I have multiple personalities, one of them is Adam Evenson. Another is God, in which God overshadows Adam quite a bit at times. So much, in fact, that Adam ceases to exist. Adam doesn't mind, though. In fact, Adam loves to stop existing because it feels so good to be God.
Have you ever met anybody with this personality possession? (A whole passel of men, including psychiatrists, right? Ha, ha, ha.) And would said God possession be called a mental "order" or "disorder?" I mean, if one believes so deeply that one is God, so that one feels secure in stating, "I am God," what could be better? Would it be better to believe that one is a anything else? I have always thought God was the very top. Thus, if one believes one is God, then one has reached the very top.
I will leave you not knowing whether I am serious or just kidding about my having a personality that is God possessed, but I am qualified at least to reveal that every human being on earth has multiple personalities, including alters in which some know not anything about the others. In my travels I have found it to be more common than not. I know plenty of people that get angry, for example, and the anger drives away the kind, considerate individual that was there. Now there is a raging personality that is not only dangerous, but mentally and emotionally incompetent, which quite often commits acts that the "other" personalities would repudiate in their respective estates. Another is the survival personality that will commit just about any act as though it were the right thing to do and even years afterward not flinch about it. This is just about every person (except God, of course.)
Wise people long ago learned that individuals are made up of at least three distinct personalities. In Freud's model, it was the Id, the Ego, and Superego. In still another model they are the parent, adult, and child. In every human being, and actually, in every living thing in one way or other, there are at least three separate and distinct personalities that don’t know one another very well or at all.
However, when one is God possessed, this is where the buck does not pass, as God does not share the floor with any other personality. And so, one would have to suppose that the God Personality is a good thing because it means Total Unity with Self.
But assume one thinks its hogwash and says, "You, Adam Evenson, cannot be, and are not God." In order to bear the certainty of being the truth, the information would have to be coming from a greater authority than God Himself, which is me, right? How could I take the word of a mere human being over my own, God's? Who has the authority to rule what God is or is not, except God? Thus, which human being that is suffering from at least three different personalities, has the authority to tell me I am not God? Since one has to be God to know God, then one that judges that I am not God is the same as saying, "I am God, but you, Adam Evenson, are not." It means I am supposed to assume that the one judging me is God, but I, God, am not God? Do you see my point?
Should I sign off as "Adam," or "God?"
"This possession by YAH, the Israeli deity, has a dark side. In 1-Samuel 11:6 we read, "A bad spirit of YAH overwhelmed Saul, wayyitnabbe", and [he] threw his spear at David. Here we can see the old meaning of the Hebrew word wayyitnabbe. It's not a prophet or prophecy but a new personality that "comes out" in Saul, originating in YAH. And it is "bad". " (Quote)
Yes, it seems to me that we have all read about how God created the heavens, and the earth and it was all good in his eyes. But some angels became bad. Odd, and the Scripture you quote seems likewise.
6 And the Spirit of God doth prosper over Saul, in his hearing these words, and his anger burneth greatly,
This has nothing to do with David. Saul doesn't even send for David until Chapter 16. And only throws the spear at David after he kills the Philistine Giant, and the women come out singing; "and the women answer -- those playing, and say, 'Saul hath smitten among his thousands, And David among his myriads."
And it is displeasing to Saul exceedingly, and this thing is evil in his eyes, and he saith, 'They have given to David myriads, and to me they have given the thousands, and more to him is only the kingdom;' 1 Samuel 18:7,8
We always have a choice as to how we deal with something. We either respond, or we react. It's either positive, or it's negative. If we aline ourselves with evil we will draw evil to ourselves, as in demon possession. And if we aline ourselves with good then we are enlightened, and fulfilled. If we didn't have the choice of good, and evil, we wouldn't have free will.
It becomes obvious, if you follow the whole account from beginning to end, that God kept turning Saul back from his wrong thinking time after time. But that he never learned anything.
20 And Saul sendeth messengers to take David, and they see the assembly of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing, set over them, and the Spirit of God is on Saul's messengers, and they prophesy -- they also.
Literal def. Adjective: Without interpretation or embellishment.
Also if stopping Saul from murdering an innocent man by replacing his evil spirited intentions with one of a spirit of Holiness is considered somehow painful I would be pleased to know how.
It would seem to me that if one is going to quote something as important as Scripture he should first find and adequate source.
Thus I offer an example between spin, and literacy of text:
" At this my limbs writhe in anguish,
2 A hard vision hath been declared to me,...................................... 3 Therefore filled have been my loins with great pain, Pangs have seized me as pangs of a travailing woman, I have been bent down by hearing, I have been troubled by seeing. 4 Wandered hath my heart, trembling hath terrified me, The twilight of my desire He hath made a fear to me; Isaiah 21:3,4 (Young's Literal Translation)
People are at times bent down by hearing the cries of those dying, and have been troubled by seeing death, and destruction, whether in reality, or in a vision. Some even throw up, and remain troubled afterward. I find this attributable more to a personally weak constitution than to something inflicted on them by God as you suggest.
As for your puzzlement at their laying around naked I offer this possibility.
Exodus 3:5 And He saith, 'Come not near hither: cast thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place on which thou art standing is holy ground.'
Although it is not stated as such, it would only seem reasonable that if you are going to be laying down on holy ground you would be required to take off more than your shoes.
Of course whether this comment will ever make it to your comments section will be charged to a spirit of ego. Will it be a saving throw out of protection, or a real life example of Citizen Kane?
Quite a good observation, Dan. If we build on this theme, we might also consider the origin of "sacrifice" as "atonement" for sin. Since his death, organized religion has absorbed the message of Jesus, corrupted it so that it is ineffective, and have introduced the theme of "the lamb" (i.e. scapegoat). This has origins in the same "dark" forces you associate with Yahweh. Look:
Leviticus 16:8-10: "...and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel."
The ESV provides the footnote "16:8 The meaning of Azazel is uncertain; possibly the name of a place or a demon, traditionally a scapegoat; also verses 10, 26". Most scholars accept the indication of some kind of demon or deity, however Judit M. Blair notes that this is an argument without supporting contemporary text evidence.
The "deception" is all-pervasive, masterful and brilliant. And what less should we expect from the "Bright and Morning Star"?
Well. if nothing else this article made me read the Bible... and over Christmas. I had an observation during the Christmas service. We attend a Catholic church in a poor parish, mostly Mexican Americans. The inside is simple but the altar has a huge life-size statue of Jesus on the cross with his arms outstretched, blood dripping from his side from the sword wound.
At the service, I thought of how much better the appeal of God was when we listened to only the words attributed to Jesus, and not the fables and legends that are ABOUT him. His message gets lost in all the celebrity, in my opinion.
Then I read the Bible that night and especially Revelations. There was mention of the "beast that was wounded, yet lived..." and of people making images of the wounded beast and how this was a scheme to lead the people astray. I looked around at the people. Good people. I wondered if they understood what Jesus actually taught. It wasn't about worshipping Jesus, he never asked for that. He did ask that we love the Father, his father.
So I am not good at writing my ideas. But I did think that maybe somehow the making Jesus a celebrity was an act of something or someone. Hope you get my meaning here. thanks.