishment and appreciation, as well as a sense of great mystery. In my understanding, spirituality cannot be taught, it is not knowledge. 

When we define God as our definition of God, we obscure what may actually be, and cause a lot of trouble in this world. :o 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I don't know why it got moved into the scepticism part of the forum because my post isn't about questioning the existence of God. Anyway I'm asking if mysticism says God is an attention seeker and thats the nature of our relationship with the entity? Is that why we are created and is the cause behind everything that occurs God trying to illicit positive or negative attention out of us?

This is a problematic line of reasoning with the assumption that God's intention is earth-centered. It's common mistake for humans to assume that planet earth is God's whole purpose. But no. God's intention is to build an eternity we call Heaven. Earth is part of the necessary process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and then said:

It may be more reasonable, rational and quantifiable but it leaves humanity with hope only in ourselves.  It also denies any creative force and calls everything in the universe a random event.  The best minds in physics can only come up with the "big bang" yet cannot begin to speak to what was happening in the moment before it.  Some seem to believe that humanity is capable of a new, enlightened age.  I haven't seen much evidence of it, only recriminations against those assessed to be the "problem".  People here regularly scoff at prophecies yet they actually know nothing of them.  There are descriptions of nuclear effects on human bodies, mushroom clouds and the effects of a general nuclear war.  Very large fractions of human life exterminated.  It could begin today or next year.  The only unbelievable assumption is that it will never happen.

I'm curious to know why you see this as a problem. I find the idea of human responsibility infinitely less terrifying than an amoral creator-entity that, if it exists, clearly doesn't care about us. The randomness of our existence, and of existence as a concept, gives us a lot more freedom than if we were at the mercy of some monster marauding through the multiverse, creating life for its own alien reasonings.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Why would a God need to create a universe with human beings in it?

Looking at the relationship between us it says that God needs humans as a source of entertainment, attention, self-esteem, power or control. Upon self-reflection I realise that I have either praised, hated or raged against God at various points in my life including refusing to believe that a God who lets such and such happen exists. However I now realise that I have spent my life either supplying God with positive or negative attention.

So I have God down as an attention seeker who needs us to provide it with either positive (praise, admiration, appreciation) or negative (hate, rage, criticism) attention. That seems to be the whole basis of the relationship and its something God tries hard to force out of us.

Is this the essence of mysticism? and what happens if you totally refuse to provide any attention (positive or negative) at all?

 

 

 

Try thinking of "God" like this:

Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism.[1] Often grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.[2]

 

People with narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a disdain and lack of empathy for others.[5][6] These individuals often display arrogance, a sense of superiority, and power-seeking behaviors.[7] Narcissistic personality disorder is different from having a strong sense of self-confidence. This is because people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they disregard the feelings and wishes of others and expect to be treated as superior regardless of their actual status or achievements.[5][8] In addition, people with NPD may exhibit fragile egos, an inability to tolerate criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in an attempt to validate their own superiority.[8]

According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most or all of the following symptoms, typically without commensurate qualities or accomplishments:[5][8]

  • Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others
  • Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
  • Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions
  • Needing constant admiration from others
  • Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
  • Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
  • Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs
  • Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them
  • Pompous and arrogant demeanor
Edited by Mystic Crusader
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

Even if God did exist it would be impossible to actually know its intention for the universe. To imagine that we could is simply projecting out a human need for an understanding which would ultimately remain out of our grasp.

Br Cornelius

Why. If God doesn't exist, or He exists but doesn't care, than He's disconnected from humans. Thus there's not much humans can do. We humans can only do what we can. In this case we don't need to do anything as a reaction to His existence.

 

The next possibility is that He exists and cares. Then what He should do as a super being? He will confront humans, unless of course He has a strong reason to hide behind.

 

The next possibility for a God who has a strong reason to hide behind yet He actually cares. Then the only way for Him to let humans know His attention is to show Himself up to a small group of witnesses, and for them to write about what He wants, then spread the message to the rest of humans. There's actually no good reason to rule out this possibility besides the fallacy that "the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence".

Edited by Hawkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Try thinking of "God" like this:

Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism.[1] Often grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.[2]

 

People with narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a disdain and lack of empathy for others.[5][6] These individuals often display arrogance, a sense of superiority, and power-seeking behaviors.[7] Narcissistic personality disorder is different from having a strong sense of self-confidence. This is because people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they disregard the feelings and wishes of others and expect to be treated as superior regardless of their actual status or achievements.[5][8] In addition, people with NPD may exhibit fragile egos, an inability to tolerate criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in an attempt to validate their own superiority.[8]

According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most or all of the following symptoms, typically without commensurate qualities or accomplishments:[5][8]

  • Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others
  • Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
  • Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions
  • Needing constant admiration from others
  • Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
  • Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
  • Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs
  • Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them
  • Pompous and arrogant demeanor

So if we assume God exists and is suffering from psychological problems then we can see our role is to provide the entity with a way of coping? Seeing as much of the attention directed Gods was is not admiration but anger I think its more than NPD, I think its HPD too.

Anyway what happens if you totally and utterly refuse to play your part in the game?

Does nothing happen? (because God doesn't exist). Do more elaborate rewards and punishments happen to try to get some form of attention (positive or negative) out of you?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

So if we assume God exists and is suffering from psychological problems then we can see our role is to provide the entity with a way of coping? Seeing as much of the attention directed Gods was is not admiration but anger I think its more than NPD, I think its HPD too.

Anyway what happens if you totally and utterly refuse to play your part in the game?

Does nothing happen? (because God doesn't exist). Do more elaborate rewards and punishments happen to try to get some form of attention (positive or negative) out of you?

 

 

 

Borderline also.  He has extremely great problems with abandonment/rejection:

Isaiah 1:28

But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who forsake the LORD will perish.

Edited by Mystic Crusader
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Borderline also.  He has extremely great problems with abandonment/rejection:

Isaiah 1:28

But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who forsake the LORD will perish.

So if God is real, it suffers from NPD, HPD and BPD (which I also agree with).

Surely that is testable? Denial of attention (positive or negative) in every single way, shape and form to see what happens.

Edited by RabidMongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider that god is typically a projection of the self then the one/s who created the god myth may have had a few screws loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concept of creator (god) isn't a separate from nature.  I see the universe as one of many living entities and creation as birth.  I don't think of it as something that is aware of me or cares about me. For all I know the universe is the equivalent to a cow in a field.  So the question of the psychology of god doesn't make sense to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Podo said:

I'm curious to know why you see this as a problem. I find the idea of human responsibility infinitely less terrifying than an amoral creator-entity that, if it exists, clearly doesn't care about us. The randomness of our existence, and of existence as a concept, gives us a lot more freedom than if we were at the mercy of some monster marauding through the multiverse, creating life for its own alien reasonings.

I'll try to explain my feeling on it as best I can.  I find the intricacy of the universe - both around us and within us - to be proof of a creative design.  Leaving all religion out of this (if possible), how can this be unless there was indeed a "Creator"?  Considering just how unbelievably complex it all is and how little of it we feel we understand it seems like a bit of human arrogance to assume we can characterize this Creative force in any way, positive or negative.  Arrogance might be too strong a word.  I think we just have a need for a sense of control and do not easily adjust to the idea of being a very small part of something infinitely large.  A lot of non believers seem to think of those who do accept this role willingly as being simple somehow.  Or maybe weak is a better term.  I have found myself completely at peace with the idea that there is a Creator, that I am not it and that this life is just a part of the existence in store for me.  To accept that the universe and everything in it is just a random grouping of energies swirling in various shapes with no meaning is dispelled for me by looking at the night sky or coming upon a field of flowers.  

You mention the creator being an "amoral entity".  Looking at the pain and suffering of humanity and the other animals on this planet I can see how one might assume such a thing.  But this totally removes our responsibility for our actions, doesn't it?  How is the creator amoral when it is we who choose to harm one another?  Sure, there are earthquakes and cyclones, heatwaves, droughts and such but those deaths pale in comparison to what we intentionally do daily to each other.  And those reasons you mentioned... how can we know what those are today?  I think of our time here in this life as a training period.  It's another step along the way of evolving for an unknown purpose.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, and then said:

I'll try to explain my feeling on it as best I can.  I find the intricacy of the universe - both around us and within us - to be proof of a creative design.  Leaving all religion out of this (if possible), how can this be unless there was indeed a "Creator"?  Considering just how unbelievably complex it all is and how little of it we feel we understand it seems like a bit of human arrogance to assume we can characterize this Creative force in any way, positive or negative.  Arrogance might be too strong a word.  I think we just have a need for a sense of control and do not easily adjust to the idea of being a very small part of something infinitely large.  A lot of non believers seem to think of those who do accept this role willingly as being simple somehow.  Or maybe weak is a better term.  I have found myself completely at peace with the idea that there is a Creator, that I am not it and that this life is just a part of the existence in store for me.  To accept that the universe and everything in it is just a random grouping of energies swirling in various shapes with no meaning is dispelled for me by looking at the night sky or coming upon a field of flowers.  

You mention the creator being an "amoral entity".  Looking at the pain and suffering of humanity and the other animals on this planet I can see how one might assume such a thing.  But this totally removes our responsibility for our actions, doesn't it?  How is the creator amoral when it is we who choose to harm one another?  Sure, there are earthquakes and cyclones, heatwaves, droughts and such but those deaths pale in comparison to what we intentionally do daily to each other.  And those reasons you mentioned... how can we know what those are today?  I think of our time here in this life as a training period.  It's another step along the way of evolving for an unknown purpose.  

I don't like the logic of "how can we exist without a creator?" because it is a nonsensical conclusion. The answer is, quite simply, we don't know. I dislike the conclusion of a creator because it is entirely baseless. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't, but "I don't know, but it sure is complicated and therefore someone else must have done it" is, to me, as arrogant as you think trying to characterize the creative force is. I'm much more comfortable with an honest "we don't know" to answer that particular conundrum. Currently, there's no evidence to support a creator, so I don't think one exists. If that changes, I'll change my tune. But...well, that hasn't happened yet, not in an objective sense. I'm open for it, should an event arise that could not be explained in any other way. Eager, even. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for such a thing.

I agree that humans seem to need a sense of control, but I view religious thought as the manifestation of that. To place faith in an unprovable concept, one tries to cram the cosmos into the small, simple-to-comprehend package of "[deity] did it, obey deity's words, etc." With lack of belief, there is the acceptance that we are small and that our individual lives have absolutely no meaning, as we are most likely a cosmic fluke. I'm a nihilist, admittedly, but I think it is compatible with a lack of reliance on deific belief. Seeing a night sky and a field of flowers really means nothing in objective terms, since it doesn't prove anything. If it's enough for you, that's okay, but it isn't proof in the conventional sense of the term.

A creator being amoral would absolve our responsibility if I thought such a being exists, but I do not. I think we're entirely responsible for our actions, and I'm glad for that. As I mentioned in my previous post, the existence of a deity is the exact opposite of freedom. Here, now, in our horrifying, random, pointless, beautiful universe, we are solely in charge of ourselves, and will sink or swim by our own merits and flaws. IF a creator existed, however, it would not be as such. There would be a right way and a wrong way to live, and objective morals to live by, on pain of some kind of punishment. That's not freedom, that's a police state.

Edited by Podo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, and then said:

I find the intricacy of the universe - both around us and within us - to be proof of a creative design.  Leaving all religion out of this (if possible), how can this be unless there was indeed a "Creator"?  

A few ways I'd guess. There's evolution, which is actually pretty basic (and amazing, and brilliant if actually 'designed') and makes so much sense, and builds intricacy from randomness, selection, and an enormous amount of time.  Snowflakes may be able to be considered intricate, and I think it's intricacy also comes from something pretty basic, crystallization.  But the point I can't get around, even if we include the general, 'why is there something instead of nothing', question, is what were we expecting?  Were we thinking things to be less intricate than they are, then it would make sense that this is a godless universe?  Should there be nothing unless there is a god?  Why, and on what grounds or basis?  There is something intuitive to it, the thinking that us being alive in the bodies that we have here and now in this crazy universe is 'unexpected', but how would I know, I have no facts on which to base that intuition.

Quote

I think we just have a need for a sense of control and do not easily adjust to the idea of being a very small part of something infinitely large.  A lot of non believers seem to think of those who do accept this role willingly as being simple somehow.  Or maybe weak is a better term. 

I don't assume believers are necessarily simple or weak, I mainly think a lot are inconsistent on how they justify the truth of their belief (not to be confused with 'justifying their belief', I in general don't have a problem with believing what you want for any reason or no reason, I'm sure I do).  I don't see a lot of believers, maybe more accurately religious believers, who are very accommodating on accepting the truth of other religions' beliefs which are also based on faith or personal experience that they use to justify the truth of their own.  

I guess on top of that, I'm also suspicious when I hear things like "I think we need' and 'do not easily 'adjust', it suggests that some believers are believing something to be true for emotional rather than intellectual reasons.  Which is entirely cool, again I'm sure I do it too, but I don't think there's any harm in being realistic about what it is.

Quote

Sure, there are earthquakes and cyclones, heatwaves, droughts and such but those deaths pale in comparison to what we intentionally do daily to each other. 

I'm not so convinced of that balance.  Roughly half a billion people have died in wars (wiki estimate), I'm not sure of the total number of murders and other violent crimes and such, an immense number I'm sure also.  But the Black Plague alone wiped out 100 million people and 300-500 million have been killed by smallpox.  I'd guess the historical death toll for cancer has to be huge.  Natural disasters aren't usually on the scale of a war obviously, but adding up the toll from those from all of history I'd assume would also be a large number.  I find this, let alone just the suffering caused by zillions of other diseases, more than enough to question God's proposed nature, and these natural evils seem entirely consistent with a world that doesn't care about us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's that the horrifyingly beautify part, that people think that god cares about them. Our world is an agent of death and sometimes we are death's hands. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

Much more reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exists and that all the good and bad in the world is down to us or chance.

 

Br Cornelius

There's your thing right there Corny, reason is your God !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

A few ways I'd guess. There's evolution, which is actually pretty basic (and amazing, and brilliant if actually 'designed') and makes so much sense, and builds intricacy from randomness, selection, and an enormous amount of time.  Snowflakes may be able to be considered intricate, and I think it's intricacy also comes from something pretty basic, crystallization.  But the point I can't get around, even if we include the general, 'why is there something instead of nothing', question, is what were we expecting?  Were we thinking things to be less intricate than they are, then it would make sense that this is a godless universe?  Should there be nothing unless there is a god?  Why, and on what grounds or basis?  There is something intuitive to it, the thinking that us being alive in the bodies that we have here and now in this crazy universe is 'unexpected', but how would I know, I have no facts on which to base that intuition.

I don't assume believers are necessarily simple or weak, I mainly think a lot are inconsistent on how they justify the truth of their belief (not to be confused with 'justifying their belief', I in general don't have a problem with believing what you want for any reason or no reason, I'm sure I do).  I don't see a lot of believers, maybe more accurately religious believers, who are very accommodating on accepting the truth of other religions' beliefs which are also based on faith or personal experience that they use to justify the truth of their own.  

I guess on top of that, I'm also suspicious when I hear things like "I think we need' and 'do not easily 'adjust', it suggests that some believers are believing something to be true for emotional rather than intellectual reasons.  Which is entirely cool, again I'm sure I do it too, but I don't think there's any harm in being realistic about what it is.

I'm not so convinced of that balance.  Roughly half a billion people have died in wars (wiki estimate), I'm not sure of the total number of murders and other violent crimes and such, an immense number I'm sure also.  But the Black Plague alone wiped out 100 million people and 300-500 million have been killed by smallpox.  I'd guess the historical death toll for cancer has to be huge.  Natural disasters aren't usually on the scale of a war obviously, but adding up the toll from those from all of history I'd assume would also be a large number.  I find this, let alone just the suffering caused by zillions of other diseases, more than enough to question God's proposed nature, and these natural evils seem entirely consistent with a world that doesn't care about us.

Yet that same world provided life and sustenance and beauty unasked.  I think that the issue gets twisted into biased definitions, traditions and judgments based on personal feelings and it's nearly impossible to distance the issue from all that.  It seems to me that non believers damage their case by denying the existence of a Deity while simultaneously blaming it for all of mankind's problems.  Or by it's proxy through religions.  As far as offering justification or evidence then of course there will never be enough for converting those who have firmly made their minds up on the subject.  The one area that will, I believe, change a few minds in the future, maybe the near future, will be events in the world that mirror what was written several thousand years ago.  Intellectually, rationally, if an event is described and occurs AS described a couple of thousand years later then denial is simply that, denial.  Again, not all will be convinced because many will never, under any circumstances willingly believe.  According to John the tribes of the whole earth will mourn at his coming.  I'm not sure what that word may mean in this context but you might imagine the disturbing nature of the appearance of a character many have so willfully denigrated, cursed and denied.  When that day comes I will rejoice in his coming.  NOT because I have been proven correct or for any reason of vengeance against anyone but simply because this horror that mankind has created will be at an end soon.  The book clearly states that when Christ returns it will be at a time when, if he delayed any longer, "no flesh would be saved".  Those words were written a couple of millennia before such a concept could even be understood.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, and then said:

Yet that same world provided life and sustenance and beauty unasked. 

But only to some.

Quote

 It seems to me that non believers damage their case by denying the existence of a Deity while simultaneously blaming it for all of mankind's problems.  Or by it's proxy through religions.

There is a gigantic difference actually between the Deity and the religion; plenty of believers wholly admit that religions have done evil because religion is composed of fallible, sinful people.  I don't hear many believers argue, 'God wanted his church to conduct the Inquisition'.  

I don't know many non-believers who do what you say they do.  I do see some that blame religion for a lot of mankind's problems, but that technically doesn't have anything to to with the existence of a Deity so I don't know how the non-believer's case is damaged.  We don't really have a case to make, we're not arguing that something exists.

Quote

 As far as offering justification or evidence then of course there will never be enough for converting those who have firmly made their minds up on the subject. 

Or 'deconverting'. There really is no evidence to offer, at least good evidence; all of it is pretty ambiguous.

Quote

The one area that will, I believe, change a few minds in the future, maybe the near future, will be events in the world that mirror what was written several thousand years ago.  Intellectually, rationally, if an event is described and occurs AS described a couple of thousand years later then denial is simply that, denial. 

If the description is specific enough, sure.  The future and the near future for example kinda covers all possibilities though, and I'd guess that people have been pretty sure that the end was in the 'near future' since Christianity started and have all been wrong to date.  It's pretty easy to retrofit predictions if they're vague or cryptic enough; see Nostradamus.

Quote

 I'm not sure what that word may mean in this context but you might imagine the disturbing nature of the appearance of a character many have so willfully denigrated, cursed and denied. 

Denied certainly, but come on, 'denigrated and cursed'?  It's the largest religion in the world, and I'm not sure what country you're in but in mine this charge is kinda over the top, where a large percentage of people in positions of power are, and always have been, Christians.  And again, I think the people who curse Christ himself is pretty small; 'Christians' does not equal 'Jesus'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when/if Jesus comes back to the earth, I get first shots. "Jesus, you see these monsters? They scream your name! You've created a memetic virus that's infected the minds of these people." 

Religious beliefs are a thought-virus that infects mind after mind. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.