NationStates Jolt Archive

My objection is that the imposition of the Christian calendar is done in an unfair manner to non-Christians. This is in direct response to your assertion that non-Christians are not forced to observe Christian holidays. If I am forced to take the day off because you think that's a day to be in a church, then yes, I am being forced to observe it. If you do not mitigate that by making room for my religion as well, then yes, it is a burden on me.

All depends on your own feelings on what constitutes "observing" a holiday I suppose. To me you arent being forced to observe it, only take the day off. If it hadn't been at christmas it would more than likely have been another day. At any rate Christmas these days is becoming a hell of a lot more secular. No complaints from me

Yes, and? I never said the society would be Godly. I said a Godly society would be promoted. That's splitting hairs, I know.

The main point of the Law is to show us all our problems.

So God sent his only Son, so that we might change nothing? only see ourselves in a worse light?

Moreso than I do Christmas.

I don't really see Thanksgiving as a decidedly Christian holiday. It may be another holiday that has been claimed by Christian groups for their own purposes (which isn't really a problem - we all celebrate holidays or choose not to do so for our own reasons), but I see no reason that it *has* to be linked.

So God sent his only Son, so that we might change nothing? only see ourselves in a worse light?

Oh, but didn't you know.. the Christian god is a god of spreading bad self esteem. ;)

So God sent his only Son, so that we might change nothing? only see ourselves in a worse light?

The Law shows us our need to accept the salvation offered us and proclaim Him our personal Lord and Savior. So because of the Law we see ourselves in a worse light and because of that new view, we see our need for salvation.

I apologise in that case. I'm getting my info from wikipedia which isnt the most reliable. It doesnt seem to have Easter up there though although as i've said my source isnt the most reliable. All your arguments against religious holidays seem to apply to all holidays though.

To clarify, then:

1) I find all mandated holidays that shut down workplaces and state offices to be inconvenient. Only a few holidays do that.

2) I am more annoyed by mandated holidays for a religion I do not practice. I do not like being forced to lose money and have nothing to do just because other people want the day off.

3) I think that it is a violation of church and state for the US government to mandate any religious holidays as national holidays.

4) I do not think employers should be permitted to force employees to conform to a religious calendar by shutting down workplaces for religious holidays, unless they make some provision so non-observant workers will not lose pay and/or will be able to take time for their own religions or personal needs as well.

5) If Jews and Muslims can take time off for their religious holidays without whole workplaces closing, I fail to see why society has to shut down for the Christians.

That sums up my position on the question of holidays and how they impose on people who otherwise would not observe them.

Oh, but didn't you know.. the Christian god is a god of spreading bad self esteem. ;)

Depressed people back then probably didnt see that one coming

4) I do not think employers should be permitted to force employees to conform to a religious calendar by shutting down workplaces for religious holidays, unless they make some provision so non-observant workers will not lose pay and/or will be able to take time for their own religions or personal needs as well.


:(

I really think that in a free country I should be able to run my business however I want without that much government interference.

We don't have Bank Holidays in the US.

I've generally heard days like President's Day, Labor Day, Independence Day, Memorial Day, etc. referred to as bank holidays. The USPS will sometimes tell you that they are closed on "bank holidays."

5) If Jews and Muslims can take time off for their religious holidays without whole workplaces closing, I fail to see why society has to shut down for the Christians.


As I said before its not because of the specific religion taking time off. Its due to the numbers of followers of that religion.

You can choose. Free agency (a free choice) will never go away. But your nature is corrupted. And you can only desire evil (not necessarily the worst evil). But the responsiblity is still there. And you reject it. You have the choice, and you choose to refuse.

Once again, you must make up your mind.

If you can "only desire evil", then it is impossible for you to have the responsibility to choose the right path. You can't possibly desire to choose the right path, so you can't possibly make that choice. Either you can desire both good and evil, or there is no choice involved - you are evil by nature.

I, personally, abhor literallists. Mostly because they're just NOT FUN to talk with because they refuse to see from other's eyes.

It's so much fun getting close to people by finding those parts of how you see the world and how they see the world, and literallists (mostly through insecurity and overwhelming panic at "not knowing everything") won't "play the game" of mind exchange.

I find most people here, of the "anti-religion" persuasion, are just as literallist as most literallist "religious" folks, and just as hard to play with.

That's why I consider those "anti-religion" people to be just another form of literallist religious people, with a religion of anti-religiousness.



Logic is not the same for everyone. Every individual has their own logic of the world.

The exceptions to this are the hard sciences, and some could argue that that isn't THAT firm.

If you don't understand and operate on the basis of reality, which is that you have to deal with what people REALLY MEAN by what they say, and not WHAT YOU HEAR and think they mean, then your only choice in life to better the world is with the tools of suppression and force.

The other alternative is to continually ask questions and state what YOU mean, while teasing out where you can agree, and how to turn disagreements into excuses for figuring out where, further in, you can come to an understanding if not actual agreement.

It's fine to disagree, but it's BAD to mistake misunderstanding (unexamined disagreement) for simple disagreement.

I agree, everyone has their own sense of logic, but the thing about logic is it's always logical! It always makes sense, no matter what perspective it's from. If you have logic, any kind of logic that makes sense, be it republican or democratic or third party, then you're alright with me because you can always be counted on to act with what you think is correct based on logical and reasonable thinking.

Logical and reasonable thinking never includes an invisible floating man in the clouds telling you what to do.

Well, this thread spiralled out of control quickly.

Morality is relative. If they had succeeded, or even if I had been born, brought up and taught be them, I would probably firmly believe that they were right to do what they did. And so would you.
I can say that they were wrong because I'm judging them according to a different set of morals. Same as I can say today that forcefully converting the natives of South America is wrong; morality has changed since then.

If this is how you define morality, of course it's relative. But just because people think something is the right thing to do doesn't necessarily make it so, don't you agree? If you believe that human opinion/tradition is the basis for moral judgments, you can never condemn any action taken by a person of conviction - not to say faith - for anything other than disagreeing with your current moral opinion. I'd like the freedom to say that the Holocaust was, is, and always will be a moral atrocity.


We don't. Apparently to have free will we had to eat the apple, which god did not want us to do. He didn't want us to be intelligent. He didn't want us to be able to learn, able to follow, able to decide.

The moral of the story? Act as if you'd never eaten the apple, i.e. be a complete tool with no sense of logic or intelligence, and you'll get back into the garden of eden.

Free will is mentioned nowhere in the story of Eden - and free will certainly could not be the result of a choice, anyway. We are simply presented with human beings and their actions. I must emphasize as well that it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - NOT just "knowledge."

At the risk of cross-thread contamination:

Adam and Eve weren't ejected from the Garden for doing something naughty. What they knew was that God said not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. What they did was disobey. But what does it mean for people without the knowledge that disobedience of God is bad to disobey? As far as I can see, it means that they didn't trust God, pure and simple. And that lack of trust - that lack of faith, lack of love - was why they could not remain in fellowship with God. So in effect, eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (NOT just "knowledge") showed them only what good they had already lost. It's just like we so often understand how great something is only when it's gone - eating of the Tree showed them that sudden contrast between their present distrust and their previous trust in God... how they had mistreated and devalued their relationship with their Creator. The story is, from a spiritual point of view (as opposed to the cultural/anthropological viewpoint so neatly expressed by Dempublicents1), about the broken trust between humanity and God. There's nothing in there about knowledge being bad. There's plenty about a lack of trust in the Creator leading to corruption and death.

Well, this thread spiralled out of control quickly.



If this is how you define morality, of course it's relative. But just because people think something is the right thing to do doesn't necessarily make it so, don't you agree? If you believe that human opinion/tradition is the basis for moral judgments, you can never condemn any action taken by a person of conviction - not to say faith - for anything other than disagreeing with your current moral opinion. I'd like the freedom to say that the Holocaust was, is, and always will be a moral atrocity.




Free will is mentioned nowhere in the story of Eden - and free will certainly could not be the result of a choice, anyway. We are simply presented with human beings and their actions. I must emphasize as well that it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - NOT just "knowledge."

At the risk of cross-thread contamination:

Adam and Eve weren't ejected from the Garden for doing something naughty. What they knew was that God said not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. What they did was disobey. But what does it mean for people without the knowledge that disobedience of God is bad to disobey? As far as I can see, it means that they didn't trust God, pure and simple. And that lack of trust - that lack of faith, lack of love - was why they could not remain in fellowship with God. So in effect, eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (NOT just "knowledge") showed them only what good they had already lost. It's just like we so often understand how great something is only when it's gone - eating of the Tree showed them that sudden contrast between their present distrust and their previous trust in God... how they had mistreated and devalued their relationship with their Creator. The story is, from a spiritual point of view (as opposed to the cultural/anthropological viewpoint so neatly expressed by Dempublicents1), about the broken trust between humanity and God. There's nothing in there about knowledge being bad. There's plenty about a lack of trust in the Creator leading to corruption and death.

Heck, I wouldn't trust him either. He manipulated them. He knew they would take the apple.

Thanksgiving is a national holiday, not a religious one, despite its religious name and some superficial trappings.

The other religious national holiday is Easter.

Is Easter actually a mandated religious holiday? I know of no actual declaration of this, nor would it be necessary. To my knowledge, there are no government agencies or banks even open on Sunday, so a special provision to be closed on Easter is wholly unnecessary. Of course, one could argue that the Sunday closing is a product of religion, but they're generally closed throughout the weekend. The government workweek, as a general rule, is M-F.


Strangely enough, however, I have known of very few jobs which pay hourly wages and are not actually open on most of these holidays. Generally, a person willing to work those days can actually get double time or time and a half, since the default is that they have it off. Most of the businesses that close down completely actually do give paid holidays. *shrug*


Adam and Eve weren't ejected from the Garden for doing something naughty. What they knew was that God said not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. What they did was disobey. But what does it mean for people without the knowledge that disobedience of God is bad to disobey? As far as I can see, it means that they didn't trust God, pure and simple. And that lack of trust - that lack of faith, lack of love - was why they could not remain in fellowship with God. So in effect, eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (NOT just "knowledge") showed them only what good they had already lost. It's just like we so often understand how great something is only when it's gone - eating of the Tree showed them that sudden contrast between their present distrust and their previous trust in God... how they had mistreated and devalued their relationship with their Creator. The story is, from a spiritual point of view (as opposed to the cultural/anthropological viewpoint so neatly expressed by Dempublicents1), about the broken trust between humanity and God. There's nothing in there about knowledge being bad. There's plenty about a lack of trust in the Creator leading to corruption and death.

Interesting. I haven't heard it explained quite that way before. Gives me food for thought. =)

First, let me ask you something. If you were told to launch a nuke at New York City or to shoot me, which would you choose? You must do one or the other, so which do you do? You had better say that you would kill me.
Don't be ridiculous. I would do neither.

The choice you present is a false one because there is always the third option of non-cooperation. Both actions are bad, therefore I will not do either, no matter what threat I am under, even to the point of my own death. I have to die of something anyway, and I see no point in continuing to live a life that I have burdened by a shameful cave-in to an immoral and unfair demand. I will stand on my honor and die, if necessary, with my honor intact.

Now then, it is highly unlikely that that choice would be presented to you. Therefore, I don't feel threatened. I not only said it was highly unlikey for God to tell me to do that, I said later (after I had thought some more) that it would be impossible. So you have less to worry about me. Now if I go crazy and believe that God told me to kill everyone, the problem is not my religion, but my insanity.

No, the problem is YOU. Don't you see what you have done with this hypothetical of yours? You have framed the entire question outside of yourself. You did not ask if I would kill you to stop you from launching a nuke at NYC. No, your scenario offers me the option of launching a nuke myself. You asked me to choose whichever I thought would be the lesser of two evils -- killing one person or killing millions. Why would I do either of those things? What is there in your scenario that would make me think either of those things is less evil than the other? Nothing. You seem to be fully aware that both are bad acts, yet you would still be willing to do them.

The choice scenario is not where the threat lies, Ed. The threat is in the person making the choice. I choose not to harm others. You choose to obey a god, even to the point of harming others grievously. That is the difference right there.

Finally, I would remind you that you have already made clear in many posts in many threads, that you would commit genocide if you thought God was telling you to. So, what if your God told you to launch that nuke. You would do, wouldn't you? So your very scenario was a lie to begin with. There really is no choice for you. You only do as you are told.

All depends on your own feelings on what constitutes "observing" a holiday I suppose. To me you arent being forced to observe it, only take the day off. If it hadn't been at christmas it would more than likely have been another day. At any rate Christmas these days is becoming a hell of a lot more secular. No complaints from me

Well, then, to me, you owe me $150.00US (mean average) per imposed day off for the past 35 years. I'll await your check. Thank you. :D

From way back on page 4...

You're generally my hero, with the exception of what i think you're insinuating as far as biology goes. But, it's late here in Indiana, and i still haven't studied much for Greek. I'm about to not care... what with the 4 hours 'fore I wake. meh

Yeah, I'm insinuating all sorts of stuff, mostly because after several years of indecision on the issue of evolution, I've come to the comclusion that I win theologically either way. Really, what business of mine is it how God created the world? However it happened, I choose to believe it was purposeful, careful, ordered, and wonderful, and I can't duplicate it. Evolution, in fact, is actually helpful theologically for demonstrating a kind of biological free will - each species (considered over broad time spans) develops due to its own behaviors and interactions with the environment, free to change and adapt. But like I said, I'm not a biologist or physical scientist, so if it turns out things went down word for word as they did in the first few chapters of Genesis, so much the better. I am not disturbed either way. (And when it comes to the creation of humankind, I think "breath of life" could be glossed as "advent of self-awareness" or "soul" and still leave just as much room for the supernatural work of God.)

I've generally heard days like President's Day, Labor Day, Independence Day, Memorial Day, etc. referred to as bank holidays. The USPS will sometimes tell you that they are closed on "bank holidays."

I just didn't understand the British term "Bank Holidays." I didn't realize it was the same as federal holidays. I always would hear things like "that'll happen after August Bank Holiday" and I never knew what they were talking about until now.

As I said before its not because of the specific religion taking time off. Its due to the numbers of followers of that religion.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Majority rule? Just a nymph stage of mob rule, imo.

On the plus side, it will be less burdensome for all those Christians to split the cost of the lost wages I say they owe me, won't it? :p

Heck, I wouldn't trust him either. He manipulated them. He knew they would take the apple.

Well, damned if God did and damned if God didn't, then... either he's a tyrant who controls every human circumstance that would result in harm, thus forbidding freedom of choice by eliminating the choice, or he's a sadistic deity who is just waiting to smite you when you screw up? What would you rather God did?

Is Easter actually a mandated religious holiday? I know of no actual declaration of this, nor would it be necessary. To my knowledge, there are no government agencies or banks even open on Sunday, so a special provision to be closed on Easter is wholly unnecessary. Of course, one could argue that the Sunday closing is a product of religion, but they're generally closed throughout the weekend. The government workweek, as a general rule, is M-F.


Strangely enough, however, I have known of very few jobs which pay hourly wages and are not actually open on most of these holidays. Generally, a person willing to work those days can actually get double time or time and a half, since the default is that they have it off. Most of the businesses that close down completely actually do give paid holidays. *shrug*

You know, when it comes right down to it, I don't care. It's off topic anway. All I know about Easter and Christmas is that, just like national holidays, workplaces shut down for them. Easter does happen on Sundays, but many places I've worked have shut down offices for Good Friday or Easter Monday. This is at the discretion of the bosses. If you have not experienced this, then you've been luckier than me. As I said in an earlier post, retailers usually have to work on holidays, but office workers often do not have the choice. If the company shuts down, then nobody gets to work, whether they want to or not.

In another of my posts I tried to clarify that I have some objections to nationalization of religious holidays and other objections to companies choosing to observe holidays of one religion without making provisions for workers who don't follow that religion.

I have little more to say about it.

:(

I really think that in a free country I should be able to run my business however I want without that much government interference.

Go right ahead, if you can avoid being accused of discriminating against people who don't practice your religion by either treating them unfairly or refusing to hire them. The fact is, there are few protections for the rights of office workers and retail workers, so most of us end up just taking these disses rather than being invited to quit, but that doesn't mean we don't mind it.

I agree, everyone has their own sense of logic, but the thing about logic is it's always logical! It always makes sense, no matter what perspective it's from. If you have logic, any kind of logic that makes sense, be it republican or democratic or third party, then you're alright with me because you can always be counted on to act with what you think is correct based on logical and reasonable thinking.

Logical and reasonable thinking never includes an invisible floating man in the clouds telling you what to do.

My god is not an invisible floating man in the clouds.

If that is someone's god, then they are misinformed.

So the question becomes, how do we correct their misunderstanding?

Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!
Surely the most stupid idea ever. Then again, it was thought up by children, not a Pope.

And even still as I look through these forums I saw someone mention something about one should not question what their Pastor or whatever says, because it is gods will. Do they not realize that this is not what "God" wants, but rather said Pastor manipulating them to do things like this???
Yes humans are corruptible and not all those who claim to be servants of God are telling the truth.

It seems that some posters really have it out for Christianity, as if it has committed some evil against them.

Finally, I would remind you that you have already made clear in many posts in many threads, that you would commit genocide if you thought God was telling you to. So, what if your God told you to launch that nuke. You would do, wouldn't you? So your very scenario was a lie to begin with. There really is no choice for you. You only do as you are told.
If God told me to committ genocide it would, in all likelihood, be Satan in fair guise. God is love. He wouldn't order genocide.

Would you commit genocide if your deity so commanded?

Well, you have surrendered yours to Satan, so God have mercy on you and may you repent and confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.
He hasn't surrendered to Satan. compassion, understanding, and tolerance are Christian values whether he knows it or not.

Those who pursue self-interest relentlessly are those who have surrendered to Satan.

Don't be ridiculous. I would do neither.

The choice you present is a false one because there is always the third option of non-cooperation. Both actions are bad, therefore I will not do either, no matter what threat I am under, even to the point of my own death. I have to die of something anyway, and I see no point in continuing to live a life that I have burdened by a shameful cave-in to an immoral and unfair demand. I will stand on my honor and die, if necessary, with my honor intact.

That's why I said you must do one or the other. Let's pretend that if you don't choose I will die and a nuke will be launced at New York City.

No, the problem is YOU. Don't you see what you have done with this hypothetical of yours? You have framed the entire question outside of yourself. You did not ask if I would kill you to stop you from launching a nuke at NYC. No, your scenario offers me the option of launching a nuke myself. You asked me to choose whichever I thought would be the lesser of two evils -- killing one person or killing millions. Why would I do either of those things? What is there in your scenario that would make me think either of those things is less evil than the other? Nothing. You seem to be fully aware that both are bad acts, yet you would still be willing to do them.

Again, the idea was that you must do one or the other.

The choice scenario is not where the threat lies, Ed. The threat is in the person making the choice. I choose not to harm others. You choose to obey a god, even to the point of harming others grievously. That is the difference right there.

I have consistently said that God would not and could not ask me to do that. If, however, we pretend that He could, I have said I would be constrained to obey, though I never said I would enjoy it.

Finally, I would remind you that you have already made clear in many posts in many threads, that you would commit genocide if you thought God was telling you to. So, what if your God told you to launch that nuke. You would do, wouldn't you? So your very scenario was a lie to begin with. There really is no choice for you. You only do as you are told.

If God told me to lauch the nuke, I would be constrained to obey. Would I enjoy it? No, I would have much grief over it and that is an extreme understatment. But God cannot and will not ask me to do that, so we are in no danger of finding out what I would do in actuality.

He hasn't surrendered to Satan. compassion, understanding, and tolerance are Christian values whether he knows it or not.

Those who pursue self-interest relentlessly are those who have surrendered to Satan.

The refusal to surrender your will to God's is submitting to Satan. The statement was a hyperbole.

It seems that some posters really have it out for Christianity, as if it has committed some evil against them.

Chrisitianity is the religion most posters have experience with - and have met hypocritical members of. If the US and Europe were predominantly Muslim, you'd probably see much more of this directed there. And so on...

If God told me to committ genocide it would, in all likelihood, be Satan in fair guise. God is love. He wouldn't order genocide.

So you don't believe the OT is the infallible word of God?

Good.


I have consistently said that God would not and could not ask me to do that. If, however, we pretend that He could, I have said I would be constrained to obey, though I never said I would enjoy it.

If God told me to lauch the nuke, I would be constrained to obey. Would I enjoy it? No, I would have much grief over it and that is an extreme understatment. But God cannot and will not ask me to do that, so we are in no danger of finding out what I would do in actuality.

So you don't believe the OT is infallible either? This is certainly a surprise. You are aware, I assume, that God orders genocide in the OT, and then punishes the Israelites for not carrying it out?

So you don't believe the OT is infallible either? This is certainly a surprise. You are aware, I assume, that God orders genocide in the OT, and then punishes the Israelites for not carrying it out?

God commanded the civil government to kill. He did not command individual people to kill (except in self defense). In it is sinful for me to kill outside of war, execution, or self defense. And the first two are only for the civil government to do. Therefore, God could command the leader of a nation to commit genocide through the military or other means, but He could not command an individual person to do that.

It seems that some posters really have it out for Christianity, as if it has committed some evil against them.


The legislation against stem cell research was primarily motivated by christian beliefs. That is an evil against all humanity.

The legislation against stem cell research was primarily motivated by christian beliefs. That is an evil against all humanity.

Even when I WAS a christian, I didn't understand the reasoning that others had against stem cell research.

The cells are taken from foetises that WOULDN'T have ever grown into children because they were aborted...the scientists were taking what WASN'T wanted from others, to try and help those already living that wanted to carry on.

Certainly it's not fair that the child never had a choice, but the mother did have a choice. It was her choice, and thus if she did not want to have the child at that time, then why shouldn't scientists take that which was unwanted and use it for good? In the hope of bettering the lives of the desperatly ill and those that would become desperatly ill, from that which would have never lived.

My next question to a christian would be... If you were ill, and the way to save you was from research from Stem Cells...and you didn't like the ethos behind it, because you believe that they'd killed babies for it (The foetus was already DEAD...wasn't going to finish it's gestation period, wasn't gonna become a child.) would you gladly let yourself, or others die because of your morales on that subject?

I'm an organ donor, after my death I've agreed to allow them to transplant any organ they wish from my body to better that of another's life. Some children below the age of 16 become organ donors, hopefully with their parents explaining it all to them.

But if it came down to it. The difference between organ doning and stem cell research is... the organ donor makes the choice themselves...the foetus' choice was made by a mother that couldn't have it right then. But in the end...they both help others after death.

<snip>

Problem here: stem cell fetuses aren't aborted, they're the extras from in-vitro fertilization.

Problem here: stem cell fetuses aren't aborted, they're the extras from in-vitro fertilization.

Okay, I found out that some are aborted fetuses (I know of ONE lab), some are in-vitro.

Some are fertilized and some aren't in the in-vitro option.

And even with that option, the choice IS that of the mother, or parents. So it's all laid out in the contract between the lab and the parents.

They KNOW that the ones they leave behind after X date, will go to medical science, and they agree.

If they didn't agree, they wouldn't have the treatment.

It ALWAYS comes down to choice, and the choice is that of the parents. It shouldn't be the choice of Fundies who aren't in that situation.

snip.

Please for the love of god trim that sig to the 8 lines max

Please for the love of god trim that sig to the 8 lines max

Better?

Better?

Beautifull!!

My god is not an invisible floating man in the clouds.

If that is someone's god, then they are misinformed.

So the question becomes, how do we correct their misunderstanding?

There you go again, deciding what other people worship for them. I'm still here, still waiting for your apology, perfectly ready to pick up that argument where you left it off, if you really, really want to make yourself look like a bigot.

It seems that some posters really have it out for Christianity, as if it has committed some evil against them.


If God told me to committ genocide it would, in all likelihood, be Satan in fair guise. God is love. He wouldn't order genocide.
That was not a comment on Christianity. That statement was specifically addressed to Edwardis, and it was specifically in reference to specific statements made by specifically by him (pretty specific, huh?). I do not for a moment believe that he represents the average Christian. Despite his claims to being "traditional," I do not believe he represents the teachings of Christianity, either.

Would you commit genocide if your deity so commanded?

Of course not. If you bothered to read my posts, you'd have sussed that on your own.

My god is not an invisible floating man in the clouds.

If that is someone's god, then they are misinformed.

So the question becomes, how do we correct their misunderstanding?

Okay. Wait... Why should you get to deside what Gods a person worships?

If someone worships a god that's an invisible floating man in the clouds, let them. It's their choice, their God.

My personal God and Goddess are Daghda and Morrigan...I don't dictate that others should worship them...on the contrary, I enjoy the variety of Gods that others worship as it's a great insight into their beliefs, culture and who they are.

I wouldn't dream of telling them they were misinformed for worshiping their God. It's THEIR god. Your God is yours, theirs is theirs. Shared beliefs and gods are okay, but that does not mean that you have to have the same image in your mind of them.

Morrigan to me appears to be a dark haired, young woman, in black robes with a gold necklace with a black feather, and a gold feather trinket above that and with a Raven on her shoulder.

For another Wiccan who worships Morrigan, she could appear as an old woman, or a silver-haired young woman. Or even as a Battle-Crow, or the washer at the ford.

ALL of these appearances are correct. So why should your view of your god be right, and all others wrong? Even if it's the SAME god?

That's why I said you must do one or the other. Let's pretend that if you don't choose I will die and a nuke will be launced at New York City.
Do you get that I reject the entire premise and refuse to play your self-serving game? You set up a completely bogus situation that, no matter how a person plays it, can only produce the answer you want. Essentially what you're saying is, "I believe that you would kill people, so prove my point by choosing between these two scenarios of killing people. Go!"

Your change to the game makes no difference. I am not a puppet. I do not believe that the choice you offer is the only option available. If I were in such a situation, I would be capable of assessing the situation and finding a solution of my own. I would not just do as I was told, nor make the choice that was determined for me by someone else, especially so sick, sadistic a bastard. I do not believe that that I cannot avoid killing both you and the City of New York. I also do not believe that anyone who would offer such a choice could be trusted to abide by it. Even if I did kill you, there is nothing to stop them from launching the nuke anyway. So why would I deal with such a sadist? I would not. Not even if it was your God.

Again, the idea was that you must do one or the other.
Like I said, I reject the idea.

I have consistently said that God would not and could not ask me to do that. If, however, we pretend that He could, I have said I would be constrained to obey, though I never said I would enjoy it.
Do you get that I am not interested in what you say your God does or does not tell or could or could not tell you? I am only interested in what YOU say and do. And you are saying that, if your God told you to, you would kill me. That is all that matters to me. I cannot trust you.

If God told me to lauch the nuke, I would be constrained to obey. Would I enjoy it? No, I would have much grief over it and that is an extreme understatment.
Oh, well that makes it so much better. I'll remember that while I'm haunting you after you kill me. I'll try not to make my specter too gruesome because I wouldn't want to add to your terrible suffering by giving you a start or anything like that. :rolleyes:

But God cannot and will not ask me to do that, so we are in no danger of finding out what I would do in actuality.

As I said, I am not interested in what your God does, only in what YOU do, and you do not reassure me.

Do you get that I reject the entire premise and refuse to play your self-serving game? You set up a completely bogus situation that, no matter how a person plays it, can only produce the answer you want. Essentially what you're saying is, "I believe that you would kill people, so prove my point by choosing between these two scenarios of killing people. Go!"

The whole point was that just because you might say that you would choose to kill me in such a situation, I have nothing to fear, because the situation would never come up. Same thing with me saying that I would follow God's command to me to commit genocide. It would never happen, so why worry.

Your change to the game makes no difference. I am not a puppet. I do not believe that the choice you offer is the only option available. If I were in such a situation, I would be capable of assessing the situation and finding a solution of my own. I would not just do as I was told, nor make the choice that was determined for me by someone else, especially so sick, sadistic a bastard. I do not believe that that I cannot avoid killing both you and the City of New York. I also do not believe that anyone who would offer such a choice could be trusted to abide by it. Even if I did kill you, there is nothing to stop them from launching the nuke anyway. So why would I deal with such a sadist? I would not. Not even if it was your God.

Well, I think you're putting a little too much thought into this. It was meant to be a simple illustration about how answers to hypothetical situations are exactly that: hypothetical. And if they are based on impossible premises, why worry?

Do you get that I am not interested in what you say your God does or does not tell or could or could not tell you? I am only interested in what YOU say and do. And you are saying that, if your God told you to, you would kill me. That is all that matters to me. I cannot trust you.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that God has told me to not kill anyone (outside of self-defense, war, and execution). And I will obey Him. If His commands were different, I would obey Him still. But since I live in the real world, I must follow His commands in the real world.

Oh, well that makes it so much better. I'll remember that while I'm haunting you after you kill me. I'll try not to make my specter too gruesome because I wouldn't want to add to your terrible suffering by giving you a start or anything like that. :rolleyes:

I never said it would make it better. I just pointed out that's it's not as though I'm some heartless monster. I can speak very calmly about it now, but if it ever came down to it, I don't know what I would do. I hope I would obey God, and that would be my aim, but I don't know if I would be able to tame the grief, etc. to do it.

As I said, I am not interested in what your God does, only in what YOU do, and you do not reassure me.

Well, again, sorry you feel that way. But you are in more danger of someone who says "I will follow my own morality" murdering you. Because I aim to follow God's Law in the real world and in the real world He says to not kill (outside of self-defense, war, and excecution). The person who makes his own morality is more likely to disregard that part of the Law.

God commanded the civil government to kill. He did not command individual people to kill (except in self defense). In it is sinful for me to kill outside of war, execution, or self defense. And the first two are only for the civil government to do. Therefore, God could command the leader of a nation to commit genocide through the military or other means, but He could not command an individual person to do that.

(a) You're putting an awful lot of restriction on God there. What makes you think that God could not command an individual person to commit genocide?

(b) What makes a government committing genocide somehow better than an individual committing genocide? Are you suggesting that genocide is not, in and of itself, evil?

(c) Are governments not made up of individuals? In the case of commanding genocide on the Caananites, the government was basically one or two individuals.

(d) You are intentionally being obtuse. The point is that genocide is evil, in and of itself. It is illogical to say, "God cannot command evil...... Oh wait, God can command evil, God just can't command an individual to do evil. God commands governments to be evil instead."


Okay, I found out that some are aborted fetuses (I know of ONE lab), some are in-vitro.

What lab? How the heck are they isolating these cells? Most abortion procedures (in fact, all that are in general use) would destroy the tissue beyond the capability of extracting fetal stem cells. What cells are they using?

I can tell you this with absolute certainty: Embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained from a fetus in any stage or from any tissue obtained after an abortion. They are obtained at the blastocyst stage - before a woman would even technically be pregnant.

Some are fertilized and some aren't in the in-vitro option.

As of yet, no human stem cells have been created through parthenogenesis or through cloning. As such, it would be impossible to obtain human stem cells without fertilization.

They KNOW that the ones they leave behind after X date, will go to medical science, and they agree.

]If they didn't agree, they wouldn't have the treatment.

That isn't really how it works. In fact, if that is really how the contract was laid out, it might very well be illegal. The couple involved in in vitro fertilization can pay to have the embryos stored for as long as they wish to pay for it. There is no time limit. If they no longer wish to pay for storage, the embryos will be destroyed, one way or another. The company can give them the option of either having them destroyed immediately or donating to research. Another option may be the Snow Angel program - I don't know exactly how that works.

It ALWAYS comes down to choice, and the choice is that of the parents. It shouldn't be the choice of Fundies who aren't in that situation.

This, I absolutely agree with. In fact, quite a few couples who undergo in vitro treatment fully believe that they have a moral obligation to donate their excess embryos to research. Should we deny them that?


ALL of these appearances are correct. So why should your view of your god be right, and all others wrong? Even if it's the SAME god?

Indeed. While it may not be what you personally believe, it may even be that Morrigan and Daghda are actually aspects of the same being, along with any other deities we care to name.

One of my theology professors once said that people have one of two reactions when some event challenges their view of God. They either change their view of God, or they change their view of the event.

Edwardis, it seems, would meet the latter description. If God told him to eat a baby, he would decide that eating a baby must not be bad, it must be good, and would therefore do it. Me, I would start to wonder if God was actually good after all....

At least he didn't give the worst answer possible, which would be that he'd do it because he doesn't want to go to hell.
Next is the answer he gave,
then wouldn't do it because God wouldn't like it anyway,
then wouldn't do it because it's wrong.
Strange how few people say the best answer, even though it's the right one by all (valid) logical processes.

(a) You're putting an awful lot of restriction on God there. What makes you think that God could not command an individual person to commit genocide?

God commands us not to kill with the exception of self-defense, execution, and war. He gives the powers/responsibilties of war and execution to the civil government. Because the times He commanded genocide (using a very broad use of the word) were always linked with war, He could not tell an individual to commit genocide. He would be contradicting Himself because He told the individual to not kill with the exception of self-defense.

(b) What makes a government committing genocide somehow better than an individual committing genocide? Are you suggesting that genocide is not, in and of itself, evil?

I never said it was better. God cannot command evil, but He did command genocide (using a very loose definition of the word).

(c) Are governments not made up of individuals? In the case of commanding genocide on the Caananites, the government was basically one or two individuals.

Every institution on Earth is made of individuals, but the institution itself has other responsibilities, which those in the institution are to carry out.

(d) You are intentionally being obtuse. The point is that genocide is evil, in and of itself. It is illogical to say, "God cannot command evil...... Oh wait, God can command evil, God just can't command an individual to do evil. God commands governments to be evil instead."

If God can command genocide, then it is not evil. The problem is, people point and say that Joshua and the others were commanded by God to commit genocide. Well, that depends on how strict you are being with the term genocide. Genocide on the scale of Sadaam against the Kurds, in Darfur, in Serbia, or in the Holocaust was never commanded by God.

That was not a comment on Christianity. That statement was specifically addressed to Edwardis, and it was specifically in reference to specific statements made by specifically by him (pretty specific, huh?). I do not for a moment believe that he represents the average Christian. Despite his claims to being "traditional," I do not believe he represents the teachings of Christianity, either.

The Opus Dei Catholics and the Wahabi Muslims of Saudi Arabia also claim to be traditional. As do the GOP claim to be traditional "originalists." Self-proclaimations of traditionalism don't mean very much.

What lab? How the heck are they isolating these cells? Most abortion procedures (in fact, all that are in general use) would destroy the tissue beyond the capability of extracting fetal stem cells. What cells are they using?

I have...No idea. It was something I was told about in school on a news programme we watched together. It was very unclear.


I can tell you this with absolute certainty: Embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained from a fetus in any stage or from any tissue obtained after an abortion. They are obtained at the blastocyst stage - before a woman would even technically be pregnant.

Okay, I must admit, this is news to me, but thank you very much for the correction, I enjoy learning from mistakes...it tends to give you a broader view and perspective if you take correction well. Thanks.


As of yet, no human stem cells have been created through parthenogenesis or through cloning. As such, it would be impossible to obtain human stem cells without fertilization.

Indeed, the ones that are not fertilized are destroyed. X amount of eggs are taken, some fertalized, those not fertalized although come into contact with sperm are distroyed.


That isn't really how it works. In fact, if that is really how the contract was laid out, it might very well be illegal. The couple involved in in vitro fertilization can pay to have the embryos stored for as long as they wish to pay for it. There is no time limit. If they no longer wish to pay for storage, the embryos will be destroyed, one way or another. The company can give them the option of either having them destroyed immediately or donating to research. Another option may be the Snow Angel program - I don't know exactly how that works.

It maybe illegal in another country, but this is what I know of as a contract from within the United Kingdom. Each country may have different regulations on how contracts have to be set out. The X amount of time would be agreed upon by the parents and the lab...so you're right about the payment thing. With them being given to research the couple have to agree first if they WANT research or not. It could depend upon who they go to for the treatment. At least, this is what is remembered from school by both me and my partner. I've never heard about the Snow Angel Program so no comment.


This, I absolutely agree with. In fact, quite a few couples who undergo in vitro treatment fully believe that they have a moral obligation to donate their excess embryos to research. Should we deny them that?

Exactly, Thank you.


Indeed. While it may not be what you personally believe, it may even be that Morrigan and Daghda are actually aspects of the same being, along with any other deities we care to name.

Indeed. In fact the origin of the three-in-one deity concept is believed by many to not be christian in origin but Pagan. The belief in the Goddess in three aspects: Maiden, Mother, Crone. So it could be that a mixture of these beliefs, as for as far as I can tell all faiths that have polythestic beliefs tend to have a 'counter-part' in a different Polythestic belief (i.e. Greek+Roman=Egyptian), all stem from the same deity or deities and it's been split up through the years until there are many beliefs of varying traditions and cultures. Although this is just one theory in a million about 'God' or 'Gods' and the beginnings of the universe.

If God can command genocide, then it is not evil. The problem is, people point and say that Joshua and the others were commanded by God to commit genocide. Well, that depends on how strict you are being with the term genocide. Genocide on the scale of Sadaam against the Kurds, in Darfur, in Serbia, or in the Holocaust was never commanded by God.

You worry me deeply. You're saying if God can command something, then it is not evil, but by the very fact that 'God' is supposed to be omnipotent, then that surely means he can order anything correct?

Some of the scariest cults in the world, have been based of Judeo-Christian beliefs, just beliefs that were manipulated and went horribly wrong in the hands of the leader. Ever heard of Waco? I really suggest you look into it. It's a fine example of how a leader "following God's commands" can lead you wong.

Also, if you note. You're saying you could commit murder in war, excution or self-defence as God commands. You would do anything God commands. I read earlier that you said that you should be willing to take the consequences if God told you.

People that believe God told them to do it, are doing the opposite, they're taking responsibility away from themselves by putting it in the hands of an omnipotent God, or a priest. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, it's something God has to take responsibilty for. He told you as far as you know. You just repent to him, and you are forgiven, and he takes on that responsibility.

You worry me deeply. You're saying if God can command something, then it is not evil, but by the very fact that 'God' is supposed to be omnipotent, then that surely means he can order anything correct?

Well that's a problem right there. God is omnipotent. He has power enough to do anything. But there are some things He cannot do. Not because He lacks power, but because His nature prevents Him from doing it. He cannot command anything which would be wrong, because it is His nature to be perfectly good.

Some of the scariest cults in the world, have been based of Judeo-Christian beliefs, just beliefs that were manipulated and went horribly wrong in the hands of the leader. Ever heard of Waco? I really suggest you look into it. It's a fine example of how a leader "following God's commands" can lead you wong.

Of course. But they weren't following God's commands. That's why it's important to be grounded in Scripture.

Also, if you note. You're saying you could commit murder in war, excution or self-defence as God commands. You would do anything God commands. I read earlier that you said that you should be willing to take the consequences if God told you.

Yes.

People that believe God told them to do it, are doing the opposite, they're taking responsibility away from themselves by putting it in the hands of an omnipotent God, or a priest. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, it's something God has to take responsibilty for. He told you as far as you know. You just repent to him, and you are forgiven, and he takes on that responsibility.

No. It's my responsibilty. I chose to do it. God did not take over my body. I was not in a fit of insanity. Anything I do is because I chose to do it, and I am responsible.

Well that's a problem right there. God is omnipotent. He has power enough to do anything. But there are some things He cannot do. Not because He lacks power, but because His nature prevents Him from doing it. He cannot command anything which would be wrong, because it is His nature to be perfectly good.




Then he in his nature is not omnipotent

Then he in his nature is not omnipotent

yeah, thanks. uh......can you go back and check a few pages prior on the "Silence them Christians" thread because Edwardis tried to explain it to me and I don't understand.....
maybe you can help me out?

nevermind here it is.

We already had that spat. I thought we agreed to disagree. The whole thing can be summed up in this: Can God forgive sin unpaid for? No. So then, He cannot do some things. But the Bible teaches that God is all-powerful (omnipotent). How can that be? The only way I can work it out is if God has the power to do everything, but cannot do some things because He can only do things insied His nature. He can only do things He wants to do, and He wants to do only that which is in His nature.

Damn, this thread went on far longer than I expected it to....


Almost as long as my drinking thread....

Of course. But they weren't following God's commands.


How can we tell if we are following God's commands or just the voices in our heads?

Then he in his nature is not omnipotent

Omnipotent /=/ able to do anything

It merely means "having unlimited power or authority" (Webster New World). That doesn't mean ability. It just means that any constraint against ability does not come from a lack of power.

How can we tell if we are following God's commands or just the voices in our heads?

You mean like the ones I hear??? :D


:p

yeah, thanks. uh......can you go back and check a few pages prior on the "Silence them Christians" thread because Edwardis tried to explain it to me and I don't understand.....
maybe you can help me out?

In the end it boils down to this omnipotance can not exist within a closed system ... because a closed system by deffinition has limits to where energy can not enter or leave

A god would have to trancend that to truly be "all powerfull"

As such the arguement ends up being a confusing jumble of moot arguement because if there is such a being it is unfalsafyable and would not nessisarly be bound by rules of logic

Either way its just showing a flaw in deffinitions

How can we tell if we are following God's commands or just the voices in our heads?

Because whatever the voice in your head is saying woud agree totally and utterly with Scripture if it were truly from God.

Well that's a problem right there. God is omnipotent. He has power enough to do anything. But there are some things He cannot do. Not because He lacks power, but because His nature prevents Him from doing it. He cannot command anything which would be wrong, because it is His nature to be perfectly good.

None of us are perfectly good. To be perfectly good, would be to also not recognise your own perfect goodness because that'd be vanity and vanity is not a good thing. We only have the Bible or rather in your view, the inspired word of God, to tell us that he is perfect. Thus, How do we know he is perfectly good? Surely him saying he's perfectly good would make that part wrong, for he wouldn't be being humble. Also I know that jealousy is one of the seven deadly sins, and yet it says he's a jealous God...Thus...Not perfect.


Of course. But they weren't following God's commands. That's why it's important to be grounded in Scripture.

They WERE grounded in Scripture...if the scripture wasn't there, people wouldn't have followed, It was just the interpretation.

Another thing... if you are to be grounded in Scripture, you're to follow all scripture right? You can't just pick and choose? Because Picking and Choosing would be against God's devine plan, he set up the rules. You follow. So be sure, to see the comic I put up or at least follow the rules...Don't shave, Don't eat hamburgers, Don't wear Polyester, Don't get Tattoos, Don't work on Saturday, Don't love Bunnies, Don't have vegetable gardens, and don't eat Shrimp...all in Leviticus. I mean, if you're gonna follow some, you gotta follow them all...right?

No. It's my responsibilty. I chose to do it. God did not take over my body. I was not in a fit of insanity. Anything I do is because I chose to do it, and I am responsible.

So, by taking responsibility you're saying that God was not involved. If God TOLD you to do it, then he WAS involved, and is an accomplice?

Many people say that God told them to do it, they don't care, they aren't touched by remorse because they believe that because God told them to do it, it was right. Thus they're not taking responsibility for their actions, because part of responsibility is remorse.

Omnipotent /=/ able to do anything

It merely means "having unlimited power or authority" (Webster New World). That doesn't mean ability. It just means that any constraint against ability does not come from a lack of power.



View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
pow‧er  /ˈpaʊər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pou-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

Um power is ability by the first deffinition alone ... so to lack power is to lack ability to do or act

Because whatever the voice in your head is saying woud agree totally and utterly with Scripture if it were truly from God.

Not necessarily....It may be from Satan!


Or even worse: Al Roker!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nbc_al_roker_pr_shot.jpeg


Fear him!!!

None of us are perfectly good. To be perfectly good, would be to also not recognise your own perfect goodness because that'd be vanity and vanity is not a good thing. We only have the Bible or rather in your view, the inspired word of God, to tell us that he is perfect. Thus, How do we know he is perfectly good? Surely him saying he's perfectly good would make that part wrong, for he wouldn't be being humble. Also I know that jealousy is one of the seven deadly sins, and yet it says he's a jealous God...Thus...Not perfect.

First, Scripture attributes human qualities to God which He could not possibly have to make a point, like jealousy. It doesn't mean that God is truly jealous. It just means that when we are following idols (not necessarily a hunk of rock) He is wroth because we are not giving Him His due worship.

Second, humility is not the same as refusing to name your strengths or say who you are.

They WERE grounded in Scripture...if the scripture wasn't there, people wouldn't have followed, It was just the interpretation.

They were adding and subtracting, not taking Scripture, the whole of Scripture and nothing but the Scripture.

Another thing... if you are to be grounded in Scripture, you're to follow all scripture right? You can't just pick and choose? Because Picking and Choosing would be against God's devine plan, he set up the rules. You follow. So be sure, to see the comic I put up or at least follow the rules...Don't shave, Don't eat hamburgers, Don't wear Polyester, Don't get Tattoos, Don't work on Saturday, Don't love Bunnies, Don't have vegetable gardens, and don't eat Shrimp...all in Leviticus. I mean, if you're gonna follow some, you gotta follow them all...right?

Except for those things which were part of the ceremonial law, which no longer applies. Which includes nearly everything you mentioned.

So, by taking responsibility you're saying that God was not involved. If God TOLD you to do it, then he WAS involved, and is an accomplice?

I didn't say God was not involved. I just said that the responsiblity woud be mine, because I chose to do it. "I was told to" is no excuse.

Many people say that God told them to do it, they don't care, they aren't touched by remorse because they believe that because God told them to do it, it was right. Thus they're not taking responsibility for their actions, because part of responsibility is remorse.

Eh, no. I take responsibility for hitting my brother in the face with a shoe. I feel no remorse. He was sitting on me and was to busy wrestling with our other brother to realize I couldn't breathe. The only way to get his attention that I could think of was to hit him in a way that he would know I wasn't just wrestling. I had tried other ways and I was running out of air. So, I feel no remorse, but I accept responsibility.

Eh, no. I take responsibility for hitting my brother in the face with a shoe. I feel no remorse. He was sitting on me and was to busy wrestling with our other brother to realize I couldn't breathe. The only way to get his attention that I could think of was to hit him in a way that he would know I wasn't just wrestling. I had tried other ways and I was running out of air. So, I feel no remorse, but I accept responsibility.

This only applys when the action is justified.

Um power is ability by the first deffinition alone ... so to lack power is to lack ability to do or act


Fine. I don't know how else to expalin it. I need to find some words that match my thoughts more accurately before I continue this. Sorry for the delay.

This only applys when the action is justified.

And? God's command is not justification?

And? God's command is not justification?

Again, there's no proof of him commanding -anything-.

Fine. I don't know how else to expalin it. I need to find some words that match my thoughts more accurately before I continue this. Sorry for the delay.

I think I know what you are going for (a lot describe it as this) the base Idea is that god is good … by definition all acts he does are good (at least by your definition), therefore whatever he does, even if we perceive it as wrong is actually good, it is just a fault in our understanding rather then a fault in gods actions

Personally I think this sort of thinking is rather bunk specially in the light of not having any solid evidence of the actual existence of a god.

If the mythical (or storied) god is described as doing something I find abhorrent I more look for a fault in the story rather then a fault in my morality … at least to start with.

First, Scripture attributes human qualities to God which He could not possibly have to make a point, like jealousy. It doesn't mean that God is truly jealous. It just means that when we are following idols (not necessarily a hunk of rock) He is wroth because we are not giving Him His due worship. Second, humility is not the same as refusing to name your strengths or say who you are.

Alright... So lets say that he's Perfectly Good. That makes him not omnipotent as people have already pointed out, because of his nature.

Pick one, EITHER he is Perfectly Good and not omnipotent.
OR he is not perfectly good but Omnipotent.

You can't have both.



Except for those things which were part of the ceremonial law, which no longer applies. Which includes nearly everything you mentioned.
They were adding and subtracting, not taking Scripture, the whole of Scripture and nothing but the Scripture.

Can't help but throw your words back at you here. Because by ignoring ceremonial law, and also other laws in scripture such as people not being allowed to wear the clothes of the other gender (Girls have been wearing trousers for...how long?) you are subtracting from Scripture.

Also... for the sake of argument, if you SHOULDN'T subtract or add to scripture because Scripture is devine (including ceremonial laws sunshine) in esscence. Then the bible endorses slavery, because there are rules for slaves and slave owners. If God has endorsed in the past slavery, does that mean that slavery was good?


I didn't say God was not involved. I just said that the responsiblity woud be mine, because I chose to do it. "I was told to" is no excuse.

Eh, no. I take responsibility for hitting my brother in the face with a shoe. I feel no remorse. He was sitting on me and was to busy wrestling with our other brother to realize I couldn't breathe. The only way to get his attention that I could think of was to hit him in a way that he would know I wasn't just wrestling. I had tried other ways and I was running out of air. So, I feel no remorse, but I accept responsibility.

I refer you to other peoples arguments at this point. I do not wish to conceed, but I'm too tired to actually try and make my point make sense right now.

most communist dictators were violently atheist.

That being said, communism sucks.

Again, there's no proof of him commanding -anything-.

Granted.

I think I know what you are going for (a lot describe it as this) the base Idea is that god is good … by definition all acts he does are good (at least by your definition), therefore whatever he does, even if we perceive it as wrong is actually good, it is just a fault in our understanding rather then a fault in gods actions

Yes, that's correct. Though I was refering to being at a loss for proper words in the discussion of God's omnipotence.

Personally I think this sort of thinking is rather bunk specially in the light of not having any solid evidence of the actual existence of a god.

Most people do. That's why this debate is going on.

If the mythical (or storied) god is described as doing something I find abhorrent I more look for a fault in the story rather then a fault in my morality … at least to start with.

So do many.

Alright... So lets say that he's Perfectly Good. That makes him not omnipotent as people have already pointed out, because of his nature.

Pick one, EITHER he is Perfectly Good and not omnipotent.
OR he is not perfectly good but Omnipotent.

You can't have both.

They've pointed out fault and contradiction in my definitions, but not in the idea. I've decided to find better words to explain before I address this again, if that's okay.

Can't help but throw your words back at you here. Because by ignoring ceremonial law, and also other laws in scripture such as people not being allowed to wear the clothes of the other gender (Girls have been wearing trousers for...how long?) you are subtracting from Scripture.

No, I'm not subtracting. I read the whole of Scripture which points out that because Christ is now our only priest, I no longer need to follow the ceremonial laws, because the Ceremony (to put it in crude terms) has happened.

Also... for the sake of argument, if you SHOULDN'T subtract or add to scripture because Scripture is devine (including ceremonial laws sunshine) in esscence. Then the bible endorses slavery, because there are rules for slaves and slave owners. If God has endorsed in the past slavery, does that mean that slavery was good?

The Bible "endorses" slavery as a means to pay off debt. Not as a means to promote racism. So slavery was good as a means to pay off debt (it never actually says it's good) then it still is. Of course, God put laws in place about how slaves should be treated and they were set free every seven years, so it was more like indentured servitude, really.


I refer you to other peoples arguments at this point. I do not wish to conceed, but I'm too tired to actually try and make my point make sense right now.

I'm getting to that point, too. :)

First, Scripture attributes human qualities to God which He could not possibly have to make a point, like jealousy. It doesn't mean that God is truly jealous. It just means that when we are following idols (not necessarily a hunk of rock) He is wroth because we are not giving Him His due worship.

So when your god says that he is a jealous god, he doesn't really mean it or what? Or is he not quoted correctly in the bible?

The Bible "endorses" slavery as a means to pay off debt. Not as a means to promote racism. So slavery was good as a means to pay off debt (it never actually says it's good) then it still is. Of course, God put laws in place about how slaves should be treated and they were set free every seven years, so it was more like indentured servitude, really.

Did I mention racism? Sorry, No.

Slavery... Slavery can be of any colour, of any creed, of anyone. Slavery is another person in effect OWNING another.

I said nothing about racism, nor does it come into this, the concept of slavery is not covered by the concept of the African slaves that were dragged off to America, they shouldn't have been enslaved, but in my view no one should...not even as a way of paying off a debt.

I was just talking about the fact that the bible has the laws/rules THERE, meaning they were 'okay' with Slavery. Does that mean that you as a christian, taking from scripture, and following it devoutedly... you are okay with slavery?

So when your god says that he is a jealous god, he doesn't really mean it or what? Or is he not quoted correctly in the bible?

It's called a metaphor. Not to sound condescending, but it's arguments like this that are really stupid. The Bible is literature just like all nonfiction or fiction depending on your point of view. So read it literally: as the literature it is. If it's a man speaking using metaphors, then read it as that. If it's a book of history read it as that. That will save us from so many misunderstandings.

Did I mention racism? Sorry, No.

Slavery... Slavery can be of any colour, of any creed, of anyone. Slavery is another person in effect OWNING another.

I said nothing about racism, nor does it come into this, the concept of slavery is not covered by the concept of the African slaves that were dragged off to America, they shouldn't have been enslaved, but in my view no one should...not even as a way of paying off a debt.

I was just talking about the fact that the bible has the laws/rules THERE, meaning they were 'okay' with Slavery. Does that mean that you as a christian, taking from scripture, and following it devoutedly... you are okay with slavery?

I never said you said anything about racism, or at least I didn't mean to and I am sorry if I did.

Most people associate slavery with racism, so I was making the point that they do not always go hand in hand.

And to answer your question, I would prefer that there be no slavery. But if a society were to use it as a means to work off debt and the Law was being obeyed regarding the treatment of slaves and their release, etc. I would be fine with it.

It's called a metaphor. Not to sound condescending, but it's arguments like this that are really stupid. The Bible is literature just like all nonfiction or fiction depending on your point of view. So read it literally: as the literature it is. If it's a man speaking using metaphors, then read it as that. If it's a book of history read it as that. That will save us from so many misunderstandings.

But the bible is a mixture of all of these... it has metaphors, but it has history, and it has laws.

It switches more times than Hollywood fashion. So how can you not expect people to get confused?

But the bible is a mixture of all of these... it has metaphors, but it has history, and it has laws.

It switches more times than Hollywood fashion. So how can you not expect people to get confused?

That's why you read it in context. Who was it written to? That will give you the situation and help you understand the problem being addressed. Who was it written by? That will give you insight into different diction in the book.

I never said you said anything about racism, or at least I didn't mean to and I am sorry if I did.

Most people associate slavery with racism, so I was making the point that they do not always go hand in hand.

And to answer your question, I would prefer that there be no slavery. But if a society were to use it as a means to work off debt and the Law was being obeyed regarding the treatment of slaves and their release, etc. I would be fine with it.

I'm aware that racism and slavery don't go hand in hand. I'm probably more aware than you'd know and I care to tell.

And you just put down in writing that you prefer it not to be, but otherwise you'd be find with it.

Edwardis... Are you aware what happened in Soddam and Gamorrah? Two angels came, and a man went ahead and offered his two virgin daughters to a crowd to rape so they wouldn't do so with the Angels. He then later, had his daughters sleep with him and he's called a Godly man.

A prophet of God had his baldness made fun of, as children are inclined to do when it comes to teasing, and God sent down bears that ripped them apart.

This is documented in the bible.

Are you SURE you want to follow a God that is okay with a man who would give his two daughters to be raped and rip apart little children for teasing a man for his lack of hair?

It's called a metaphor. Not to sound condescending, but it's arguments like this that are really stupid. The Bible is literature just like all nonfiction or fiction depending on your point of view. So read it literally: as the literature it is. If it's a man speaking using metaphors, then read it as that. If it's a book of history read it as that. That will save us from so many misunderstandings.

From my understanding it's a direct quote and it doesn't sound like a metaphor, more like your god explaining his reasoning: don't do this, because I'm a very jealous guy.

What exactly could 'jealous' be a metaphor for?

20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

From my understanding it's a direct quote and it doesn't sound like a metaphor, more like your god explaining his reasoning: don't do this, because I'm a very jealous guy.

What exactly could 'jealous' be a metaphor for?

20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

THANK YOU! *Hugs LazyOtaku and hands them a cookie and milk*

You worry me deeply. You're saying if God can command something, then it is not evil, but by the very fact that 'God' is supposed to be omnipotent, then that surely means he can order anything correct?

This has been debated (obviously) but a number of Christian theologians are quite willing for God's omnipotence to be limited to the logically possible. So for instance, God is all-powerful, but that doesn't mean that God can ordain that 2+2 = 5.

Note that there is a much smaller number of events that are logically impossible than is usually supposed - it is not a logical necessity that an apple once detached from a tree should fall to the ground. It is not a logical necessity that robins' eggs should produce other robins, rather than eaglets or panthers. It is an astonishing normalcy and remarkable pattern that things should behave in such a predictable way; there is no logical connection between any of these events in the same way that math is logical. There is only the accumulated weight of observation and scientific theory. (Theory describes; it does not explain.) Therefore, to say that God is bound by the logically possible still leaves room for "miracles."

It is logically impossible for God to order evil, if we assume that goodness is defined by the nature of God and evil by the subversion and negation of that nature. It's a tautology, but show me a moral argument that doesn't rest on one of those and I'll bake you a plate of cookies.

I'm aware that racism and slavery don't go hand in hand. I'm probably more aware than you'd know and I care to tell.

And you just put down in writing that you prefer it not to be, but otherwise you'd be find with it.

Edwardis... Are you aware what happened in Soddam and Gamorrah? Two angels came, and a man went ahead and offered his two virgin daughters to a crowd to rape so they wouldn't do so with the Angels. He then later, had his daughters sleep with him and he's called a Godly man.

I'm not familiar with the verse where he's called a Godly man. And in his defense, he was drunk when his daughters seduced him, not that he drunkeness is an excuse.

A prophet of God had his baldness made fun of, as children are inclined to do when it comes to teasing, and God sent down bears that ripped them apart.

And?

This is documented in the bible.

Yes it is.

Are you SURE you want to follow a God that is okay with a man who would give his two daughters to be raped and rip apart little children for teasing a man for his lack of hair?

It never says God was okay with Lot offering his daughters. And though, I've heard about the bears coming after the children, I'm not familiar enough with it to comment except generally. God can do no wrong, so...

Also, the children didn't deserve to torn apart by bears. They deserved far worse, as we all do. And God was perfectly within His rights and nature to do it.

Also, the children didn't deserve to torn apart by bears. They deserved far worse, as we all do. And God was perfectly within His rights and nature to do it.

You sir, are very, very disturbed if you believe that.

From my understanding it's a direct quote and it doesn't sound like a metaphor, more like your god explaining his reasoning: don't do this, because I'm a very jealous guy.

What exactly could 'jealous' be a metaphor for?

Oh, I had forgotten about this one. There's a place in the prophets where God is called jealous. But the point still stands. God can speak in metaphor. He gives visions, so why can't He veil His words, too?

Anyway, because God cannot sin, there are several options.

He was speaking in metaphor.
His jealousy is not how we percive jealousy.
Jealousy itself is not a sin, but many of the things that come with it are.

I think the first two are more likely, leaning to the first one.

You sir, are very, very disturbed if you believe that.

I'm only repeating what is found in Scripture.

I'm only repeating what is found in Scripture.

Then quote it.

Too much blood has been spilled over the name of this 'God' for his followers to believe any such thing as Holy innocence. All that opposed His ways when he first came into belief were killed and when they could find no more evidence of the Old Religion, conflicts were broken out over which specific belief in this 'new god' was indeed the one true way.

Life is precious. It is not worth the slaying of your fellow countrymen just to prove a point. Especially those of the Old Religion, why should this new theory of christianity be seen as a more valid path than that which has out dated its very existence for several millenia?

Also, the children didn't deserve to torn apart by bears. They deserved far worse, as we all do. And God was perfectly within His rights and nature to do it.

Ok, I'll call you on this:
It never says anywhere (in the OT at least, not sure about NT) that Adam & Eve's sin was credited to generations after them, besides everyone after then disallowed access to the garden of eden.
It also does not say that everyone goes to hell, nor does it say that hell is eternal.
Jewish theology (which would be the old law) says that you do not actually need a sacrifice to be forgiven, at least if there is no viable means to offer a sacrifice.
And God specifically refutes that it's within his nature to do it in that same passage where It says It's a jealous god; It says that It punishes descendents of sinners to the 4th and 5th generation, and later says it rewards descents of the righteous to the 1000th generation.
And we all do not deserve that:
This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.


Will edit when I find more.

God commands us not to kill with the exception of self-defense, execution, and war. He gives the powers/responsibilties of war and execution to the civil government. Because the times He commanded genocide (using a very broad use of the word) were always linked with war, He could not tell an individual to commit genocide. He would be contradicting Himself because He told the individual to not kill with the exception of self-defense.

You do realize that, in ancient times, "government" generally meant "king" and thus meant an individual, right? However you look at it, the government is some collection of individuals. If God tells a government to commit genocide, God is telling the individuals that make up that government to commit genocide.

I never said it was better. God cannot command evil, but He did command genocide (using a very loose definition of the word).

Not loose in the least. Let's look at the definition:

genocide
One entry found for genocide.
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

The Israelites were ordered to wipe out the Caananites (another cultural group) completely, killing all men, women, and children. That is the very definition of the word.

If God can command genocide, then it is not evil.

Nice bit of circular reasoning there. So you are saying, in fact, that genocide is not evil.

I'll remember that if you ever condemn it.

The problem is, people point and say that Joshua and the others were commanded by God to commit genocide. Well, that depends on how strict you are being with the term genocide. Genocide on the scale of Sadaam against the Kurds, in Darfur, in Serbia, or in the Holocaust was never commanded by God.

Actually, it is pretty similar to Sadaam against the Kurds, Darfur, Serbia, or the Holocaust. We don't have actual numbers, but the goal was the same - completely and utterly destroy an entire culture. Kill every man, woman, and child that might oppose you.

I have...No idea. It was something I was told about in school on a news programme we watched together. It was very unclear.

Not surprising. Unfortunately, the subject is so charged and the terminology really isn't all that great (for instance, fetal stem cells are, in fact, adult stem cells) that it is difficult to make it clear - especially in a short program.

Okay, I must admit, this is news to me, but thank you very much for the correction, I enjoy learning from mistakes...it tends to give you a broader view and perspective if you take correction well. Thanks.

No problem. I'm kind of the resident stem cell corrections person around here (although I'm always open to being corrected myself) because I actually work in that area.

It maybe illegal in another country, but this is what I know of as a contract from within the United Kingdom.

Ah, sorry. I was thinking of the US laws regarding the matter.

I've never heard about the Snow Angel Program so no comment.

It's probably only centered in the US. Basically, couples "adopt" a frozen embryo. The woman who is implanted and has a child is not the woman who gave the egg in the first place.

Exactly, Thank you.

:D

Indeed. In fact the origin of the three-in-one deity concept is believed by many to not be christian in origin but Pagan. The belief in the Goddess in three aspects: Maiden, Mother, Crone. So it could be that a mixture of these beliefs, as for as far as I can tell all faiths that have polythestic beliefs tend to have a 'counter-part' in a different Polythestic belief (i.e. Greek+Roman=Egyptian), all stem from the same deity or deities and it's been split up through the years until there are many beliefs of varying traditions and cultures. Although this is just one theory in a million about 'God' or 'Gods' and the beginnings of the universe.

Precisely. I tend to think that we all see the divine in our own way. Some of us see different aspects. We can certainly discuss what we think about the nature of the divine, but trying to claim absolute knowledge or that another's view is categoricaly wrong, I think, is just silly.

One of my theology professors once said that people have one of two reactions when some event challenges their view of God. They either change their view of God, or they change their view of the event.

Edwardis, it seems, would meet the latter description. If God told him to eat a baby, he would decide that eating a baby must not be bad, it must be good, and would therefore do it. Me, I would start to wonder if God was actually good after all....

I think as you do on this.

The Bible "endorses" slavery as a means to pay off debt. Not as a means to promote racism. So slavery was good as a means to pay off debt (it never actually says it's good) then it still is. Of course, God put laws in place about how slaves should be treated and they were set free every seven years, so it was more like indentured servitude, really.

This isn't entirely correct. *Hebrew males* could enter slavery to pay off a debt and must be allowed the option of leaving after seven years (although there were ways to trick them into staying). All female slaves were slaves for life or until the owner married them. All foreign slaves were slaves for life - and it had pretty much nothing to do with debt.

The Opus Dei Catholics and the Wahabi Muslims of Saudi Arabia also claim to be traditional. As do the GOP claim to be traditional "originalists." Self-proclaimations of traditionalism don't mean very much.

I agree. IMO, "tradition" is just the art of making the same mistake twice on purpose. ;)

If God commands Genocide then it is not evil.

Ok so you're saying that no matter how evil the task may seem if it is commanded by 'god' then it is not evil.

So how does that differ from the terrorists who bomb large groups of civilians in the name of their own faith.

The trick is to now step back and view circumstances from a perspective of zero religion. If you can see that people are being hurt (whether or not they are evil in your eyes!) then that is generally a sign that what you are doing is wrong.

And finally may I most boldly ask. If this all noble and right 'god' wants to see these people removed from his domain, why is it that he brought them here to begin with?

<snip>
No. It's my responsibilty. I chose to do it. God did not take over my body. I was not in a fit of insanity. Anything I do is because I chose to do it, and I am responsible.

But, Edwardis, you are not actually being responsible for your choice because you are not actually choosing. You have let us know over and over that you would obey God, no matter what he told you to do. So where's the choice in that?

It seems as if you made just one choice, some time ago, between making your own choices and letting God make them for you. You chose the latter, and you have not made a choice about anything since then.

Hypothetical: What if God told you to stop checking with him about everything and make your own decisions? Have you ever considered that possibility? He might test you to see if you can find your own way morally. What would you do?

It never says God was okay with Lot offering his daughters. And though, I've heard about the bears coming after the children, I'm not familiar enough with it to comment except generally. God can do no wrong, so...

And this is a *prime* example of what I was talking about here:

One of my theology professors once said that people have one of two reactions when some event challenges their view of God. They either change their view of God, or they change their view of the event.

Edwardis, it seems, would meet the latter description. If God told him to eat a baby, he would decide that eating a baby must not be bad, it must be good, and would therefore do it. Me, I would start to wonder if God was actually good after all....

Originally posted by Edwardis
The problem is, people point and say that Joshua and the others were commanded by God to commit genocide. Well, that depends on how strict you are being with the term genocide. Genocide on the scale of Sadaam against the Kurds, in Darfur, in Serbia, or in the Holocaust was never commanded by God.

You are contradicting an earlier statement of yours in another thread, where you specifically stated that the Nazis were agents of God's wrath and everything they did was his will.

You are contradicting an earlier statement of yours in another thread, where you specifically stated that the Nazis were agents of God's wrath and everything they did was his will.

Quite right, as happens with most elongated arguments, you Edward have appeared to come unstuck.

So what is it?! Does this 'god' command all, be all, yadda yadda. Or does he pick choose and take holidays, there are the Dark Ages to consider.

But, Edwardis, you are not actually being responsible for your choice because you are not actually choosing. You have let us know over and over that you would obey God, no matter what he told you to do. So where's the choice in that?


Taking the action to obey is a choice. God says 'I wish you to do this' and you either say yay or nay. Theres many facets to it but one of the main ones is that embracing god means heaven and rejecting him means hell. You know without a doubt in your mind that smoking causes cancer, you choose to risk your life unnecessarily or you choose not to. You choose to eat healthily or you choose not to. You choose to waste time from your limited lifespan on pointless things or you choose not to. In all these situations and in the case of God telling you things, its a case of knowing what the 'right thing' is and choosing to do it or not. Every single person on the planet does this at least several times a day.

Taking the action to obey is a choice. God says 'I wish you to do this' and you either say yay or nay. Theres many facets to it but one of the main ones is that embracing god means heaven and rejecting him means hell. You know without a doubt in your mind that smoking causes cancer, you choose to risk your life unnecessarily or you choose not to. You choose to eat healthily or you choose not to. You choose to waste time from your limited lifespan on pointless things or you choose not to. In all these situations and in the case of God telling you things, its a case of knowing what the 'right thing' is and choosing to do it or not. Every single person on the planet does this at least several times a day.

You consider choosing whether or not to obey a command to commit genocide a waste of time on a pointless thing?

I wish new participants would make an effort to get caught up. I was challenging Edwardis's claim that he chooses his courses of action.

You tell us: If he has already chosen to always obey God, no matter what, then whenever God tells him to do something controversial, such as genocide (the example du jour), what is he going to do? Is he going to choose between obeying and not obeying? No, he's just going to obey. He will not even consider the alternative. Ergo, no choosing.

Quite right, as happens with most elongated arguments, you Edward have appeared to come unstuck.

So what is it?! Does this 'god' command all, be all, yadda yadda. Or does he pick choose and take holidays, there are the Dark Ages to consider.

Edwardis is trying to argue a philosophy that contains every single contradiction about God that appears in the Bible and theology but does not reconcile any of them. It's no wonder his descriptions come apart in his hands.

I don't understand it. Why do people insist that they should do things regardless of morality because: "God demands it!"


Slobodan Milosevic, the architect of the Yugoslav Civil War that killed a million or more people, told all Orthodox Serbs to take up arms with him to kill all non Christians in Yugoslavia.

Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!

And even still as I look through these forums I saw someone mention something about one should not question what their Pastor or whatever says, because it is gods will. Do they not realize that this is not what "God" wants, but rather said Pastor manipulating them to do things like this???


(That being said, I am not very religious.....at all...)

Actually, Milosevic didn't tell the serbs to kill all non christians. Remember, croats are christians, too. Then again, we could discuss ages about the motivations that led to the disintegration of Jugoslavia, so maybe another thread.

Of course if you want something done without explaining why, the best thing to do is to call it "a mission from God". Most humans are quite irrational.

I might just remember, as examples of criminal behaviours of christians through the ages:
1.the burning of the library of Alexandria ("God wants you to burn the blasphemous books")
2.the persecution of polytheists ("The religion of the state is Christianism")
3.the pogroms against jews ("Hey, their forefathers killed Jesus")
4.the forced conversion of a lot of people around the world
5.the "holy slaughter" of haeretics in northern Italy ("Kill them all, the Lord will choose his own")
...
quite surprising if you thing that poor Jesus said something about loving other people just as you love yourself. Oh well.

Yeah... that's the part my philosophy of religion prof didn't buy either. All I can say before I miss my bus is that positing "If God had a different nature" is the equivalent to saying "If God didn't exist" or "If God wasn't God."

No, it isn't, but does it really matter?

The burden then falls to you to explain what morality is based on, that is not equally arbitrary or more so. I've seen some decent attempts, but not lately. For instance, people could question your example in at least two ways by denying two assumptions that underpin the statement:

1) There are innocent people
2) Life is better than death

What you're talking about is a value judgment, but it is based on certain assumptions about reality. Unless there is a basis for those assumptions, the morality that follows is just as assumed and arbitrary as one that attempts to explain itself by the nature of reality's Creator.

The difference is that the basis I subscribe to - a notion of human dignity rooted in consciousness and empathy - is one that is more or less consistent with our basic moral instuitions. Yours is not.

But, Edwardis, you are not actually being responsible for your choice because you are not actually choosing. You have let us know over and over that you would obey God, no matter what he told you to do. So where's the choice in that?

It seems as if you made just one choice, some time ago, between making your own choices and letting God make them for you. You chose the latter, and you have not made a choice about anything since then.

Hypothetical: What if God told you to stop checking with him about everything and make your own decisions? Have you ever considered that possibility? He might test you to see if you can find your own way morally. What would you do?

I tried that argument before. Edwardis seems incapable of understanding the principle of having his morality tested by god ;)

You are contradicting an earlier statement of yours in another thread, where you specifically stated that the Nazis were agents of God's wrath and everything they did was his will.

Plus, he's again claiming to fully understand god's nature, thoughts and intentions.

Actually, Milosevic didn't tell the serbs to kill all non christians. Remember, croats are christians, too. Then again, we could discuss ages about the motivations that led to the disintegration of Jugoslavia, so maybe another thread.

Of course if you want something done without explaining why, the best thing to do is to call it "a mission from God". Most humans are quite irrational.

I might just remember, as examples of criminal behaviours of christians through the ages:
1.the burning of the library of Alexandria ("God wants you to burn the blasphemous books")

Huh? Caesar was a Christian? Wow... he sure was progressive, considering.


5.the "holy slaughter" of haeretics in northern Italy ("Kill them all, the Lord will choose his own")

That happened in France, to my knowledge. ;) Doesn't excuse it in any way, though.

It is however a perfect example of how morality depends on time and culture. Christian morality in the late middle ages had very little indeed to do with Christian (or secular) morality these days. And yet, both claim(ed) to be Christian and to draw their moral convictions from the same book... odd, isn't it?

I tried that argument before. Edwardis seems incapable of understanding the principle of having his morality tested by god ;)

Plus, he's again claiming to fully understand god's nature, thoughts and intentions.

Edwardis painted himself into a corner long before he showed up here. Since he is trying to keep all those contradictions active in his head at the same time, he cannot help but contradict himself in every argument. God is "omnipotent" but there are things he cannot do. God says killing is wrong, but it's not wrong if God says so, because God's Laws are immutable. :confused: It makes me imagine a church with a motto written over the door, and the motto is Latin for "What? Huh?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
My god is not an invisible floating man in the clouds.

If that is someone's god, then they are misinformed.

So the question becomes, how do we correct their misunderstanding?

There you go again, deciding what other people worship for them. I'm still here, still waiting for your apology, perfectly ready to pick up that argument where you left it off, if you really, really want to make yourself look like a bigot.

Other people are free to worship what they wish.

The fact (to me) that they are incorrect is my opinion.

That gives us something to talk about. :)

..and what should I apologize about, again?

Other people are free to worship what they wish.

The fact (to me) that they are incorrect is my opinion.

That gives us something to talk about. :)
No, it doesn't, if the only topic is the fact that you have a different point of view from someone else. But you do give us something to talk about when you decide to tell other people what they believe and also when you work insults into your comments as well. It sets up a conversation that starts with your remarks and continues with responses along the lines of, "Who the hell do you think you are?"

..and what should I apologize about, again?
For using the words "silly," "goofy" and other synonyms for "stupid" in describing my religious beliefs and me for holding them. Those were personal insults, and they were unprovoked. You may commence your apology now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
My god is not an invisible floating man in the clouds.

If that is someone's god, then they are misinformed.

So the question becomes, how do we correct their misunderstanding?

Okay. Wait... Why should you get to deside what Gods a person worships?

I simply decide what god *I* want to "worship". Others can do as they wish.


If someone worships a god that's an invisible floating man in the clouds, let them. It's their choice, their God.

To me that is not what god is about, therefore to me they are "incorrect". Once again, they can, and will, do as they wish!

But the fact that there's a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "god" gives those with those different opinions something to talk about.

Those who consider all "discussion" to be an attempt of one side to convince the other to believe as they do (you know who you are) consider stating opinions as "convictions" consider it "rude" (and wrong) to talk about such things.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone to change their beliefs. I'm simply interested in stating mine.


My personal God and Goddess are Daghda and Morrigan...I don't dictate that others should worship them...on the contrary, I enjoy the variety of Gods that others worship as it's a great insight into their beliefs, culture and who they are.

That's lovely. :)

To me those "deities" are creations, things of the world, representing aspects of the world, and are not "gods" but "spirits".

I agree with you that one's "gods" show GREAT insight into their culture. Culture is a creation of men, ALLOWED by god, as a way of organizing society.

Listening to these "gods" is a great way that people within their "gods" culture learn about the world.

But their "gods" (spirits) have nothing in common with the god. It's simply a definitional thing. It's an axiom, to me, that there is no god but god. And the "activities" of the "gods" (spirits) are allowed creations of his creations (men, humans)

God, to me, is singular, and ineffable.


I wouldn't dream of telling them they were misinformed for worshiping their God. It's THEIR god. Your God is yours, theirs is theirs. Shared beliefs and gods are okay, but that does not mean that you have to have the same image in your mind of them.

If someone says to me that their "gods" (spirits) are equivalent to my god, I have to disagree. We can then talk about how it is that I disagree with them, and how they disagree with me.

I'm not interested in doing violence to them to prove that I'm "correct".

If they aren't interested in doing violence to me to prove they're correct, then we can have a very illuminating discussion. And a very fun one as well.


Morrigan to me appears to be a dark haired, young woman, in black robes with a gold necklace with a black feather, and a gold feather trinket above that and with a Raven on her shoulder.

For another Wiccan who worships Morrigan, she could appear as an old woman, or a silver-haired young woman. Or even as a Battle-Crow, or the washer at the ford.

ALL of these appearances are correct. So why should your view of your god be right, and all others wrong? Even if it's the SAME god?

Yes, those are "correct" appearances of Morrigan.

But those are correct appearances of a SPIRIT, to me, NOT god (as their is only one GOD).

IF (a big "IF" apparently) you can understand that I have only one god, and that god is NOT describable as a "spirit", then we can mutually agree that we are both correct.

You may "worship" (believe in, whatever) your "spirit" (my definition), or your "god" (your definition), with wonderful and useful consequences.

I don't deny you whatever it is that you do to "learn" from your "god" (spirit).

But I will never be convinced that your "spirits" are anything but creations of creations of god.

Do we agree?

Edwardis painted himself into a corner long before he showed up here. Since he is trying to keep all those contradictions active in his head at the same time, he cannot help but contradict himself in every argument. God is "omnipotent" but there are things he cannot do. God says killing is wrong, but it's not wrong if God says so, because God's Laws are immutable. :confused: It makes me imagine a church with a motto written over the door, and the motto is Latin for "What? Huh?"

That would be "Quid? Quae?"... it looks rather cool that way, doesn't it?

The interesting thing about Christian fundie-trolls is that they love to make statements from their book, and then try to back them up with contradicting statements from the same book. As Dempublicents said, you either change your idea of god to fit reality or you change your idea of reality to fit with your idea of god...

If G-d actually told me to do something, regardless of what it was, I would do it. Not without hesitation, but I would do it.

Though I might suspect a test if it is obviously reprehensible.

I simply decide what god *I* want to "worship". Others can do as they wish.

To me that is not what god is about, therefore to me they are "incorrect". Once again, they can, and will, do as they wish!

But the fact that there's a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "god" gives those with those different opinions something to talk about.

Those who consider all "discussion" to be an attempt of one side to convince the other to believe as they do (you know who you are) consider stating opinions as "convictions" consider it "rude" (and wrong) to talk about such things.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone to change their beliefs. I'm simply interested in stating mine.

That's lovely. :)

To me those "deities" are creations, things of the world, representing aspects of the world, and are not "gods" but "spirits".

I agree with you that one's "gods" show GREAT insight into their culture. Culture is a creation of men, ALLOWED by god, as a way of organizing society.

Listening to these "gods" is a great way that people within their "gods" culture learn about the world.

But their "gods" (spirits) have nothing in common with the god. It's simply a definitional thing. It's an axiom, to me, that there is no god but god. And the "activities" of the "gods" (spirits) are allowed creations of his creations (men, humans)

God, to me, is singular, and ineffable.

If someone says to me that their "gods" (spirits) are equivalent to my god, I have to disagree. We can then talk about how it is that I disagree with them, and how they disagree with me.

I'm not interested in doing violence to them to prove that I'm "correct".

If they aren't interested in doing violence to me to prove they're correct, then we can have a very illuminating discussion. And a very fun one as well.

Yes, those are "correct" appearances of Morrigan.

But those are correct appearances of a SPIRIT, to me, NOT god (as their is only one GOD).

IF (a big "IF" apparently) you can understand that I have only one god, and that god is NOT describable as a "spirit", then we can mutually agree that we are both correct.

You may "worship" (believe in, whatever) your "spirit" (my definition), or your "god" (your definition), with wonderful and useful consequences.

I don't deny you whatever it is that you do to "learn" from your "god" (spirit).

But I will never be convinced that your "spirits" are anything but creations of creations of god.

Do we agree?

So basically as long as the rest of us are okay with you going "The entity that I worship is more important/better/more real than the entity you worship" everything is cool. If we want you to regard our beliefs as just as valid as you regard your own beliefs, well then, we're SOL.

Sounds great, I'm sure everyone would be willing to have discussions with you on those grounds. </sarcasm>

TYa know, there's always been something about Christian fundies that I've never been able to understand (ok theres a lot of things, but this one sticks out) and that is this:

The Jews worship God under the name of Yahweh

The Christians worship God under the name of Lord, Jesus, God, and anything else related.

The Muslims worship God under the name of Allah.

If God is the leader or whatever you want to call it, of all 3 religions, then why in the hell (excuse the pun) would he tell one group of his followers to attack another group????

Btw, Jews Christians and Muslims actually DO worship the same God. although Im not sure about some Christians who claim God is Jesus or something. but thats another debate entirely.

Because whatever the voice in your head is saying woud agree totally and utterly with Scripture if it were truly from God.

So the voice that tells me to stone my disobedient son is right?

If G-d actually told me to do something, regardless of what it was, I would do it. Not without hesitation, but I would do it.

Though I might suspect a test if it is obviously reprehensible.

But why?
Granted, you have the qualifier there, but what if it was something that wasn't obviously reprehensible, like assasinating Bush?(Don't laugh)
What then?

My experience is that God is far beyond our human rhetoric and definitions. Thank goodness for that. How awful it would be if the divine mystery of my relationship with my Creator could actually be explained away by others.
What I know for myself is that my relationship with God is to do with purpose, fulfillment, courage and love, and nothing to do with being asked to do things I feel are morally corrupt [eg. murder, racism, ignoring social justice issues, discriminating against others who don't share my beliefs]. If I thought God was asking me to do any of those things, I think I'd be in dire need of psychiatric help!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
I simply decide what god *I* want to "worship". Others can do as they wish.

To me that is not what god is about, therefore to me they are "incorrect". Once again, they can, and will, do as they wish!

But the fact that there's a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "god" gives those with those different opinions something to talk about.

Those who consider all "discussion" to be an attempt of one side to convince the other to believe as they do (you know who you are) consider stating opinions as "convictions" consider it "rude" (and wrong) to talk about such things.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone to change their beliefs. I'm simply interested in stating mine.

That's lovely.

To me those "deities" are creations, things of the world, representing aspects of the world, and are not "gods" but "spirits".

I agree with you that one's "gods" show GREAT insight into their culture. Culture is a creation of men, ALLOWED by god, as a way of organizing society.

Listening to these "gods" is a great way that people within their "gods" culture learn about the world.

But their "gods" (spirits) have nothing in common with the god. It's simply a definitional thing. It's an axiom, to me, that there is no god but god. And the "activities" of the "gods" (spirits) are allowed creations of his creations (men, humans)

God, to me, is singular, and ineffable.

If someone says to me that their "gods" (spirits) are equivalent to my god, I have to disagree. We can then talk about how it is that I disagree with them, and how they disagree with me.

I'm not interested in doing violence to them to prove that I'm "correct".

If they aren't interested in doing violence to me to prove they're correct, then we can have a very illuminating discussion. And a very fun one as well.

Yes, those are "correct" appearances of Morrigan.

But those are correct appearances of a SPIRIT, to me, NOT god (as their is only one GOD).

IF (a big "IF" apparently) you can understand that I have only one god, and that god is NOT describable as a "spirit", then we can mutually agree that we are both correct.

You may "worship" (believe in, whatever) your "spirit" (my definition), or your "god" (your definition), with wonderful and useful consequences.

I don't deny you whatever it is that you do to "learn" from your "god" (spirit).

But I will never be convinced that your "spirits" are anything but creations of creations of god.

Do we agree?

So basically as long as the rest of us are okay with you going "The entity that I worship is more important/better/more real than the entity you worship" everything is cool.

You don't have to agree with me. You may certainly take the position that YOUR deities are more important/etc than mine, and I'llsmile and say that's fine, and have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

If you have a NEED to have me believe that our respective "deities" are "equal", then you'll be forever frustrated.

..but there's no need for you to have that need, unless you wish to be exactly what it is that you think that I am,.. which is one who DEMANDS that he always be aknowledged as completely "right".


If we want you to regard our beliefs as just as valid as you regard your own beliefs, well then, we're SOL.

Sounds great, I'm sure everyone would be willing to have discussions with you on those grounds. </sarcasm>

The subject matter we were discussing was GOD, not gods.

If you don't want to find out what I think of "gods", or of god (singular), then we have nothing to talk about.

If you do want to TALK, but by that you mean convince me of something that I won't believe, then we're not talking at all,.. we're simply engaging in a very frustrating verbal battle that you can not win because you can not convince me of what I won't be convinced of.

You don't have to agree with me. You may certainly take the position that YOUR deities are more important/etc than mine, and I'llsmile and say that's fine, and have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

If you have a NEED to have me believe that our respective "deities" are "equal", then you'll be forever frustrated.

..but there's no need for you to have that need, unless you wish to be exactly what it is that you think that I am,.. which is one who DEMANDS that he always be aknowledged as completely "right".

The subject matter we were discussing was GOD, not gods.

If you don't want to find out what I think of "gods", or of god (singular), then we have nothing to talk about.

If you do want to TALK, but by that you mean convince me of something that I won't believe, then we're not talking at all,.. we're simply engaging in a very frustrating verbal battle that you can not win because you can not convince me of what I won't be convinced of.


My "need" is to have a fair and level playing field. I cannot have a discussion that's worth anything with someone who feels they're "better" than I am. Thus I shall restate that my "need" is to have you believe that my beliefs are just as valid as you believe your beliefs are. That would be a fair and level playing field. I could not and would not have a discussion with you if all you kept saying was "oh, but your so called gods were created by my god, thus my beliefs are more valid and better".

I don't see where you pull this idea of everyone trying to convince you to believe like they do stuff. I have discussions with people to understand more of what they believe, not to try to convert them (my religion is not evangelical). However, I do require a certain amount of respect for my person and my beliefs to be a part of said discussion (as I will show both of these things to those I have a discussion with). Allowing yourself to hold someone else's beliefs to be just as valid as your own does not require you to internalize that other person's beliefs. It does, however, require you to be respectful and understand that they probably feel the same way about their beliefs as you do about yours.

It all comes down to respect, one cannot have a discussion without it.

And as far as "what we were discussing" goes, I am rather sure that at least one other person involved in said discussion was referring to multiple dieties (ie the Morrigan and an Dagda). Regardless, what I am saying here can refer to a person with monotheistic beliefs just as much as it can refer to someone with polytheistic beliefs. Because your theology only allows for the existence of one god does not mean you get to frame the discussion that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
You don't have to agree with me. You may certainly take the position that YOUR deities are more important/etc than mine, and I'llsmile and say that's fine, and have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

If you have a NEED to have me believe that our respective "deities" are "equal", then you'll be forever frustrated.

..but there's no need for you to have that need, unless you wish to be exactly what it is that you think that I am,.. which is one who DEMANDS that he always be aknowledged as completely "right".

The subject matter we were discussing was GOD, not gods.

If you don't want to find out what I think of "gods", or of god (singular), then we have nothing to talk about.

If you do want to TALK, but by that you mean convince me of something that I won't believe, then we're not talking at all,.. we're simply engaging in a very frustrating verbal battle that you can not win because you can not convince me of what I won't be convinced of.

My "need" is to have a fair and level playing field. I cannot have a discussion that's worth anything with someone who feels they're "better" than I am.

I don't think I'm "better" than you are. I just consider my opinion to be more correct, for me, than the opinion you hold.

And we have a perfectly "fair and level playing field". You are expressing your opinions and I'm expressing mine.


Thus I shall restate that my "need" is to have you believe that my beliefs are just as valid as you believe your beliefs are.

And I *DO* believe that. Your beliefs are just as valid as my beliefs. But my beliefs dictate that your beliefs are "incorrect", as they apply to my conception of what we're talking about.


That would be a fair and level playing field. I could not and would not have a discussion with you if all you kept saying was "oh, but your so called gods were created by my god, thus my beliefs are more valid and better".

Well,.. actually, my beliefs say that your "gods" were created by god's creations (mankind), but that's probably a whole different discussion.

BUT,.. in fact, to me, your belief in your gods is perfectly valid in that you believe in them, and no "better" or "worse" than my belief in god, because when we speak of our respective "gods" we're not talking about the same thing.

The point of monotheism is NOT that god is "one of many" who is specially picked to be "the leader", but that there is ONLY ONE god, period.

By that premise, whichever "god" you pick to be your "patron" god, the fact that you "picked" it from a group of "gods" invalidates it from being "god" (in a monotheistic sense).

The fact that your god is "invalidated" from being "god" (the singular) because of it's description by you does NOT invalidate your god from being "your god". You may choose your god.

But the very act of BEING ABLE to "choose" your god, gives it a different meaning than "god" to me.


I don't see where you pull this idea of everyone trying to convince you to believe like they do stuff. I have discussions with people to understand more of what they believe, not to try to convert them (my religion is not evangelical).

Neither is mine (evangelical). I'm simply telling you what I believe.

When I say "god is not choosable because there is only one god", you take that to mean that I consider your god to be invalid, when in reality it is simply the consequence of the logic behind my belief.

If you say I can't say that, then you'll have to tell me why I can't say that, not that my saying it is "rude".


However, I do require a certain amount of respect for my person and my beliefs to be a part of said discussion (as I will show both of these things to those I have a discussion with). Allowing yourself to hold someone else's beliefs to be just as valid as your own does not require you to internalize that other person's beliefs. It does, however, require you to be respectful and understand that they probably feel the same way about their beliefs as you do about yours.

I do respect you as a person, and a holder of whatever beliefs that you hold.

The point is that when we, the two of us, are talking about "god" we are talking about two different things,.. you from the "polytheist" perspective and me from the "monotheistic" perspective.

When either of us confuses a polytheistic god with a monotheistic god, as an equation of "god" with one of the "gods", then there is need to clarify what the differences are.

You may defend your ideas of what "god" means, and so shall I. And since we're clarifying the differences between two distinctly different things, there's no need for anyone to think of their "thing" as superior or inferior.


It all comes down to respect, one cannot have a discussion without it.

Hear hear..!! :)


And as far as "what we were discussing" goes, I am rather sure that at least one other person involved in said discussion was referring to multiple dieties (ie the Morrigan and an Dagda). Regardless, what I am saying here can refer to a person with monotheistic beliefs just as much as it can refer to someone with polytheistic beliefs. Because your theology only allows for the existence of one god does not mean you get to frame the discussion that way.


My theology does allow for your "gods". It just calls them something other than "gods". It calls them "spirits/demons/angels/loa/whatever".

And, yes, it does propose that "god" (the singular) is of an entirely different realm than those "gods".

That fact (that god is of an essentially different nature than "gods" are) MUST be understood by both sides (poly and mono) for the discussion of "god" to be at all meaningful.

most communist dictators were violently atheist.

That being said, communism sucks.

Most facist governments use religion as a tool to control the masses. Does this equal relion being evil?

Oh, I had forgotten about this one. There's a place in the prophets where God is called jealous. But the point still stands. God can speak in metaphor. He gives visions, so why can't He veil His words, too?

Anyway, because God cannot sin, there are several options.

He was speaking in metaphor.
His jealousy is not how we percive jealousy.
Jealousy itself is not a sin, but many of the things that come with it are.

I think the first two are more likely, leaning to the first one.

Apparently people can say god meant anything they want him to have meant. "No, god meant something other than the words used normally mean.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpet Stone
most communist dictators were violently atheist.

That being said, communism sucks.

Most facist governments use religion as a tool to control the masses. Does this equal reli(gi)on being evil?

No. :)

Atheism is also not evil.

It's just another form of religion, in which the function performed by "god" is called something else.

Both communists (religiously atheistic folks) and fascists (religiously theistic folks) equally use their respective religions to attempt to control their slaves.

The question is not whether the religion that is used is "evil", but whether the "governmental system" used is "evil".

Both communism (as practiced) and fascism (as practiced) are inherently evil because they are both institutionalized forms of slavery, and slavery is always an evil.

(( It's an evil [inherently] because it ALWAYS breeds "bad juju" for the society that practices it, and that "bad juju" actually accumulates until it kills off the host society. ))

BUT,.. in fact, to me, your belief in your gods is perfectly valid in that you believe in them, and no "better" or "worse" than my belief in god, because when we speak of our respective "gods" we're not talking about the same thing.

Are you sure? Could it not be that the many gods perceived by polytheists are, in fact, different aspects of the one god perceived by monotheists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
BUT,.. in fact, to me, your belief in your gods is perfectly valid in that you believe in them, and no "better" or "worse" than my belief in god, because when we speak of our respective "gods" we're not talking about the same thing.

Are you sure? Could it not be that the many gods perceived by polytheists are, in fact, different aspects of the one god perceived by monotheists?

That IS my argument! Sort of. :)

The poly-gods ARE different aspects, NOT of the mono-god, but of the creation of the mono-god (the creation ie "the world").

Since the mono-god is "characteristicless", other than being himself, in other words, INEFFABLE, there ARE NO ASPECTS of the mono-god to be interpreted as any poly-god.

Thus, the poly-gods to me are REAL, as aspects of the creation created by the mono-god, and they are REAL in such a way that both poly-gods and the mono-god can exist at the same time because they exist in different "realms".

Of this I'm absolutely sure. Why? Because the inherent logic of my basic beliefs preclude my NOT believing it.

How you reconcile the simultaneous existence of the poly-gods with the mono-god, or if you insist that they CAN'T exist simultaneously, is a matter for you to deal with with the logic of your beliefs.

DO you believe that they can simultaneously exist, or not, and what is your reasoning?

That would be "Quid? Quae?"... it looks rather cool that way, doesn't it?

The interesting thing about Christian fundie-trolls is that they love to make statements from their book, and then try to back them up with contradicting statements from the same book. As Dempublicents said, you either change your idea of god to fit reality or you change your idea of reality to fit with your idea of god...

It does look cool.

T-shirt and coffee mug time. Maybe even hats for this one. :)

That IS my argument! Sort of. :)

The poly-gods ARE different aspects, NOT of the mono-god, but of the creation of the mono-god (the creation ie "the world").

Since the mono-god is "characteristicless", other than being himself, in other words, INEFFABLE, there ARE NO ASPECTS of the mono-god to be interpreted as any poly-god.

I think you and I are using the word "aspects" differently. When I say it, I don't mean aspects like "Light", "Wind", "Rain", whatever. What I mean is that any given human being is going to perceive and interact with the divine differently. Some of us may see the divine as a single entity, and some may see it as many, depending on our own perception and interactions. Even if the divine is, as I believe, a single entity, there is nothing to suggest that a person could not have different interactions with that same entity which would lead them to believe there is more than one entity.

In other words, the experiences polytheists have with multiple deities/spirits/whatever you want to call them might be different (types of) interactions with the same entity.

It's a bit like the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Three blind men, who have never been able to see, are brought near to an elephant so that they can "see" it. One man comes towards it from the rear, and feels the tail of the creature. He calls out to the others, "This creature is much like a snake, with an end somewhat like the end of broom." The second approaches from the front, and ends up touching the ear. He calls out, "A snake? Nonsense. This creature is much like a giant fan. Amazing, really." The third approaches from the side, and touches the leg of the animal. He calls out, "It is neither of the two. This creature is much like a huge tree trunk."

Were any of them wrong? No, they were describing it as they could from their own interactions.

Now, extending the analogy, polytheists may recognize that there is a fan, a snake, and a tree trunk through their own interactions, but perceive these things as three separate entites, rather than simply being different interactions with the same entity. Others of us may recognize the fan, snake, and tree trunk, but we see them all as interactions with a whole that is greater than any one piece.

In the end, the two viewpoints are not irreconcialable, because we all interact with and perceive the divine differently.

Edit: Even atheists can fit into the analogy. They either have no interaction with the entity at all, or view that interaction as something different - something less than divine.

My "need" is to have a fair and level playing field. I cannot have a discussion that's worth anything with someone who feels they're "better" than I am. Thus I shall restate that my "need" is to have you believe that my beliefs are just as valid as you believe your beliefs are. That would be a fair and level playing field. I could not and would not have a discussion with you if all you kept saying was "oh, but your so called gods were created by my god, thus my beliefs are more valid and better".

I don't see where you pull this idea of everyone trying to convince you to believe like they do stuff. I have discussions with people to understand more of what they believe, not to try to convert them (my religion is not evangelical). However, I do require a certain amount of respect for my person and my beliefs to be a part of said discussion (as I will show both of these things to those I have a discussion with). Allowing yourself to hold someone else's beliefs to be just as valid as your own does not require you to internalize that other person's beliefs. It does, however, require you to be respectful and understand that they probably feel the same way about their beliefs as you do about yours.

It all comes down to respect, one cannot have a discussion without it.

And as far as "what we were discussing" goes, I am rather sure that at least one other person involved in said discussion was referring to multiple dieties (ie the Morrigan and an Dagda). Regardless, what I am saying here can refer to a person with monotheistic beliefs just as much as it can refer to someone with polytheistic beliefs. Because your theology only allows for the existence of one god does not mean you get to frame the discussion that way.
Thank you for expressing this so well.

Personally, I would give the other person even a tiny bit more leeway. I don't require that they really think my beliefs are as valid as their own. I would be satisfied if they just refrain from insisting to me that their religion is somehow the source or foundation of mine, and refrain from "explaining" the scope and meaning of my beliefs to me. I also appreciate it when they refrain from using insulting words and condescending attitudes to treat followers of different religions in a dismissive manner.

How you reconcile the simultaneous existence of the poly-gods with the mono-god, or if you insist that they CAN'T exist simultaneously, is a matter for you to deal with with the logic of your beliefs.

DO you believe that they can simultaneously exist, or not, and what is your reasoning?

I would argue that (from references in Genesis and the ten commandments) the Christian god recognizes that it is not the only "god in the clouds", but demands that its followers remain true to it and worship no other deity. Thus, logically one may conclude that there are other deities simultaneously with the Christian god. My theological understanding of the universe allows for the simultaneous existence of the Christian god with all the other deities of all the other pantheons (and NOT as aspects of said Christian god or as creations by man).

Each pantheon/culture has their own creation story (even though we may have lost some of the tales), but it is possible to believe that each creation story is that culture's understanding of how things came to be in their area of the world, and does not preclude the existence of a different creation story in another area of the world.

Thank you for expressing this so well.

Personally, I would give the other person even a tiny bit more leeway. I don't require that they really think my beliefs are as valid as their own. I would be satisfied if they just refrain from insisting to me that their religion is somehow the source or foundation of mine, and refrain from "explaining" the scope and meaning of my beliefs to me. I also appreciate it when they refrain from using insulting words and condescending attitudes to treat followers of different religions in a dismissive manner.

Generally I will allow for a bit more leeway, but I was describing a best-case scenario (with the equal validity of beliefs). It is impossible and implausible to expect a person to carry on a discussion with someone who cannot use civil and respectful language in the course of discussion.

I think you and I are using the word "aspects" differently. When I say it, I don't mean aspects like "Light", "Wind", "Rain", whatever. What I mean is that any given human being is going to perceive and interact with the divine differently. Some of us may see the divine as a single entity, and some may see it as many, depending on our own perception and interactions. Even if the divine is, as I believe, a single entity, there is nothing to suggest that a person could not have different interactions with that same entity which would lead them to believe there is more than one entity.

In other words, the experiences polytheists have with multiple deities/spirits/whatever you want to call them might be different (types of) interactions with the same entity.

It's a bit like the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Three blind men, who have never been able to see, are brought near to an elephant so that they can "see" it. One man comes towards it from the rear, and feels the tail of the creature. He calls out to the others, "This creature is much like a snake, with an end somewhat like the end of broom." The second approaches from the front, and ends up touching the ear. He calls out, "A snake? Nonsense. This creature is much like a giant fan. Amazing, really." The third approaches from the side, and touches the leg of the animal. He calls out, "It is neither of the two. This creature is much like a huge tree trunk."

Were any of them wrong? No, they were describing it as they could from their own interactions.

Now, extending the analogy, polytheists may recognize that there is a fan, a snake, and a tree trunk through their own interactions, but perceive these things as three separate entites, rather than simply being different interactions with the same entity. Others of us may recognize the fan, snake, and tree trunk, but we see them all as interactions with a whole that is greater than any one piece.

In the end, the two viewpoints are not irreconcialable, because we all interact with and perceive the divine differently.
You are not far off the mark about polytheism.

Many, possibly most, polytheistic religions assume the existence of a "supreme deity" or "supreme or universal spirit."

In some polytheist religions, this is thought of rather like the creator god in deism -- it created the universe, including all the gods, and then withdrew from any further interaction. Humans don't deal with it.

In other polytheist religions, the supreme spirit is present and active but cannot be perceived in its entirety, so either the human mind identifies as "gods" every little part of it that we do perceive, or else it manifests itself in different god-forms for the purpose of interacting with human minds on various subjects.

My own belief system, animism, can fit with either view, depending on which animists you're talking to, but very few animist religions spend much time worrying about it either way, because animism isn't really concerned with such cosmological issues. It is concerned with matters of daily life in this world. To use a mundane analogy, it would be a waste of time to appeal to the President of the United States to get a local traffic light ordinance amended in your town. He's just going to refer you back to your local town council. Similarly, if what you need is a good wheat crop on your own farm, there is little point in bothering the infinite spirit of the universe about it when you could just deal with the spirit of the wheat itself for assistance.

Kind of like, if you prayed to god for a good wheat crop, and god answered you, saying, "What are coming to me with this for? You want wheat to grow? Take it up with the wheat."

This is why I sometimes get into wrangles with monotheists when I say things like "I can easily believe in the existence of God and Jesus and all the saints and angels, too, but I still don't worship them." Some monotheists cannot accept that a person could believe in a god but not worship it. But the reason is, my spiritual concerns lie elsewhere.

"Worship" is a problematical word in animism. Sometimes it is appropriate to describe the way animists relate to spirits as "worship," but many other times it is not. Most of the time, the relationship is not "worshipful" but, rather, is an interaction, sometimes even a transaction, between equals, just like between two human beings. There are also somewhat subtle distinctions between the concepts of "god(s)" and "spirits." They are not always the same thing. There are so many details of difference like this that it is why I get annoyed when people just assume they know all about my beliefs without asking any questions about them.

Generally I will allow for a bit more leeway, but I was describing a best-case scenario (with the equal validity of beliefs). It is impossible and implausible to expect a person to carry on a discussion with someone who cannot use civil and respectful language in the course of discussion.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
That IS my argument! Sort of.

The poly-gods ARE different aspects, NOT of the mono-god, but of the creation of the mono-god (the creation ie "the world").

Since the mono-god is "characteristicless", other than being himself, in other words, INEFFABLE, there ARE NO ASPECTS of the mono-god to be interpreted as any poly-god.


I think you and I are using the word "aspects" differently. When I say it, I don't mean aspects like "Light", "Wind", "Rain", whatever. What I mean is that any given human being is going to perceive and interact with the divine differently. Some of us may see the divine as a single entity, and some may see it as many, depending on our own perception and interactions.

By "aspect" I mean ANY characteristic "OF THE WORLD".

My contention is that THERE ARE NO characteristics of the mono-god, as he is utterly ineffable (meaning indescribable) and therefore can't be used as a source of "characteristics" with which to "create" a poly-god.

We agree entirely that the aspect-of-the-world (which you might call an aspect-of-the-divine) can be interpreted in innumerable ways to "flesh out" a poly-god.


Even if the divine is, as I believe, a single entity, there is nothing to suggest that a person could not have different interactions with that same entity which would lead them to believe there is more than one entity.

This is where I am CONTINUALLY misunderstood.

God, as an entity, is not perceptable IN ANY WAY because he has no characteristics, and the human mind requires a thing to have characteristics to be perceived.

That is the very meaning of INEFFABLE, and why god is always described as ineffable in REAL monotheism.

It is a required circular logic that monotheism is based upon:

"God is god, and the only (monotheistic) god, because he is ineffable, and being ineffable he is the singular and only (monotheistic) god because there can not be any distinction between any two ineffable things (gods in this case)."


In other words, the experiences polytheists have with multiple deities/spirits/whatever you want to call them might be different (types of) interactions with the same entity.

Absolutely..! That is the spice of life! The capacity for humans to see different "spirits" in the same "thing" of the world is what gives us joy and hope and all the things that allow us to make the world a better place for ourselves and those we love.


It's a bit like the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Three blind men, who have never been able to see, are brought near to an elephant so that they can "see" it. One man comes towards it from the rear, and feels the tail of the creature. He calls out to the others, "This creature is much like a snake, with an end somewhat like the end of broom." The second approaches from the front, and ends up touching the ear. He calls out, "A snake? Nonsense. This creature is much like a giant fan. Amazing, really." The third approaches from the side, and touches the leg of the animal. He calls out, "It is neither of the two. This creature is much like a huge tree trunk."

Were any of them wrong? No, they were describing it as they could from their own interactions.

I always loved that story..! :D


Now, extending the analogy, polytheists may recognize that there is a fan, a snake, and a tree trunk through their own interactions, but perceive these things as three separate entites, rather than simply being different interactions with the same entity. Others of us may recognize the fan, snake, and tree trunk, but we see them all as interactions with a whole that is greater than any one piece.

Exactly. And what I see in the "spirits" of the world are pointers (via contrast) toward that which is NOT describable and therefore "the axis" of the universe.

The "spirits" teach us about the relationships between things in the world.

God teaches us nothing, except that there is a thing that reconciles all of the relationships of the world.

God is completely impossible, but nonetheless real.

Polygods are more possible, as they have actual characteristics that are more or less reliable and informative, but ultimately somewhat less real in that they can be disproved.


In the end, the two viewpoints are not irreconcialable, because we all interact with and perceive the divine differently.

Hear hear..!

And I hope you understand my understanding of why "the divine" can not be percieved at all except through the intermediate "things" of the world, which to me includes the spirits, that are not to be "worshipped" but can be learned from.

The "overreaction" of "normal" monotheism is to make "illegal" any idea of "spirits", or to call them "saints/etc", instead of teaching people to use them as they should be used.

The "overreaction" of "normal" polytheism is to make the "true god" (the ineffable axis of the universe) an "effigy" (non-ineffable thing), in other words to make "the true god" just one of the pantheon, and simply not know how to constructively use "the true god" because they don't understand it's basic nature.

And people don't understand the basic nature of "the true god" because they think that anything so ludicrously simple as "it's INEFFABLE" can't POSSIBLY be the nature of "so powerful a being".

The FACT that it's ineffable is simple. The CONSEQUENCES of that fact is massively profound.

Originally Posted by Insignificantia
How you reconcile the simultaneous existence of the poly-gods with the mono-god, or if you insist that they CAN'T exist simultaneously, is a matter for you to deal with with the logic of your beliefs.

DO you believe that they can simultaneously exist, or not, and what is your reasoning?
I would argue that (from references in Genesis and the ten commandments) the Christian god recognizes that it is not the only "god in the clouds", but demands that its followers remain true to it and worship no other deity. Thus, logically one may conclude that there are other deities simultaneously with the Christian god. My theological understanding of the universe allows for the simultaneous existence of the Christian god with all the other deities of all the other pantheons (and NOT as aspects of said Christian god or as creations by man).

Each pantheon/culture has their own creation story (even though we may have lost some of the tales), but it is possible to believe that each creation story is that culture's understanding of how things came to be in their area of the world, and does not preclude the existence of a different creation story in another area of the world.
If we are thinking in literal terms, then I agree that there is no reason at all why multiple gods cannot exist simultaneously, even when only one of them is being worshipped. It would be like suggesting that, if my friend Robert exists, then your friends Jason, Peter, and Monica cannot also exist.

As for the modern monotheistic claim that only their god exists, well, even in the great ancient polytheist societies, many sects and cults claimed that their god was the only god and all those others were mere delusions or fakes. It's hardly a convincing argument outside the specific group.

As for the modern monotheistic claim that only their god exists, well, even in the great ancient polytheist societies, many sects and cults claimed that their god was the only god and all those others were mere delusions or fakes. It's hardly a convincing argument outside the specific group.

I don't think that's necessarily true. In Ireland, for example, there are many, many tribal deities that were not worshiped over the entire island. I don't see any references in the extant texts that suggest that those living in Munster denied the existence of the deities of the tribes of Leinster (to grossly oversimplify the ancient boundaries). Surely there were wars between these people, and the gods may have been involved, but when Brighid appears above the army of Leinster (she was one of their ancient tribal dieties - going back to the Brigantes) during battle, the army of Munster is not going to say "Oh she doesn't exist".

This is not to suggest that it *never* happened (there are people who act that way today, so I am sure there were people who acted like that then), but that it may not be as wide an opinion as it seems you are suggesting. Maybe it would help me out if you could give some stories or references that illustrate what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
How you reconcile the simultaneous existence of the poly-gods with the mono-god, or if you insist that they CAN'T exist simultaneously, is a matter for you to deal with with the logic of your beliefs.

DO you believe that they can simultaneously exist, or not, and what is your reasoning?

I would argue that (from references in Genesis and the ten commandments) the Christian god recognizes that it is not the only "god in the clouds", but demands that its followers remain true to it and worship no other deity. Thus, logically one may conclude that there are other deities simultaneously with the Christian god.

I do not believe in "the christian god". I believe in god. Period.

This makes me a complete heretic in many ways, of course, which is fine with me, as heretics are not treated OVERLY badly where I'm located at the moment, and even if they were I wouldn't change my beliefs because of it but might be a bit more quiet about it..! :)

My interpretation of your "(loose) quotation" above is that of a culture who had some inkling of what monotheism meant but had to explain some rather complex information to their populus regarding the "other gods" (of the polytheists) problem.

They were saying, "There is only one god, and it is the one that we believe in, but others will insist that the things that they worship are of the same nature as our "true" god, and they will tempt you to worship their "gods" because doing so might get you some advantage, but your job is to not do so because only the true god CAN be used as god is to be used.

(( What they SHOULD have said, as an addendum, is that the "spirits" that you will see in the world around you can be used (listenned to) to learn from, but never worshipped as an authority because those spirits always have their own agenda, and will steer you into trouble if you allow them.


My theological understanding of the universe allows for the simultaneous existence of the Christian god with all the other deities of all the other pantheons (and NOT as aspects of said Christian god or as creations by man).

But do you understand WHY, to me, god (the true god) is entirely different in nature (god's nature is of an entirely different "realm") to ANY poly-god?

You don't need to accept it, but do you understand why I understand this the way I do?


Each pantheon/culture has their own creation story (even though we may have lost some of the tales), but it is possible to believe that each creation story is that culture's understanding of how things came to be in their area of the world, and does not preclude the existence of a different creation story in another area of the world.

ALL creation stories are stories. They are a fiction created by a culture.

It says much about the culture, but nothing about god.

They are "true" in that they are expressions of how a culture sees itself situated in the world.

But religion is not about stories. It is about how one uses the things of the world to be effective in the world. One group of those things are the "spirits" (the relationships of things and how they interact), and another is the concept of that-which-is-not-involved-in-the-things-of-the-world, which is a rather long way of saying god (mono-god).

What is the utility of the spirits? To use them to remain in the world as long as possible.

What is the utility of god? To use him to make the world a better place and as comfortable as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
I think you and I are using the word "aspects" differently. When I say it, I don't mean aspects like "Light", "Wind", "Rain", whatever. What I mean is that any given human being is going to perceive and interact with the divine differently. Some of us may see the divine as a single entity, and some may see it as many, depending on our own perception and interactions. Even if the divine is, as I believe, a single entity, there is nothing to suggest that a person could not have different interactions with that same entity which would lead them to believe there is more than one entity.

In other words, the experiences polytheists have with multiple deities/spirits/whatever you want to call them might be different (types of) interactions with the same entity.

It's a bit like the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Three blind men, who have never been able to see, are brought near to an elephant so that they can "see" it. One man comes towards it from the rear, and feels the tail of the creature. He calls out to the others, "This creature is much like a snake, with an end somewhat like the end of broom." The second approaches from the front, and ends up touching the ear. He calls out, "A snake? Nonsense. This creature is much like a giant fan. Amazing, really." The third approaches from the side, and touches the leg of the animal. He calls out, "It is neither of the two. This creature is much like a huge tree trunk."

Were any of them wrong? No, they were describing it as they could from their own interactions.

Now, extending the analogy, polytheists may recognize that there is a fan, a snake, and a tree trunk through their own interactions, but perceive these things as three separate entites, rather than simply being different interactions with the same entity. Others of us may recognize the fan, snake, and tree trunk, but we see them all as interactions with a whole that is greater than any one piece.

In the end, the two viewpoints are not irreconcialable, because we all interact with and perceive the divine differently.

You are not far off the mark about polytheism.

Many, possibly most, polytheistic religions assume the existence of a "supreme deity" or "supreme or universal spirit."

In some polytheist religions, this is thought of rather like the creator god in deism -- it created the universe, including all the gods, and then withdrew from any further interaction. Humans don't deal with it.

Fits with my ideas.


In other polytheist religions, the supreme spirit is present and active but cannot be perceived in its entirety, so either the human mind identifies as "gods" every little part of it that we do perceive, or else it manifests itself in different god-forms for the purpose of interacting with human minds on various subjects.

Doesn't fit with my ideas in that god (the true one) is not active post-creation, because god's only possible activity was "the creation".


My own belief system, animism, can fit with either view, depending on which animists you're talking to, but very few animist religions spend much time worrying about it either way, because animism isn't really concerned with such cosmological issues. It is concerned with matters of daily life in this world.

Well put. That is EXACTLY the use of the "spirits" (poly-gods).


To use a mundane analogy, it would be a waste of time to appeal to the President of the United States to get a local traffic light ordinance amended in your town. He's just going to refer you back to your local town council. Similarly, if what you need is a good wheat crop on your own farm, there is little point in bothering the infinite spirit of the universe about it when you could just deal with the spirit of the wheat itself for assistance

Kind of like, if you prayed to god for a good wheat crop, and god answered you, saying, "What are coming to me with this for? You want wheat to grow? Take it up with the wheat."

And how does an animist take it up with the wheat?

Does he "wish real hard", or does he listen to what the wheat/soil/weather/human-impact/etc say about the relationships between those spirits and the spirits of "good crop"-ness, and then do something concrete (real) with the physical conditions involved to get what he wants?

The effective animist is the one who listens well, learns the appropriate lessons, and makes a plan to implement what was learned to make the wheat grow better.

The charlatan "wishes and hopes".


This is why I sometimes get into wrangles with monotheists when I say things like "I can easily believe in the existence of God and Jesus and all the saints and angels, too, but I still don't worship them."

By "worship" you seem to mean "subserviate" yourself to them.

To not "worship" (your definition) them is therefore wise, because your conception of god and jesus is that they are each one of your poly-gods (spirits).

I don't worship Jesus, as Jesus is, indeed, a "spirit". I do listen to him though, as I listen to all spirits.

I *DO* worship god, though, because god is the only thing that can possibly be "subserviated" to without ANY fear of being taken advantage of.

Why? Because god asks nothing of you other than to use his creation (the world) as you wish, with the proviso that you will be judged on your actions (by yourself) at some point before your dissolution into him.


Some monotheists cannot accept that a person could believe in a god but not worship it. But the reason is, my spiritual concerns lie elsewhere.

"Worship" is a problematical word in animism. Sometimes it is appropriate to describe the way animists relate to spirits as "worship," but many other times it is not. Most of the time, the relationship is not "worshipful" but, rather, is an interaction, sometimes even a transaction, between equals, just like between two human beings.

And that is PRECISELY how one should relate to all spirits..! Excellent..!


There are also somewhat subtle distinctions between the concepts of "god(s)" and "spirits." They are not always the same thing. There are so many details of difference like this that it is why I get annoyed when people just assume they know all about my beliefs without asking any questions about them.

You are very wise, and exceptionally so if you can see not only why using the spirits, and gods, wisely and effectively according to their function is good, but can also see why using god (singular) wisely and effectively according to his function is a good thing.

I do not believe in "the christian god". I believe in god. Period.

This makes me a complete heretic in many ways, of course, which is fine with me, as heretics are not treated OVERLY badly where I'm located at the moment, and even if they were I wouldn't change my beliefs because of it but might be a bit more quiet about it..! :)

My interpretation of your "(loose) quotation" above is that of a culture who had some inkling of what monotheism meant but had to explain some rather complex information to their populus regarding the "other gods" (of the polytheists) problem.

They were saying, "There is only one god, and it is the one that we believe in, but others will insist that the things that they worship are of the same nature as our "true" god, and they will tempt you to worship their "gods" because doing so might get you some advantage, but your job is to not do so because only the true god CAN be used as god is to be used.

(( What they SHOULD have said, as an addendum, is that the "spirits" that you will see in the world around you can be used (listenned to) to learn from, but never worshipped as an authority because those spirits always have their own agenda, and will steer you into trouble if you allow them.



But do you understand WHY, to me, god (the true god) is entirely different in nature (god's nature is of an entirely different "realm") to ANY poly-god?

You don't need to accept it, but do you understand why I understand this the way I do?



ALL creation stories are stories. They are a fiction created by a culture.

It says much about the culture, but nothing about god.

They are "true" in that they are expressions of how a culture sees itself situated in the world.

But religion is not about stories. It is about how one uses the things of the world to be effective in the world. One group of those things are the "spirits" (the relationships of things and how they interact), and another is the concept of that-which-is-not-involved-in-the-things-of-the-world, which is a rather long way of saying god (mono-god).

What is the utility of the spirits? To use them to remain in the world as long as possible.

What is the utility of god? To use him to make the world a better place and as comfortable as possible.


Yes, I do understand why and how you believe the way you do. I also think it's a very positive belief system to have and something I can definately respect (not that those two things really have anything to do with the discussion).

Rather than the Christian god, it seems that what you're getting at is what many of my eclectic Pagan friends call the "Supreme Being" or "Universal Spirit" which is a singular entity that underlies all things and is completely unknowable in its nature.

To an extent I agree with the existence of an underlying force behind all things that connects all things (I guess it would be appropriate to call it "the created"), however I believe it is on a different (but not necessarily higher or lower) level than the gods (maybe it's more appropriate to say it's a different plane of existence).

If we are thinking in literal terms, then I agree that there is no reason at all why multiple gods cannot exist simultaneously, even when only one of them is being worshipped. It would be like suggesting that, if my friend Robert exists, then your friends Jason, Peter, and Monica cannot also exist.

But Robert, Jason, Peter, and Monica are all of the same "type".

The point is that, by definition, god (mono-god) is not in ANY WAY like one of the poly-gods.

The poly-gods DO exist, but they are no more related as to type to god as an apple, an orange, a pear, and a bannana are related in type to the "center of gravity of the universe".

God is not a special-case version of a poly-god.


As for the modern monotheistic claim that only their god exists, well, even in the great ancient polytheist societies, many sects and cults claimed that their god was the only god and all those others were mere delusions or fakes. It's hardly a convincing argument outside the specific group.

Once again, the point of monotheism is NOT that their cultic god (spirit) is the only REAL one,.. it is that there is only one thing that can be described AS god, by definition.

Those monotheists who say that poly-gods are not real are WRONG. They do not understand that poly-gods are entirely different from god, and continue to deny (rghtly) that any god could be like their god (the god).

It's entirely circular logic, but this is the one place where circular logic is actually useful.

Yes, I do understand why and how you believe the way you do. I also think it's a very positive belief system to have and something I can definately respect (not that those two things really have anything to do with the discussion).

Sensible beings, such as ourselves, will always find that they agree on much more than they disagree.


Rather than the Christian god, it seems that what you're getting at is what many of my eclectic Pagan friends call the "Supreme Being" or "Universal Spirit" which is a singular entity that underlies all things and is completely unknowable in its nature.

If you believe that the universe has ANY coherence to it at all, then eventually you'll be driven to either believe or violently deny that there is a singular ineffable god (the mono-god), because of the need to describe "the that which is not there".


To an extent I agree with the existence of an underlying force behind all things that connects all things (I guess it would be appropriate to call it "the created"), however I believe it is on a different (but not necessarily higher or lower) level than the gods (maybe it's more appropriate to say it's a different plane of existence).

God is not a force, though.

God is the non-force that is implied by all the other forces. Forces are representations of the interactions between the things of the world. The only place that there is no force is the non-place called god.

And what is the use of this non-place of no force that we call god?

It is simply an example of ultimate reconcilliation based on ultimate knowledge (everything knowable is considered, by definition) that is the image of "forgiveness" that allows temporal pain (conflict) to be endured because of the realization of the inevitable "end".

God is indeed on a "different plane" as regards the poly-gods because of his more real but less possible "thought picture", as opposed to the poly-gods less real but more possible "thought picture" in people's minds.

God (mono-god) cannot be proved to either exist of not exist, for lack of a means to do so. (You can't prove the existence, one way or the other, of something with NO CHARACTERISTICS!)

Poly-gods can be proved to not exist because there are ways to do so. (They possess characteristics that can be verified.)

Sensible beings, such as ourselves, will always find that they agree on much more than they disagree.

If you believe that the universe has ANY coherence to it at all, then eventually you'll be driven to either believe or violently deny that there is a singular ineffable god (the mono-god), because of the need to describe "the that which is not there".

God is not a force, though.

God is the non-force that is implied by all the other forces. Forces are representations of the interactions between the things of the world. The only place that there is no force is the non-place called god.

And what is the use of this non-place of no force that we call god?

It is simply an example of ultimate reconcilliation based on ultimate knowledge (everything knowable is considered, by definition) that is the image of "forgiveness" that allows temporal pain (conflict) to be endured because of the realization of the inevitable "end".

God is indeed on a "different plane" as regards the poly-gods because of his more real but less possible "thought picture", as opposed to the poly-gods less real but more possible "thought picture" in people's minds.

God (mono-god) cannot be proved to either exist of not exist, for lack of a means to do so. (You can't prove the existence, one way or the other, of something with NO CHARACTERISTICS!)

Poly-gods can be proved to not exist because there are ways to do so. (They possess characteristics that can be verified.)

force was likely a poor word choice. Perhaps I would have been more accurate to say "entity" or something else similar.

Personally I don't think "poly-gods" can be proved or disproved (much for the same reasons as the Christian god cannot be proved or disproved)

I don't think that's necessarily true. In Ireland, for example, there are many, many tribal deities that were not worshiped over the entire island. I don't see any references in the extant texts that suggest that those living in Munster denied the existence of the deities of the tribes of Leinster (to grossly oversimplify the ancient boundaries). Surely there were wars between these people, and the gods may have been involved, but when Brighid appears above the army of Leinster (she was one of their ancient tribal dieties - going back to the Brigantes) during battle, the army of Munster is not going to say "Oh she doesn't exist".

This is not to suggest that it *never* happened (there are people who act that way today, so I am sure there were people who acted like that then), but that it may not be as wide an opinion as it seems you are suggesting. Maybe it would help me out if you could give some stories or references that illustrate what you're talking about.
I did not mean to suggest that it was widespread. I know that the Celts and Northern European tribes did not do this at all. Also, neither ancient nor modern polytheists in Asia or South America do it, but some ancient Egyptians did, and not just the "heretic pharoah" Akhnaten. Some of the Mesopotamian cults left documents with such claims as well. It was unusual, but it did happen, usually in association with feuds between city-states, in which such claims seem like a kind of propaganda. Interestingly, these were in the same part of the world that eventually gave us monotheism. Go figure. Maybe it was the first hint of a long-term trend.

I did not mean to suggest that it was widespread. I know that the Celts and Northern European tribes did not do this at all. Also, neither ancient nor modern polytheists in Asia or South America do it, but some ancient Egyptians did, and not just the "heretic pharoah" Akhnaten. Some of the Mesopotamian cults left documents with such claims as well. It was unusual, but it did happen, usually in association with feuds between city-states, in which such claims seem like a kind of propaganda. Interestingly, these were in the same part of the world that eventually gave us monotheism. Go figure. Maybe it was the first hint of a long-term trend.

Thanks for the clarification, I am infinitely less familiar with that area of the world than I would like to be. :)

<snip>

What is the utility of the spirits? To use them to remain in the world as long as possible.

What is the utility of god? To use him to make the world a better place and as comfortable as possible.

Right here, out of your whole post, is the problem I am having with you.

You clearly do not know what the "utility" of the concepts of someone else's religion is. You only know your own beliefs. You have a believer in spirits right here in the thread. Do you ask her what spirits or gods are for in her belief system? No, you do not. All you talk about is your own belief system, but you frame your remarks in such a way that you project them onto my belief system. You presume to tell me that this is what my beliefs mean, when in fact, you are just talking about yourself.

I wouldn't mind, if you would just admit it and quit pretending that you know anything at all, or even care about what other people believe.

Fits with my ideas.
That's nice.

Doesn't fit with my ideas in that god (the true one) is not active post-creation, because god's only possible activity was "the creation".
Oh, well.

Well put. That is EXACTLY the use of the "spirits" (poly-gods).
I'm so glad that you approve of my answer. :rolleyes:

And how does an animist take it up with the wheat?

Does he "wish real hard", or does he listen to what the wheat/soil/weather/human-impact/etc say about the relationships between those spirits and the spirits of "good crop"-ness, and then do something concrete (real) with the physical conditions involved to get what he wants?

The effective animist is the one who listens well, learns the appropriate lessons, and makes a plan to implement what was learned to make the wheat grow better.

The charlatan "wishes and hopes".
Who do you think you are to tell an animist what an "effective animist" is or does? Who do you think you are to pass judgment on the "effectiveness" of any kind or form of religious ritual outside of the religion you yourself practice? Hm?

Do you start to see where you go wrong in your conversations with others? Can you even see the condescending assumptions in your own statements? I realize you are trying to be nice, but you're not succeeding. Please stop telling me what my religion is about.

As it happens, the form of ritual varies tremendously from one group of animists to another, and even from one individual animist to another. Animism values personal experiences and personal interactions, and that is why there is no such thing as an animist scripture or liturgy. Traditional rituals are just that -- traditions, maintained only within a given community or even just one family. And new rituals and prayers are made up all the time, on the spur of the moment. They are only remembered if someone bothers to write them down.

By "worship" you seem to mean "subserviate" yourself to them.
No, that is not what I mean.

By "worship" I was thinking of adoration of a divine spirit in prayer or meditation, focusing on the divine nature of the god and nothing else. Animists do that for some gods, but not usually to the extent that, say, monotheists do.

To not "worship" (your definition) them is therefore wise, because your conception of god and jesus is that they are each one of your poly-gods (spirits).

I don't worship Jesus, as Jesus is, indeed, a "spirit". I do listen to him though, as I listen to all spirits.

I *DO* worship god, though, because god is the only thing that can possibly be "subserviated" to without ANY fear of being taken advantage of.

Why? Because god asks nothing of you other than to use his creation (the world) as you wish, with the proviso that you will be judged on your actions (by yourself) at some point before your dissolution into him.
That's nice.

And that is PRECISELY how one should relate to all spirits..! Excellent..!
:rolleyes:

You are very wise, and exceptionally so if you can see not only why using the spirits, and gods, wisely and effectively according to their function is good, but can also see why using god (singular) wisely and effectively according to his function is a good thing.
I do not make assessments of my own level of wisdom because I am not an impartial judge of it, but I hope I am at least wise enough not to tell people what their religions are about or what the nature of their relationships to their gods is.

I understand how you are using the words "use" and "function," but they are not appropriate in describing the way animism works.

I do not "use" either spirits or gods any more than I "use" people. I do not assume that spirits or gods have a "function" that I can "use" them for. In my wheat spirit example (for example), the animist is not "using" the wheat spirit to get a good crop. The animist is asking the wheat spirit to assist in the growth of his crop. The wheat spirit is under no obligation to give that help. It is especially not obligated to do so if the animist farmer offers to do none of the related work himself or offers the spirit nothing in return for its efforts. It works exactly the same as dealing with people. You can ask a plumber to fix your faucet, but you are going to have agree to pay him first, and wait for him to fit it into his schedule, and be prepared for trouble if you don't come through with the payment on demand. And if you gave the slightest hint to the plumber that you were "using" him according to his proper "function," he would likely, probably rightly, take offense and quit the job.

In animism, spirits and gods do not exist to serve people. They exist for their own sakes, just as we do, and they have their own lives and their own interests. If you want something from them, you must ask for it, and be prepared to pay the favor back. The animistic cosmos is a cooperative one, in which every being, both physical and metaphysical, is either benefitted or harmed by the actions of others as we all go about our own affairs. It's all about interactions and relationships, and one of the highest regarded virtues is to be considerate of others.

Each pantheon/culture has their own creation story.
Not really. The Judeo-Christians just stole theirs from everybody around them.

But Robert, Jason, Peter, and Monica are all of the same "type".

The point is that, by definition, god (mono-god) is not in ANY WAY like one of the poly-gods.

The poly-gods DO exist, but they are no more related as to type to god as an apple, an orange, a pear, and a bannana are related in type to the "center of gravity of the universe".

God is not a special-case version of a poly-god.



Once again, the point of monotheism is NOT that their cultic god (spirit) is the only REAL one,.. it is that there is only one thing that can be described AS god, by definition.

Those monotheists who say that poly-gods are not real are WRONG. They do not understand that poly-gods are entirely different from god, and continue to deny (rghtly) that any god could be like their god (the god).

It's entirely circular logic, but this is the one place where circular logic is actually useful.
And once again, this is nothing but YOUR point of view, YOUR definition of "god," YOUR concept of "god," "divinity," "deity." It has nothing at all to do with the views of other people which we have been trying to explain. It's still all about you.

EDIT: This post is a little harsher than this specific set of remarks from you deserves. The thing that is bothering me is that you are not allowing anyone to postulate an understanding of the nature of god that differs from your own in any way at all. In insisting on your own definition of god, you are not really addressing what other people say about their own beliefs. You are redefining other people's beliefs to suit your own definition of god. This is a particular kind of inconsiderateness that I cannot stand.

Not really. The Judeo-Christians just stole theirs from everybody around them.

Well, in fairness, so did the Romans.

Well, in fairness, so did the Romans.

Yes, but nobody online has tried to convince me of the truth of the gospel of Jupiter.

You are not far off the mark about polytheism.

Many, possibly most, polytheistic religions assume the existence of a "supreme deity" or "supreme or universal spirit."

In some polytheist religions, this is thought of rather like the creator god in deism -- it created the universe, including all the gods, and then withdrew from any further interaction. Humans don't deal with it.

In other polytheist religions, the supreme spirit is present and active but cannot be perceived in its entirety, so either the human mind identifies as "gods" every little part of it that we do perceive, or else it manifests itself in different god-forms for the purpose of interacting with human minds on various subjects.

The latter probably comes closest to my view (despite me not being a polytheist myself). I think there is a single divine entity, but that we all interact with it differently. We all perceive those interactions differently. We all interpret them through our own viewpoints, cultures, etc. Because of this, some of us feel that we are interacting with a single entity. Some feel that there are multiple entities they have interacted with. Some, as you said, recognize differen't "gods", but see them all as part of a whole. And some do not think they have interacted with anything divine at all.

While I may think I am closer to the truth than another, I would never feel comfortable telling someone else that they are *wrong* in their religious viewpoints. I do not know what experiences of the divine they have had or what things in their lives have led them to interpret those experiences the way they have.

And, in the end, I think it is the spiritual path that is important, much more so than the destination. I think it is the search for the divine and our place in the world - interacting with each other, the world, and the divine - that is important.

"Worship" is a problematical word in animism. Sometimes it is appropriate to describe the way animists relate to spirits as "worship," but many other times it is not. Most of the time, the relationship is not "worshipful" but, rather, is an interaction, sometimes even a transaction, between equals, just like between two human beings. There are also somewhat subtle distinctions between the concepts of "god(s)" and "spirits." They are not always the same thing. There are so many details of difference like this that it is why I get annoyed when people just assume they know all about my beliefs without asking any questions about them.

Interesting. But if a god is simply an equal, what makes that entity a god? Or is "god" not given the same level of importance in this system as in many others?

To someone who sees god as "above" humanity, the idea of bartering as equals sounds a bit like (although it doesn't fit exactly) a peasant trying to barter with a king as if they have the same level of influence and power.


This is where I am CONTINUALLY misunderstood.

God, as an entity, is not perceptable IN ANY WAY because he has no characteristics, and the human mind requires a thing to have characteristics to be perceived.

This is your opinion. Personally, if I could not perceive God in any way, if God did not interact with me in any way, I would have absolutely no reason to believe in God. In a world where human beings have no interaction with God, there is no need for God to even exist. God may or may not exist, but it would be utterly useless to worry about it.

That is the very meaning of INEFFABLE, and why god is always described as ineffable in REAL monotheism.

I'm beginning to see why Muravyets is getting frustrated with you. Who are you to tell me that my religion isn't "REAL monotheism." I believe that there is a *single* God. That is the very definition of monotheism. There is nothing that requires me to believe that said God has no interaction whatsoever with God's creation.

It is a required circular logic that monotheism is based upon:

"God is god, and the only (monotheistic) god, because he is ineffable, and being ineffable he is the singular and only (monotheistic) god because there can not be any distinction between any two ineffable things (gods in this case)."

There is no reason that this is required for monotheism. It's like saying, "My mother is my only mother, because she is ineffable, and being ineffable, she is my only mother, because there cannot be any distinction between two ineffable things."

Problem is, I don't need the "ineffable" description to explain why I only have one mother. I also don't need it to explain why there is only one God.

Yes, but nobody online has tried to convince me of the truth of the gospel of Jupiter.

Point taken. :)

The latter probably comes closest to my view (despite me not being a polytheist myself). I think there is a single divine entity, but that we all interact with it differently. We all perceive those interactions differently. We all interpret them through our own viewpoints, cultures, etc. Because of this, some of us feel that we are interacting with a single entity. Some feel that there are multiple entities they have interacted with. Some, as you said, recognize differen't "gods", but see them all as part of a whole. And some do not think they have interacted with anything divine at all.
I also take the latter view of multiple, recognizable manifestations of a whole that cannot otherwise be perceived. But when I think about what I believe in as the divine universal spirit, I morph into somewhat of a pantheist -- not difficult for an animist. I see all manifestations, including ordinary objects, creatures, and human beings too, as manifestations of the spirit that is -- how can I say this? -- the soul of the infinite universe. To me, everything that exists is part of that. Very pantheistic, yes?

But I can't think that way all the time. For some reason, I just don't really feel all that interested in the "soul of the infinite universe." It informs my spiritual cosmology, but it has little to do with the decisions I have to make in life, about how I'm going to live, judging between right and wrong, and so on. So I tend to be more involved intellectually with these concepts of "manifestations."

While I may think I am closer to the truth than another, I would never feel comfortable telling someone else that they are *wrong* in their religious viewpoints. I do not know what experiences of the divine they have had or what things in their lives have led them to interpret those experiences the way they have.

And, in the end, I think it is the spiritual path that is important, much more so than the destination. I think it is the search for the divine and our place in the world - interacting with each other, the world, and the divine - that is important.
I agree completely.

Interesting. But if a god is simply an equal, what makes that entity a god? Or is "god" not given the same level of importance in this system as in many others?

To someone who sees god as "above" humanity, the idea of bartering as equals sounds a bit like (although it doesn't fit exactly) a peasant trying to barter with a king as if they have the same level of influence and power.
This is where animism gets a little complicated. I'm going to have to go round and round the houses for a bit to get to the point of your question. I will give you first the Short Answer, and then the Long Answer. This way you'll have the option of not wading through it all, if you don't want to. :)

First, a disclaimer: Animism is so person and group specific that no set of beliefs is completely common to all animist religions, except the common belief in spirits and souls. Some animists don't believe in gods. Some animists argue over whether souls are immortal or not. Some animists are also monotheists (you can do that in animism; explanation below).

OK, that said: SHORT ANSWER:
No, animism does not place the same importance on the concept of "god(s)" as other belief systems do.

Animists do not have the same tiered relationship with their gods that exists between Christians and their god. Animists approach gods with reverence and respect for who and what they are, but we approach the people we love and admire, our parents, our teachers, the same way. Does that place the parent or teacher "above" the child or student? No, it's not the same thing. All entities that have souls are equal on that level.

That is why animists can believe in the existence of gods but not worship them. The mere existence of a god does not automatically demand worship because it really is not that different from you, fundamentally. It is only if you wish to become a devotee of a particular god that you begin to worship it, and you do so in the way that best pleases that god.


LONG ANSWER (repeats some of the info above but explains about spirits and souls):
There are "spirits" and there are "gods" and there are also things that are not quite either; for want of a better term let's call them "beings," which includes people, animals, and objects in the world. The differences between these categories are somewhat fluid.

To simplify, spirits are non-corporeal essences that may (or may not) take the form of a perfect or outstanding example of whatever it is they represent -- pine trees, moonlight, water, etc -- or are the manifest souls of outstanding specimens of things -- a city, a particular cave or ocean rock, and so on. There are, potentially, an infinite number of spirits to be encountered in the universe. They may be big or small, weak or powerful; they are as variable as people.

Gods are very powerful spirits that typically are in charge of primary life forces in both the physical world (gods of the sun, moon, ocean, etc) and non-physical worlds (gods of life, death, wisdom, etc).

Beings are anything that has a soul. Animist religions differ as to the universality of souls. Some say that very primitive creatures do not have souls. Some say objects like rocks do not have souls. Some say everything has a soul down to a single blade of grass, and even some man-made objects. I personally subscribe to that last idea.

Now. All of the classes of entities have souls -- spirits, gods and beings. So to this extent, all are equal. However, not every ensouled entity is of equal power or capability. A single human being is not as powerful as the spirits of the ocean or the earth, for instance. But that does not mean that the spirits are "better" than the human, qualitatively. For all the things the ocean can do that a human can't, there are just as valuable things that a human can do that the ocean can't. Every entity is capable of benefitting others.

Nevertheless, by communing with or contemplating the form of a spirit, the animist can open his or her mind to an understanding of that spirit and through it of his or her own spiritual essence, by responding to the spirit's beauty and power and finding inner similarities. Shinto, in particular, has raised this kind of mindful communing to a cultural artform in Japan.

However, this kind of communing is a private moment between the animist and a spirit. More often, and more publicly, animism is about active interaction with the spirits. You conduct rituals to keep in a harmonious mental relationship to your local volcano or river or desert or city or tornado season. You maintain harmonious mental relationships with the spirits of your ancestors. There is a constant give and take of benefits between visible and invisible realities, each associated with at least some little ritual or taboo, depending on the given community, and all focused around keeping the good times rolling, because animism starts from the assumption that life and the world are good and that misfortune comes from a lack of harmony.

And because the interaction is so dynamic, the different categories of entities sometimes overlap each other. A soul may take the form of a being or a spirit at various points in the never-ending cycle of life and time, sometimes separated by the transitions of life and death, sometimes simultaneously. In some cases, it may even take the form of a god.

So, with so much activity going on and so many possibilities available, even accounting for the different levels of power and spiritual development, can we really say that the gods are "above" people in animist beliefs?

It is not the same tiered relationship that exists between Christians and their god. Animists approach gods with reverence and respect for who and what they are, but we approach the people we love and admire, our parents, our teachers, the same way. Does that place the parent or teacher "above" the child or student? No, it's not the same thing. All entities that have souls are equal on that level.

That is why animists can believe in the existence of gods but not worship them. The mere existence of a god does not automatically demand worship because it really is not that different from you, fundamentally. It is only if you wish to become a devotee of a particular god that you begin to worship it, and you do so in the way that best pleases that god.

And that, finally, is why it is possible, from the animist point of view, to be both an animist and a Christian or Muslim at the same time. The animist-Christian, for instance, still believes in the spirits for the same reason he still believes in other people, and still has relationships with them the same way, too. He also continues to believe in the existence of other gods, but he chooses to worship only the Christian God and his son/prophet Jesus, and does so using the Bible.

Now, most monotheists would object that this means he's not a monotheist, but the animist in question would not have a problem with that. He is an animist who chooses to worship the Christian God to the exclusion of all other gods. The spirits are not gods and what he is doing with them is not worship. Many Christian missionaries in animist parts of the world have run into this mindset. There are whole handbooks for them about dealing with it.

Not really. The Judeo-Christians just stole theirs from everybody around them.

yes, cultural borrowing is part of the equation (and really just goes to my point that not everyone was going "my gods are the only ones that exist nyah!)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Sensible beings, such as ourselves, will always find that they agree on much more than they disagree.

If you believe that the universe has ANY coherence to it at all, then eventually you'll be driven to either believe or violently deny that there is a singular ineffable god (the mono-god), because of the need to describe "the that which is not there".

God is not a force, though.

God is the non-force that is implied by all the other forces. Forces are representations of the interactions between the things of the world. The only place that there is no force is the non-place called god.

And what is the use of this non-place of no force that we call god?

It is simply an example of ultimate reconcilliation based on ultimate knowledge (everything knowable is considered, by definition) that is the image of "forgiveness" that allows temporal pain (conflict) to be endured because of the realization of the inevitable "end".

God is indeed on a "different plane" as regards the poly-gods because of his more real but less possible "thought picture", as opposed to the poly-gods less real but more possible "thought picture" in people's minds.

God (mono-god) cannot be proved to either exist of not exist, for lack of a means to do so. (You can't prove the existence, one way or the other, of something with NO CHARACTERISTICS!)

Poly-gods can be proved to not exist because there are ways to do so. (They possess characteristics that can be verified.)

force was likely a poor word choice. Perhaps I would have been more accurate to say "entity" or something else similar.

Personally I don't think "poly-gods" can be proved or disproved (much for the same reasons as the Christian god cannot be proved or disproved)

It's EASIER (or more likely) to disprove something that HAS characteristics than something that has NO characteristics. That's my point.

There's simply nothing there to prove or disprove the mono-god exists. Which, of course, those who choose to believe in mono-god COULD (perversely perhaps) take as PROOF that he DOES exist because a thing that could so successfully HIDE all his "characteristics" must be "god the only and super-duper powerful".

I think that's a perverse "proof" because it gives god the characteristic of "hiding things", which violates my basic premise that he HAS NO characteristics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
<snip>

What is the utility of the spirits? To use them to remain in the world as long as possible.

What is the utility of god? To use him to make the world a better place and as comfortable as possible.


Right here, out of your whole post, is the problem I am having with you.

You clearly do not know what the "utility" of the concepts of someone else's religion is. You only know your own beliefs. You have a believer in spirits right here in the thread. Do you ask her what spirits or gods are for in her belief system? No, you do not. All you talk about is your own belief system, but you frame your remarks in such a way that you project them onto my belief system.

My question to her would be, "What does your interaction with your gods/spirits bring you?"

If it was important for her to have me know what "utility" (use/purpose) her gods provided to her, I would expect that she'd let me know about it.

Those two "utilities" above ARE my conceptions of the difference in use of the poly-gods versus the mono-god.


You presume to tell me that this is what my beliefs mean, when in fact, you are just talking about yourself.

Of course they are me talking about my beliefs.

I can't very well speak for someone else.

I don't presume to tell you what your beliefs mean. I will tell you what I think what has been presented (by you and others) means to me, though.


I wouldn't mind, if you would just admit it and quit pretending that you know anything at all, or even care about what other people believe.

I do care what others believe, and they are more than welcome to believe as they wish.

The fact that you might be feeling a bit "persecuted" for me explaining a way that what-SEEM-to-be your beliefs in such a way that might be "uncomfortably plausible" to you, tells me only that you night not be entirely convinced of your own reasoning as to the basis of your beliefs.

Which is fine..! I'm not trying to change your beliefs. Just interested in clarifying my own with the assistance of someone like yourself who holds (aparently) different beliefs.

Thanks for the opportunity! :)

I don't understand it. Why do people insist that they should do things regardless of morality because: "God demands it!"


Slobodan Milosevic, the architect of the Yugoslav Civil War that killed a million or more people, told all Orthodox Serbs to take up arms with him to kill all non Christians in Yugoslavia.

Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!

And even still as I look through these forums I saw someone mention something about one should not question what their Pastor or whatever says, because it is gods will. Do they not realize that this is not what "God" wants, but rather said Pastor manipulating them to do things like this???


(That being said, I am not very religious.....at all...)

I don't get your point, you are asking why some people are fundamentalists yet you only highlight the most extreme of all extremes of fundamentalism. Do you assume that all fundamentalists think the same way they do?

I don't understand it. Why do people insist that they should do things regardless of morality because: "God demands it!"


Slobodan Milosevic, the architect of the Yugoslav Civil War that killed a million or more people, told all Orthodox Serbs to take up arms with him to kill all non Christians in Yugoslavia.

Pope Urban II commanded all Christians to go to Jerusalem to "Kill for Jesus", and even launched a Crusade of children!!!

And even still as I look through these forums I saw someone mention something about one should not question what their Pastor or whatever says, because it is gods will. Do they not realize that this is not what "God" wants, but rather said Pastor manipulating them to do things like this???


(That being said, I am not very religious.....at all...)


Uh dude, your confusing roman catholosism and "Serbian Orthodox" with modern christian... Thats like saying "Islam is evil and wrong beacuse Osama ordered atacks on the world trade centers in the name of Islam." No, Islamic facism, a sect of Islam was behind that. Before you start making your seccular accusations, please actually study the religion you sh*t on.

As for the pastor manipulating, its a matter of faith. In which you have none. You generalize on christians based on the Catholic church of the middle ages?

Im awading you, my daily "your a F*cking idiot award". congrats. Have a soda.

Quote:
And how does an animist take it up with the wheat?

Does he "wish real hard", or does he listen to what the wheat/soil/weather/human-impact/etc say about the relationships between those spirits and the spirits of "good crop"-ness, and then do something concrete (real) with the physical conditions involved to get what he wants?

The effective animist is the one who listens well, learns the appropriate lessons, and makes a plan to implement what was learned to make the wheat grow better.

The charlatan "wishes and hopes".

Who do you think you are to tell an animist what an "effective animist" is or does? Who do you think you are to pass judgment on the "effectiveness" of any kind or form of religious ritual outside of the religion you yourself practice? Hm?

Don't take my ramblings so personally. I toss my thinking out there, and you're free to do with them what you will.

To answer the question(s), though:

Effectiveness is the ability to to actually do what you want to do.

If the goal is "A", and you can do "A", then you're effective in being an "A'er".

What is the goal of an animist in regards to "the wheat crop"..?

I'm not judging the VALUE of "a religion" or the practitioner per se, simply the effectiveness of the "technology" of the religion as it pertains to the goal sought.


Do you start to see where you go wrong in your conversations with others? Can you even see the condescending assumptions in your own statements? I realize you are trying to be nice, but you're not succeeding. Please stop telling me what my religion is about.

I'm not telling you what your religion is about. I'm telling you what my conception of what your religion is, or could be, effective in DOING in the real world.

My statements are not condescending, unless you take them to be such.

And I'm also not trying to be nice. I'm trying to be informative, and informative of WHAT I THINK of the subject matter we're discussing.

That way, perhaps, we can learn from each other. I've learned a good bit from you.


As it happens, the form of ritual varies tremendously from one group of animists to another, and even from one individual animist to another.

Of course it does. The issue isn't that I'm "attacking" animistic belief and ritual (in particular or in general), as the animistic belief systems and corresponding rituals are VERY useful within society and personally, but that I will always JUDGE the effectiveness of ANY belief or ritual by what it chooses to try to affect (it's goal) and how well it achieves that affect.


Animism values personal experiences and personal interactions, and that is why there is no such thing as an animist scripture or liturgy. Traditional rituals are just that -- traditions, maintained only within a given community or even just one family. And new rituals and prayers are made up all the time, on the spur of the moment. They are only remembered if someone bothers to write them down.


Exactly. And that makes those "scriptures", however temporary and flexible in nature, MORE powerful and appropriate for the (usually smallish) group that they "represent".

"You just don't get it, do you? You just don't."

My question to her would be, "What does your interaction with your gods/spirits bring you?"

If it was important for her to have me know what "utility" (use/purpose) her gods provided to her, I would expect that she'd let me know about it.

Those two "utilities" above ARE my conceptions of the difference in use of the poly-gods versus the mono-god.
YOUR conception of such things as "poly-gods" and a "mono-god" and YOUR conceptions of such things as "utility" are nothing but that -- YOUR conceptions. They have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to how the other person defines their conceptions.

All you have been doing in this so-called conversation is taking what other people say they think and believe, recasting it into the mold of what you think or believe, and then telling the other person that they are wrong because they aren't conforming to your beliefs.

That is not listening. It is not attempting to learn about others. It isn't even expressing interest in what others have to say. It's more like saying, "Let's talk about you. Here, I'll explain what you're all about and tell you how you are wrong about yourself."

Of course they are me talking about my beliefs.

I can't very well speak for someone else.

I don't presume to tell you what your beliefs mean. I will tell you what I think what has been presented (by you and others) means to me, though.
So, when you say that other people's descriptions of what they worship is wrong because they don't understand what a god really is or what it's for, and then you go on to tell them what god really is and what "REAL monotheism" is and how their beliefs fit into it, even though they don't know it, that's not telling them what their beliefs mean? :rolleyes:

I do care what others believe, and they are more than welcome to believe as they wish.
So then why can't you accept their terms and explanations for what they believe, rather than trying to force them fit your preconceptions all the time?

The fact that you might be feeling a bit "persecuted" for me explaining a way that what-SEEM-to-be your beliefs in such a way that might be "uncomfortably plausible" to you, tells me only that you night not be entirely convinced of your own reasoning as to the basis of your beliefs.
Bite me, you condescending, self-centered twerp.

Which is fine..! I'm not trying to change your beliefs. Just interested in clarifying my own with the assistance of someone like yourself who holds (aparently) different beliefs.

Thanks for the opportunity! :)
Clarify your beliefs on your own time. I don't work for you and my religion does not exist to help you sort yourself out.

I also take the latter view of multiple, recognizable manifestations of a whole that cannot otherwise be perceived. But when I think about what I believe in as the divine universal spirit, I morph into somewhat of a pantheist -- not difficult for an animist. I see all manifestations, including ordinary objects, creatures, and human beings too, as manifestations of the spirit that is -- how can I say this? -- the soul of the infinite universe. To me, everything that exists is part of that. Very pantheistic, yes?

I've heard this viewpoint before. It certainly resonates with me, but I can't say that it is "right" or "wrong". The idea that the divine can be found in all of nature, including our own existence, is one that has always appealed to me.

*snip*

I did read all of it, and I find it very interesting, but I'm not going to quote the entire thing here. Just one thing:


Animists do not have the same tiered relationship with their gods that exists between Christians and their god. Animists approach gods with reverence and respect for who and what they are, but we approach the people we love and admire, our parents, our teachers, the same way. Does that place the parent or teacher "above" the child or student? No, it's not the same thing. All entities that have souls are equal on that level.

Now. All of the classes of entities have souls -- spirits, gods and beings. So to this extent, all are equal. However, not every ensouled entity is of equal power or capability. A single human being is not as powerful as the spirits of the ocean or the earth, for instance. But that does not mean that the spirits are "better" than the human, qualitatively. For all the things the ocean can do that a human can't, there are just as valuable things that a human can do that the ocean can't. Every entity is capable of benefitting others.

So, with so much activity going on and so many possibilities available, even accounting for the different levels of power and spiritual development, can we really say that the gods are "above" people in animist beliefs?

First of all, I think "above" may not be the word I was looking for, although I don't really know what the word I am looking for is. I tend to approach my mother, aunts, teachers, etc. differently than my immediate peers because I think they often have a wisdom I lack - I can learn from them and their guidance will be useful to me.

I approach God in a fairly similar manner, with one caveat - I don't think there is anything that God is unable to do, anything that God does not know. While you speak of a spirit or god of the ocean which can do things you cannot and cannot do things that you can, I think of God as being able to do everything. There is nothing I can give or do for God (beyond my own love and reverence, perhaps) that God cannot obtain without me.

Maybe the difference here is that I am *am* concerned with that "soul of the universe," as it were, because I feel that is going to the "source" more than going to certain aspects or manifestations of that entity. Does that make any sense at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
But Robert, Jason, Peter, and Monica are all of the same "type".

The point is that, by definition, god (mono-god) is not in ANY WAY like one of the poly-gods.

The poly-gods DO exist, but they are no more related as to type to god as an apple, an orange, a pear, and a bannana are related in type to the "center of gravity of the universe".

God is not a special-case version of a poly-god.

Once again, the point of monotheism is NOT that their cultic god (spirit) is the only REAL one,.. it is that there is only one thing that can be described AS god, by definition.

Those monotheists who say that poly-gods are not real are WRONG. They do not understand that poly-gods are entirely different from god, and continue to deny (rghtly) that any god could be like their god (the god).

It's entirely circular logic, but this is the one place where circular logic is actually useful.

And once again, this is nothing but YOUR point of view, YOUR definition of "god," YOUR concept of "god," "divinity," "deity." It has nothing at all to do with the views of other people which we have been trying to explain. It's still all about you.

Once again, for the forteen thousandths time, I can only speak from my own point of view. Of course the above is "my point of view".

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, and you're more than welcome to express your thoughts.


EDIT: This post is a little harsher than this specific set of remarks from you deserves. The thing that is bothering me is that you are not allowing anyone to postulate an understanding of the nature of god that differs from your own in any way at all.

How am I stopping anyone from "postulating and understanding of the nature of god" that differs from mine?

Which scenario seems more "polite":

1) I give you my thoughts. You object that my thoughts aren't "everyone's" thoughts and are only expressive of "the speakers" opinion. I respond that you're perfectly correct, but that my job is to express MY opinions about the subject matter. You respond that it's "rude" to express my opinions as if I actually believe them and take them as absolute truth.

2) I give you my thoughts. You give me your thoughts. I comment on your thoughts. You comment on my thoughts. Etc...


In insisting on your own definition of god, you are not really addressing what other people say about their own beliefs. You are redefining other people's beliefs to suit your own definition of god. This is a particular kind of inconsiderateness that I cannot stand.

I insist on my definition of god only for myself, and the consequences of that insistence (on myself) inform how I interpret what others say about their conceptualizations of god.

I'm not redefining other's beliefs,.. I'm interpreting other's expressions of their beliefs in terms of my understanding (definition) of god.

I cannot "redefine" other's beliefs.

Beliefs are entirely internal to the person believing them. If what I say somehow makes them think about another interesting way that they might see that which underlies their beliefs, then that is what happens, but that is what happens every time we speak to each other.

Do you see my stating what I see as what I see as somehow trying to "convert" (evangelize) those who are susceptable to "influence" in their beliefs?

If you see it that way, then what is your response? Is it to suppress the free flow of information about a particular matter, or is it to make a case for "your side"..?



Do you consider yourself the "protector of the primitives" who are "defenseless" in the face of such "rude" and imperialistic persuasion, or something else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia

This is where I am CONTINUALLY misunderstood.

God, as an entity, is not perceptable IN ANY WAY because he has no characteristics, and the human mind requires a thing to have characteristics to be perceived.

This is your opinion. Personally, if I could not perceive God in any way, if God did not interact with me in any way, I would have absolutely no reason to believe in God. In a world where human beings have no interaction with God, there is no need for God to even exist. God may or may not exist, but it would be utterly useless to worry about it.

You're exactly correct. It is my opinion, Period.

Are you interested in any way WHY one (someone other than yourself) would have a god that is utterly impossible to communicate with or go to for any reason, save one (comfort)?

If not, then don't worry about it.

If you are, then ask.


Quote:
That is the very meaning of INEFFABLE, and why god is always described as ineffable in REAL monotheism.


I'm beginning to see why Muravyets is getting frustrated with you. Who are you to tell me that my religion isn't "REAL monotheism." I believe that there is a *single* God. That is the very definition of monotheism. There is nothing that requires me to believe that said God has no interaction whatsoever with God's creation.

Mura is frustrated with me because of he's not quite come to the realization that I can't be persuaded away from my position. He wants to convince me that I "could" be wrong, when that's an impossibility, and that is simply inherently "wrong" as far as he's concerned.

You're definition of monotheism is yours. Mine is mine.

To me, monotheism does not simply mean that "there is only one god".




Quote:
It is a required circular logic that monotheism is based upon:

"God is god, and the only (monotheistic) god, because he is ineffable, and being ineffable he is the singular and only (monotheistic) god because there can not be any distinction between any two ineffable things (gods in this case)."

There is no reason that this is required for monotheism. It's like saying, "My mother is my only mother, because she is ineffable, and being ineffable, she is my only mother, because there cannot be any distinction between two ineffable things."

Your mother is your mother because she has the characteristic "motherness" to you.

God is god because he has no characteristic other than being ineffable, which means "being unable to describe (un-namable)".

That IS a requirement for MY meaning of monotheism.


Problem is, I don't need the "ineffable" description to explain why I only have one mother. I also don't need it to explain why there is only one God.

You have only one mother because that is the nature of "mothers". A characteristic of mothers is that two mothers cannot bear one offspring.

You have only one god because that is the nature of god. THE singular characteristic of god is that there are no characteristics of god.

And in that seemingly illogical equation: 1=0 , is the essence of understanding all there is to understanding god.

You're exactly correct. It is my opinion, Period.

And yet you have the audacity to tell me that I am "wrong" and not a "true monotheist."

Are you interested in any way WHY one (someone other than yourself) would have a god that is utterly impossible to communicate with or go to for any reason, save one (comfort)?

How do you draw comfort from something you cannot interact with in any way?

Sure though, why do you believe in something that you have had no interaction with and that you believe interaction with is impossible? What leads you to believe that such an entity even exists?

Mura is frustrated with me because of he's not quite come to the realization that I can't be persuaded away from my position. He wants to convince me that I "could" be wrong, when that's an impossibility, and that is simply inherently "wrong" as far as he's concerned.

Unless you are claiming that you are infallible, then being wrong is always a possibility.

You're definition of monotheism is yours. Mine is mine.

To me, monotheism does not simply mean that "there is only one god".

The English definition of the word states exactly that. You may use it differently, but you cannot expect anyone to ever figure that out without an in-depth explanation. If I used the word "purple" to mean "eggplant-shaped", I'd have to re-explain the word every time I used it.

Your mother is your mother because she has the characteristic "motherness" to you.

And God is God because God has the characteristic "God."


And in that seemingly illogical equation: 1=0 , is the essence of understanding all there is to understanding god.

What is the point in "understanding" something that is impossible to understand?

Don't take my ramblings so personally. I toss my thinking out there, and you're free to do with them what you will.
I take them personally because you've been making personal comments to me and others over the course of two threads so far. I'm still waiting for you to apologize for calling my beliefs "silly," "goofy," and calling me a "fool" for holding them, before you even knew what they were. Those were the worst, and they happened in the "Silencing Them Christians" thread, but your airy rudeness has only continued.

To answer the question(s), though:

Effectiveness is the ability to to actually do what you want to do.

If the goal is "A", and you can do "A", then you're effective in being an "A'er".

What is the goal of an animist in regards to "the wheat crop"..?
To ask someone for help, which he does not need divine intervention or magical aid to do. He is perfectly capable of using his own, regular, human abilities to ask for something.

So, what relevance does YOUR concept of "effectiveness" have again? Oh, right. None.

I'm not judging the VALUE of "a religion" or the practitioner per se, simply the effectiveness of the "technology" of the religion as it pertains to the goal sought.
Once again for the latecomers:

YOUR ideas of the "value" of a religion, or the "effectiveness" of a "technology" have absolutely nothing to do with my ideas about my own religion. By insisting on characterizing my religion (positively, negatively, or neutrally) according to YOUR standards for YOUR religious experience, you are, in effect, ignoring everything I say and redefining my religion according to what you say yours is.

Cut it out.

I'm not telling you what your religion is about. I'm telling you what my conception of what your religion is, or could be, effective in DOING in the real world.
Who gives a flying rat's ass about YOUR conception of what my religion is or could be?

Here's a question I've asked you several times, but you have yet to answer: Just who the hell do you think you are?

My statements are not condescending, unless you take them to be such.
Well, I'll toss that one out to the other readers and let them decide whether your tone is condescending or not. I say it is, and I also say it is rude to refuse to apologize for giving offense, even if you didn't mean to.

But, hey, what do I know, since you've already explained to me how I'm a "silly," "goofy" "fool."

And I'm also not trying to be nice.
Oh, well at least that works out.

I'm trying to be informative, and informative of WHAT I THINK of the subject matter we're discussing.

That way, perhaps, we can learn from each other.
Your statements are nothing but attempts to inform me about me. I don't need that from you.

As for what I've learned about you -- I understand what you think god is.

The end. Nothing much to say about it. There is no point of conflict between your belief and mine and no overlap, either. Discussion over.

Except of course, for my need to get you to quit trying to "explain" how my beliefs work under your belief system.

I've learned a good bit from you.
So you say.

Of course it does. The issue isn't that I'm "attacking" animistic belief and ritual (in particular or in general), as the animistic belief systems and corresponding rituals are VERY useful within society and personally, but that I will always JUDGE the effectiveness of ANY belief or ritual by what it chooses to try to affect (it's goal) and how well it achieves that affect.
This comment is actually not in keeping with your past habit of telling people that their beliefs are wrong or that they are wrong about their understanding of their own beliefs. You deny that you do this, but this thread contains many instances of you doing it and others calling you on it, so again, I put it to the other readers to judge for themselves whether you are critical of others' beliefs or not.

As for how you "judge" other people's religions -- again, who do you think you are to "judge" other people's religions by your own standards of what you think they should be doing?

To me, this is similar to when I tell a guy I don't want to date him and he asks me why. The answer is "because I don't want to."

You ask why does a person believe in a certain religion? The answer is "because they want to." Period. What "effect" that has on their lives is none of your fucking business.

Also, you presume to judge my religion by some expectation you have of its usefulness to society (based on your own ideas of "usefulness," of course)? Eat me. My religion is not about you or your needs. I don't have to account to you for what it has ever done or not done for you.

Exactly. And that makes those "scriptures", however temporary and flexible in nature, MORE powerful and appropriate for the (usually smallish) group that they "represent".
Again you completely miss my point in your efforts to keep the conversation centered on yourself, but you try to cover it by redefining terms. Now you're using "scripture" outside of its proper meaning.

"Scripture" is not -- repeat NOT -- "temporary" or "flexible."

And the mere writing of something down does not make it "scripture." Yes, that right, merely "scripting" something does not make it "scripture," the shared root words notwithstanding. That's why television scripts and shopping lists are not scripture. That's why the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas are philosophy, not scripture.

Not content with redefining other people's beliefs, you now try to redefine common words? That's another game I won't play.

I don't know if this has been posted here yet, as I'm not willing to read 28 pages, but this fellow, Steve Falkenberg, in my opinion, has the right of it when it comes to Fundamentalists.

The problem with fundamentalism is not that fundamentalists put God first. The problem is that they do not put God first. They put a particular simplistic, limited, human understanding of God above all else. In most cases the fundamentalist understanding of God's will for mankind is that God wants things to be the way they used to be. God's laws are the ones we were taught since we were young. Fundamentalists then become neither Christian or Islam but rather defenders of the culture, dedicated to the preservation of "all we hold dear." In this regard, Christian fundamentalists are a lot more like the Pharisees than they are like Christ. Christ was a cultural and social revolutionary who disregarded the conventions of polite society, broke the religious laws regularly, associated with the "wrong crowd," and generally challenged the emptiness and superficiality of societies traditions and beliefs. Christ was crucified, at least partly, for being a modernist and an ethical relativist. If Christ came to live among us in the 21'st century, the fundamentalists would have him crucified again, not because they hate Christ, but because they would not recognize him.

A major problem with fundamentalism is that fundamentalists believe they know Gods will for mankind. Fundamentalists believe that they know the truth, that their understanding is 100% accurate and there can be no questioning it and no compromise. Their position is "utterly non-negotiable." They believe they know what is right, wrong, moral, and immoral. As Dr. Neilson notes, this arises from a tendency toward literalism. Literalism, however, is used by fundamentalists as an excuse for the rigidity of their beliefs. (For more on this see the article Biblical Literalism) They have been told that their beliefs are the truth because they are literal and directly from the Bible and therefore cannot be questioned. There is only one interpretation of the Bible allowed and that is the one they have been taught.

Having strong beliefs is one thing. We all have strong beliefs that we are unwilling to change or reevaluate. Everyone has to have something to believe in and we can't be constantly questioning everything. But where fundamentalism crosses the line and becomes dangerous and destructive is when fundamentalists refuse to allow anyone to have beliefs different from them. It is clearly the case that persons of strong character will refuse to compromise their beliefs. But fundamentalists consider it compromise to let you believe what you want to believe if it is different from their beliefs. So for example, some fundamentalists who believe that abortion is murder are unwilling to allow others to disagree with them. They are not satisfied to refuse to have abortions themselves and to teach their children and fellow believers to do the same, they feel compelled to work to get laws passed which will prevent anyone from getting an abortion. In point of fact, many thoughtful Christians have decided that abortion should be legal, at least in some circumstances. The fundamentalists think those who disagree with them are wrong and some are willing to take extreme measures (terroristic threatening, murdering abortion doctors, bombing abortion clinics, and other terrorist tactics) to prevent those who disagree with them from acting on their beliefs.

Fundamentalism is incompatible with freedom of religion. The basis of freedom of religion is respect for other peoples right to disagree with you. To have freedom of religion, you must respect the right of others to believe something that you think is wrong. For example, Christians who believe you can "fall from grace" (i.e.: loose your salvation) must allow other Christians who believe in "eternal security" (i.e.: once saved always saved) to be wrong and visa versa. Unfortunately, our founding fathers, did not understand this. They were persecuted in Europe for disagreeing with the "state church." So they came to this country to set up colonies in which they could believe their way (which they were convinced was the only right way). Then when people moved into the colony who disagreed with them, they persecuted them for their beliefs in the same ways that they had been persecuted in the old country. A good example of this is the persecution of the Baptists in the Virginia colony. Even Patrick Henry who defended some of the Baptists and got them out of jail was reluctant (at first) to endorse measures which would have guaranteed freedom of worship in Virginia. An understanding of what it means to have freedom of religion has been developing only very slowly in the United States and the need to respect others beliefs is still not accepted and understood by a sizable segment of our population. There are still a lot of so-called "Christians" who cannot understand the embarrassment and discomfort of a Jewish or Islamic child who must stand quietly in the classroom while a teacher prays "in Jesus name."

Fundamentalism is incompatible with democracy. Witness what has happened in muslim countries when a fundamentalist regime (such as the Ayatollah or the Talliban) has taken over the government. Democracy is based on the belief that people with radically different beliefs and cultures can live together in peace if they respect each others rights to disagree. It is an essential characteristic of a democracy that the majority rules. However, what we frequently forget is that in a democracy, the majority cannot do whatever they want. For a democracy to survive, the majority must protect the rights of the minorities. The majority must limit themselves and their actions to those that are in the best interest of the society as a whole. If for example, the demographic composition of a state changes and the muslims become the majority, they cannot pass laws in the legislature which require everyone to bow to mecca 5 times a day even though, as the majority, they may have enough votes to do so. To do so would destroy the democracy. For democracy to survive, the majority must treat the minorities they way they would like to be treated if they were the minority. Fundamentalists cannot allow that to happen. For them, people who believe and behave differently from them are wrong and "God does not like it, doesn't tolerate it, and neither do God's devoted followers."

Fundamentalism is incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is the religion of freedom. It is the religion of tolerance and diversity. Christianity is a religion for all peoples in all cultures in all times. Fundamentalism is dedicated to cultural homogeneity and fixed behavior patterns, to unchanging traditions and conventions for governing social interactions. Christianity is not about going to other lands and cultures and teaching the natives to wear western style clothing and to fill out the front of their offering envelopes. Fundamentalism is about condemning sin when you see it and taking a stand for what is "right." Christianity is about caring for the sinner as much as the saint, it is about understanding the factors that contribute to destructive behavior and leading those who have destroyed themselves, their families, and their friends to healing and forgiveness. Fundamentalists would have us believe that they are the guardians of Christian fundamentals but they are not. The are the guardians of their own position, culture, and power. There are Christian fundamentals (see article "What Christians Believe" for a summary) and many fundamentalists hold to some or all of the Christian fundamentals. However, it is this similarity to Christianity that makes fundamentalism so dangerous.
http://www.newreformation.org/fundamentalism.htm

Good stuff

I've heard this viewpoint before. It certainly resonates with me, but I can't say that it is "right" or "wrong". The idea that the divine can be found in all of nature, including our own existence, is one that has always appealed to me.
I like it, too. :)

I did read all of it, and I find it very interesting, but I'm not going to quote the entire thing here. Just one thing:


First of all, I think "above" may not be the word I was looking for, although I don't really know what the word I am looking for is. I tend to approach my mother, aunts, teachers, etc. differently than my immediate peers because I think they often have a wisdom I lack - I can learn from them and their guidance will be useful to me.
That is what I was trying to convey, also, but with the caveat that this does not mean that they are inherently superior to you. On the soul level, all are equal, according to my beliefs. In acknowledgment of this, I think a parent owes some respect to the child as well. For instance, if your aunts or teachers treated you as if you were beneath them or with a total lack of respect, would you revere them as you do? No, because that would signal a certain lack of wisdom on their part, don't you think?

So, too with the somewhat parental relationship between Christians and their god. You yourself have said, in other threads, that if God asked you to do something you believed was evil, you would be more likely to question the nature of God than the nature of good and evil. Is it because, you would doubt the goodness and wisdom of a god that would ask you to do harm to your own soul as well as the lives of others through evil actions?

Looking at it from my perspective, it appears that even the perception that God is wise and good is dependent on a certain reciprocation of mutual respect and consideration.

I approach God in a fairly similar manner, with one caveat - I don't think there is anything that God is unable to do, anything that God does not know. While you speak of a spirit or god of the ocean which can do things you cannot and cannot do things that you can, I think of God as being able to do everything. There is nothing I can give or do for God (beyond my own love and reverence, perhaps) that God cannot obtain without me.
That is the difference between a universal creator god and a god of something (ocean, sky, what have you). I think what we're running into here is a secondary conception of "god" that monotheism deletes from its belief system. This is what I was thinking of when I said that the "gods" of animism are not accorded the same level of importance that monotheists accord to their "God."

Animism differs from many other polytheist systems, as well as all monotheist systems, because it is more interested in what at first appear to be lesser divine beings -- or even uninterested in the concept of "divine" itself. The reason is that animism is a belief system that does not try to explain the world or understand why it is set up the way it is. All it does is describe this certain spiritual structure and ways to live within it. It has no inherent interest in why it is this way, because it does not see that anything is at stake in the matter. This is evident in the fact that there are so many different kinds of creation stories floating around animist religions and they are told as little more than stories to entertain. Yet even as they pass lightly over the why of life, animist societies expend enormous energy on maintaining the balance and harmony that they believe ensure a beneficial order for everyone today, in life, here and now.

So you can say that this or that god created the world and humanity for this or that purpose, and it is met as a sort of "okay, whatever" attitude by animists. They do not question it because it does not make a difference to what they must do now to be happy, which is still to maintain harmonious relationships with the beings around them.

If there is nothing I can do for a God, nothing I can give him that he can't get on his own, then he doesn't really need me. But the ocean god may need me to maintain clean waste water coming out of my cities. The wheat god may need me to develop fertilizers and irrigation systems to support his efforts to make plants grow. Some wandering spirit that is having a problem may need me to pray to a god on its behalf, or the spirits of my ancestors may need me to help supplement their living in the world of the dead or at least provide a place to stay for their visits home. Such things are on the same order as my mother might need me to pick up groceries for her, or a company executive may need my superior skills at typing and organizing schedules to support his efforts to run his business.

You see, it's an entirely different order of relationship, much more concerned with the mundane issues of daily life. This is why I said that "worship" is not always the right word for what animism is about.

Maybe the difference here is that I am *am* concerned with that "soul of the universe," as it were, because I feel that is going to the "source" more than going to certain aspects or manifestations of that entity. Does that make any sense at all?

It does make sense, however:

You see "aspects or manifestations" as unnecessary intermediaries between you and the "source" of whatever it is you are seeking.

I see them more as "deputies" in a way. They deal with specific matters directly, so to go to them for those matters is more direct and more appropriate than to go to the "source" of whatever it is that they are. In another post, I compared it to appealing to the President of the US to get a local town ordinance amended. You'd only get bounced back to your local town council. So, too, if you pray for a good wheat crop, it is the deity or god-form or whatever that deals with wheat or crops or fertility that will answer you, even if you sent your request to the "source." This is one animist's view, at least.

Now, there are issues that can only be addressed by the President, and there are matters of spiritual concern that gods of water and wheat cannot answer. For instance, the Christian religion is far more interested in matters of the condition and fate of the soul in the next life than with matters of this life. If that is your main concern, then animism is not going to help you. Appealing to spirits and gods of this world and life would be a waste of your time. You should go direct to the source of all souls that spans all lives and worlds. On the other hand, if you are concerned with how to live in this world, then a religion that focuses so strongly on the next is going to leave you with questions -- as we have seen on more than one occasion.

I really think that what religion a person follows depends entirely on what questions a person is trying to answer. Those who are trying to transcend materialistic or emotional concerns will tend towards monotheism or Buddhism. Those who are trying resolve fears or anxieties about this world and the next will tend towards religions with strong promises about the afterlife and strong, clear descriptions of "good" and "evil." Those who do not have such anxieties are unlikely to be interested in such. Those who are trying to maximize benefits to themselves and others or who are trying realize their own spiritual potential are more likely to follow religions that focus on living in the world as it exists around us, such as animism and other polytheist religions. And so on. There are many questions to ask, and many religions that can answer most of them.

I don't know if this has been posted here yet, as I'm not willing to read 28 pages, but this fellow, Steve Falkenberg, in my opinion, has the right of it when it comes to Fundamentalists.


http://www.newreformation.org/fundamentalism.htm

Excellent. Thank you.

That is what I was trying to convey, also, but with the caveat that this does not mean that they are inherently superior to you. On the soul level, all are equal, according to my beliefs. In acknowledgment of this, I think a parent owes some respect to the child as well. For instance, if your aunts or teachers treated you as if you were beneath them or with a total lack of respect, would you revere them as you do? No, because that would signal a certain lack of wisdom on their part, don't you think?

Yes, actually, I do. A lack of respectful treatment, even if someone does know more than you do or is more wise than you, would make them (to me) unworthy of reverence.

So, too with the somewhat parental relationship between Christians and their god. You yourself have said, in other threads, that if God asked you to do something you believed was evil, you would be more likely to question the nature of God than the nature of good and evil. Is it because, you would doubt the goodness and wisdom of a god that would ask you to do harm to your own soul as well as the lives of others through evil actions?

In truth, I would question both. Part of my outlook on religion (and most things in general) is that all things should be questioned. If God seemed to be asking me to do something I thought was evil, there would be all sorts of questions. Is it truly God asking it? Am I correctly understanding the request? Is the action truly evil? And, finally, Is God really a good being that I should be following?

And yes, that last question would be drawn from the fact that I do not think a deity that would ask something truly evil of me would be worthy of reverence or worship.

Looking at it from my perspective, it appears that even the perception that God is wise and good is dependent on a certain reciprocation of mutual respect and consideration.

Indeed. But from my perspective, that consideration is inherent in God, as God is loving.

That is the difference between a universal creator god and a god of something (ocean, sky, what have you). I think what we're running into here is a secondary conception of "god" that monotheism deletes from its belief system. This is what I was thinking of when I said that the "gods" of animism are not accorded the same level of importance that monotheists accord to their "God."

I agree. Our viewpoints are fundamentally different on this subject, but I've always been fascinated by religion in general, so I find it fun to discuss.

So you can say that this or that god created the world and humanity for this or that purpose, and it is met as a sort of "okay, whatever" attitude by animists. They do not question it because it does not make a difference to what they must do now to be happy, which is still to maintain harmonious relationships with the beings around them.

Makes sense. If a person is uninterested in the question, there will be little reason to seek an answer.

It does make sense, however:

You see "aspects or manifestations" as unnecessary intermediaries between you and the "source" of whatever it is you are seeking.

I see them more as "deputies" in a way. They deal with specific matters directly, so to go to them for those matters is more direct and more appropriate than to go to the "source" of whatever it is that they are. In another post, I compared it to appealing to the President of the US to get a local town ordinance amended. You'd only get bounced back to your local town council. So, too, if you pray for a good wheat crop, it is the deity or god-form or whatever that deals with wheat or crops or fertility that will answer you, even if you sent your request to the "source." This is one animist's view, at least.

I think I understand your viewpoint. I guess the difference is that I don't ascribe that kind of hierarchy. To me, there is only one deity. Splitting it up into separate aspects or entities would be like splitting my mother up into different "mothers" depending upon the request I was making or the aspect of our relationship that was currently involved.

For instance, the Christian religion is far more interested in matters of the condition and fate of the soul in the next life than with matters of this life.

I have to disagree here. I think Christianity, at least as taught by Christ, teaches that the two are inseparable. Christ focussed much more on how to live *this* life than he did on the afterlife. What you do in this life will certainly have an effect on the afterlife, but I think those who see Christianity as a "means to an end" - as a way to get a "better afterlife" - are largely missing the point of Christ's teachings.

Once again, for the forteen thousandths time, I can only speak from my own point of view. Of course the above is "my point of view".

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, and you're more than welcome to express your thoughts.



How am I stopping anyone from "postulating and understanding of the nature of god" that differs from mine?

Which scenario seems more "polite":

1) I give you my thoughts. You object that my thoughts aren't "everyone's" thoughts and are only expressive of "the speakers" opinion. I respond that you're perfectly correct, but that my job is to express MY opinions about the subject matter. You respond that it's "rude" to express my opinions as if I actually believe them and take them as absolute truth.

2) I give you my thoughts. You give me your thoughts. I comment on your thoughts. You comment on my thoughts. Etc...



I insist on my definition of god only for myself, and the consequences of that insistence (on myself) inform how I interpret what others say about their conceptualizations of god.

I'm not redefining other's beliefs,.. I'm interpreting other's expressions of their beliefs in terms of my understanding (definition) of god.

I cannot "redefine" other's beliefs.

Beliefs are entirely internal to the person believing them. If what I say somehow makes them think about another interesting way that they might see that which underlies their beliefs, then that is what happens, but that is what happens every time we speak to each other.

Do you see my stating what I see as what I see as somehow trying to "convert" (evangelize) those who are susceptable to "influence" in their beliefs?

If you see it that way, then what is your response? Is it to suppress the free flow of information about a particular matter, or is it to make a case for "your side"..?



Do you consider yourself the "protector of the primitives" who are "defenseless" in the face of such "rude" and imperialistic persuasion, or something else?

"Protector of the primitives"? Thank you very much for letting your true colors shine through at last. We've come full circle. You started this argument with an insult against my religion, and here you are ending with another insult against my religion. (Strange, but you remind me of someone I've met before. He liked to make insults about "primitives," too.)

I'm done chasing around this barn with you. This pointless argument has nowhere left to go but to follow you into ugly insults.

I have been extremely specific about the precise parts of your statements that have offended me and why they offended me. If you want to tell yourself that I haven't, go right ahead.

If you want to simply ignore the specific objections and questions that I and others have brought up, you can do that. If you want to misrepresent what other people have said to you, you can do that, too.

The record of this argument is on the forum for anyone who cares to read and judge for themselves who said what to whom, when. I never said you were not allowed to state your opinions. I only complained about your disrespectful manner of doing so. No one is trying to "suppress the free flow of information." We are only asking that you show respect for the feelings of others. I never suggested that you were trying to evangelize. I only asked you not to make presumptions about other people's beliefs. At no point did I express any opinion, let alone criticism, about your beliefs at all. Oh, I did also ask you to apologize for your insulting remarks to me.

Your only response has been to insult me further.

Your manners are not my responsibility. If you can't be bothered to drum up the common courtesy to apologize when someone says you have offended them -- if you can't even stop yourself from insulting and ridiculing people in the first place -- then the hell with it. Before you decide to follow yourself down that "primitives" road, understand that I will not permit you to go about badmouthing my religion. If you don't want to start another fight, then leave my beliefs out of your claims. Other than that, go your way. I will treat you with the exact same degree of respect that you show to me.

<snip>
I agree. Our viewpoints are fundamentally different on this subject, but I've always been fascinated by religion in general, so I find it fun to discuss.
It's why we're here. :)

Makes sense. If a person is uninterested in the question, there will be little reason to seek an answer.
Something some evangelists need to keep in mind.

I think I understand your viewpoint. I guess the difference is that I don't ascribe that kind of hierarchy. To me, there is only one deity. Splitting it up into separate aspects or entities would be like splitting my mother up into different "mothers" depending upon the request I was making or the aspect of our relationship that was currently involved.
Keep in mind, that I am not talking about splitting up a god into many other, lesser gods. What I think is being split up is that universal soul, but in my spiritual world view, that soul does not present an interactive personality of its own. It is not "a being" that is getting split into other beings. Some animists may believe that the spirits/gods "work for" a higher god, but I personally do not. When you deal with a spirit/god, you are dealing with that spirit/god.

However, that organized, admittedly somewhat bureaucratic-sounding idea of spiritual reality is pretty common in animism because the animist view sees all reality as one thing, so the "spirit world" is pretty much identical to the regular living human world, and you interact with spirit/gods in the exact same way that you interact with other people.

So, to a monotheist, it would seem as if you are splitting up your mother into multiple mothers for different purposes.

To me, it is a matter of talking to my mother for some things, and my father for other things, and my neighbor for something else, and a doctor for yet other things, and accredited experts for very specialized things, etc.

I have to disagree here. I think Christianity, at least as taught by Christ, teaches that the two are inseparable. Christ focussed much more on how to live *this* life than he did on the afterlife. What you do in this life will certainly have an effect on the afterlife, but I think those who see Christianity as a "means to an end" - as a way to get a "better afterlife" - are largely missing the point of Christ's teachings.
My comments were an over-simplification, but I think the idea that Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is more concerned with maintaining the soul than maintaining the world is a little more important to the point I was trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
You're exactly correct. It is my opinion, Period.


And yet you have the audacity to tell me that I am "wrong" and not a "true monotheist."

I'm not telling you you're WRONG, just NOT CORRECT as it pertains to what I think. You're PROBABLY not wrong as it pertains to what you believe.

Your definition of "monotheist" and mine don't match.

Therefore, there is room for you to be right (using your definition) as well as for me to be right (using my definition).

To me, you AREN'T a true monotheist if you posit that there is any other god in any way like god (mono-god).


Quote:
Are you interested in any way WHY one (someone other than yourself) would have a god that is utterly impossible to communicate with or go to for any reason, save one (comfort)?


How do you draw comfort from something you cannot interact with in any way?

Because my acceptance of the fact that "all conflicts can and will be resolved" because there exists one thing (and one thing only) that IS the ultimate example of reconciliation (god the impossible) brings me comfort.

Interacting with this "god", the god, mono-god, is entirely one-sided (I observe him) and that is the ONLY interaction possible.

If you think "interacting" with a god is "bargaining or otherwise trading" with him (as in sacrificing to or promising service to him), which is perfectly acceptable in dealings with poly-gods, then we're not not talking about the mono-god, because the mono-god has no way of either hearing you or responding to you.


Sure though, why do you believe in something that you have had no interaction with and that you believe interaction with is impossible? What leads you to believe that such an entity even exists?

I believe in him (and once again, don't get hung up on the pronoun) because the concept has entered my mind and is defined such that I simply can see no alternative but to believe in him.

I don't need for him to prove that he exists. That the concept of him is there is all the proof I need that he does exist, because he is what he is, as he is defined by me, and that that definition,.. a thing that has no characteristics other than the ultimate reconciliation of every and any "conflict",.. creates and sustains all the proof necessary that he exists.

Utterly circular logic, admittedly,.. but also the correct logic for this application of reasoning.


Quote:
Mura is frustrated with me because of he's not quite come to the realization that I can't be persuaded away from my position. He wants to convince me that I "could" be wrong, when that's an impossibility, and that is simply inherently "wrong" as far as he's concerned.


Unless you are claiming that you are infallible, then being wrong is always a possibility.

I am infallible in this matter, but only in terms of my own conceptualizations.

I can't be "wrong", to me, in my belief, because my belief is not susceptible to being proved wrong, by definition.

Think of it this way. Can you prove that you don't exist?

Are you "infallible" in claiming that you do exist,.. to you,.. using your own definitions?

All I'm saying is that I can't be wrong regarding a thing when being wrong regarding that thing is, by definition, impossible.


Quote:
You're definition of monotheism is yours. Mine is mine.

To me, monotheism does not simply mean that "there is only one god".


The English definition of the word states exactly that. You may use it differently, but you cannot expect anyone to ever figure that out without an in-depth explanation. If I used the word "purple" to mean "eggplant-shaped", I'd have to re-explain the word every time I used it.

And explaining what *I* mean by monotheism is what I'm doing.

Should all words be always understood to mean always and only ONE THING?

The reason that we are separate people is so that we can share our individual viewpoints (perspectives) of the world.

Yes,.. that is more difficult than applying a single dictionary definition to every word that everyone speaks,.. but the job of using words is to find out what the speaker MEANT, not simply what the speaker SAID.

If you refuse to accept that what someone says may not mean what you think it meant based on your own definitions of the words spoken, then you've missed the entire point of learning to speak in the first place.


Quote:
Your mother is your mother because she has the characteristic "motherness" to you.

And God is God because God has the characteristic "God."

EXACTLY!!

Well done.


Quote:
And in that seemingly illogical equation: 1=0 , is the essence of understanding all there is to understanding god.


What is the point in "understanding" something that is impossible to understand?

To understand the meaning of "impossible".

Realizing that impossibility is a REAL THING, and that not everything that you would fantasize about is "potentially real" to some extent, is an important lesson.

"God" is the penultimate example of "impossibility", and impossibility is a required element in the ability to make decisions decisively, and not equivocate and vacillate over the "but what if's".


"Possibility" makes for striving and achieving and conflict,.. which are great things in ALMOST ALL circumstances.

"Impossibility" makes for ultimate comfort that allows one to "put the impossible out of one's mind",.. which is a great attitude in VERY FEW circumstances.

God allows me to put some things out of my mind, when to not do so would be paralysing.

The spirits, the poly-gods, allow me to mind the details and "do what's right", quite often by negative example.



Sometimes to be effective, one must assume one has won by losing.

The samurai is a dead man when he realizes he is a samurai.

Only a dead man would simply concentrate on his effectiveness of action and be unconcerned about being struck, as being struck merely means, to him, that he should have done one thing instead of another,.. and being struck does NOT mean, to him, that he is about to die.

He's already dead.


He understands the impossibility of "not dying". He will evetually die, whether it be in battle or in bed.

He has "seen god".

He who does not understand the impossibility of "not dying" can not believe it when he is dying.

He has not "seen god".


Who is tormented more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Don't take my ramblings so personally. I toss my thinking out there, and you're free to do with them what you will.

I take them personally because you've been making personal comments to me and others over the course of two threads so far. I'm still waiting for you to apologize for calling my beliefs "silly," "goofy," and calling me a "fool" for holding them, before you even knew what they were. Those were the worst, and they happened in the "Silencing Them Christians" thread, but your airy rudeness has only continued.

Once again, I do apologize if you took offense at what you thought was my calling YOUR beliefs "silly, goofy, etc" when that was merely my response to what I saw as silly/goofy/etc words on the screen.

As you say, and I fully agree with you, that I can't very well say your beliefs are silly/goofy/etc if I don't know what your beliefs are..!


Quote:
To answer the question(s), though:

Effectiveness is the ability to to actually do what you want to do.

If the goal is "A", and you can do "A", then you're effective in being an "A'er".

What is the goal of an animist in regards to "the wheat crop"..?

To ask someone for help, which he does not need divine intervention or magical aid to do. He is perfectly capable of using his own, regular, human abilities to ask for something.

So, what relevance does YOUR concept of "effectiveness" have again? Oh, right. None.

That doesn't quite answer the question as to what the goal is of the animist in regards to the wheat crop..!

So what is it?


Quote:
I'm not judging the VALUE of "a religion" or the practitioner per se, simply the effectiveness of the "technology" of the religion as it pertains to the goal sought.

Once again for the latecomers:

YOUR ideas of the "value" of a religion, or the "effectiveness" of a "technology" have absolutely nothing to do with my ideas about my own religion. By insisting on characterizing my religion (positively, negatively, or neutrally) according to YOUR standards for YOUR religious experience, you are, in effect, ignoring everything I say and redefining my religion according to what you say yours is.

Cut it out.

You're basically saying that I can't talk to you about your religion whatsoever, as all I have to say is what I think what you say means to me.

If you'd rather not discuss this topic, that's fine. Simply quit talking.


Quote:
I'm not telling you what your religion is about. I'm telling you what my conception of what your religion is, or could be, effective in DOING in the real world.

Who gives a flying rat's ass about YOUR conception of what my religion is or could be?

Here's a question I've asked you several times, but you have yet to answer: Just who the hell do you think you are?

Only those interested in hearing about what I have to say are interested in what I have to say.

You keep responding to what I have to say. Are you not interested in hearing what I have to say and yet still DRAWN to talk with me about that which you don't want to talk about?

"Just who the hell do you think you are?"

Just me.

Any other questions?


Quote:
My statements are not condescending, unless you take them to be such.

Well, I'll toss that one out to the other readers and let them decide whether your tone is condescending or not. I say it is, and I also say it is rude to refuse to apologize for giving offense, even if you didn't mean to.

But, hey, what do I know, since you've already explained to me how I'm a "silly," "goofy" "fool."

Well ARE you a silly goofy fool? I would imagine you don't think you're a silly goofy fool.

Why would what I say, which you correctly characterized as having been said with insufficient knowledge, be offensive to you?

It simply gives an example of me commenting on something you said, and I stand by my description of whatever it was that I was describing, while simultaneously admitting that what I said was not directed at what you THOUGHT I had directed it toward.

In other words (again), sorry for being rude about something other than what you think I was being rude about.


Quote:
And I'm also not trying to be nice.

Oh, well at least that works out.

The reason for that (that I don't try to be nice) is that I'm ALWAYS nice, and there's no difference between when I'm being nice and "not being nice".


Quote:
I'm trying to be informative, and informative of WHAT I THINK of the subject matter we're discussing.

That way, perhaps, we can learn from each other.

Your statements are nothing but attempts to inform me about me. I don't need that from you.

I'm trying to inform YOU about my impressions of YOU based on my interpretations of what you say based on what I believe.

You would have me do otherwise?


As for what I've learned about you -- I understand what you think god is.

Perhaps. If so, you've no need to be in any way negatively disposed toward me.

If not, you probably think I'm still trying to "impose my will" on you somehow.

Guess which category I think you're in?


The end. Nothing much to say about it. There is no point of conflict between your belief and mine and no overlap, either. Discussion over.

Then you've definitely not understood what I believe.

But if you don't wish to further explore the territory, most likely because you see me as a prosyletizing christian-oid, then that's fine.

All you need to do is quit talking..! :)


Except of course, for my need to get you to quit trying to "explain" how my beliefs work under your belief system.

If that's not a subject you want to delve into, that's okeydoke with me.

I like to find points of common understanding between ways of thought and belief.

If that's not yur cup of tea, that's cool.


Quote:
I've learned a good bit from you.

So you say.

I have,.. really!

I've learned that some people will take any attempt at searching for common ground on which to understand individual belief systems as an attempt to "change them" and "dilute or invalidate" their held beliefs.

I've learned that the reason for that "resistance" is due to either the inability to discuss (for temporal or psychological/educational reasons) or uncomfortableness with "poking at something that shouldn't be poked at" because it might either fall apart or be "altered" in some way.

I've also learned that it's rather easy to insult those who actually like to be insulted.The reason I say that is because of your propensity to continue talking to your insulter (moi) even after you know that I would continue "insulting" (your definition) you.

The reason for using words like silly/goofy/etc is to show that what I thought I heard was silly/goofy/etc. It's not to insult you.


Quote:
Of course it does. The issue isn't that I'm "attacking" animistic belief and ritual (in particular or in general), as the animistic belief systems and corresponding rituals are VERY useful within society and personally, but that I will always JUDGE the effectiveness of ANY belief or ritual by what it chooses to try to affect (it's goal) and how well it achieves that affect.

This comment is actually not in keeping with your past habit of telling people that their beliefs are wrong or that they are wrong about their understanding of their own beliefs.

Uh,.. that's not my usual habit (to tell people their beliefs are wrong).

My usual habit is to tell people what I think of their beliefs, as it relates to what I believe.


You deny that you do this, but this thread contains many instances of you doing it and others calling you on it, so again, I put it to the other readers to judge for themselves whether you are critical of others' beliefs or not.

Yes..! Please..!

Of course I'm critical of other's beliefs..!

But we each can believe as we like, including me, and we can each try to tell others how we support our beliefs, and how the beliefs of others do or do not nake sense to us.


As for how you "judge" other people's religions -- again, who do you think you are to "judge" other people's religions by your own standards of what you think they should be doing?

Other people are free to do as they wish. Period.

I judge other people's religions by the observed results that their religions present to me.

As do we all.

Why are you one religion as opposed to another?

If you were to NOT judge other's religions, it would make NO difference which one, if any, you chose as yours.

The RESULTS that the one you chose, as opposed to the others, was the one you judged as "best" for you.

That is a beautiful thing.

I, like you, have judged one religion to be my religion, and am happy with the choice. As should be we all.


To me, this is similar to when I tell a guy I don't want to date him and he asks me why. The answer is "because I don't want to."

Absolutely! :)

And you have your reasons for not wanting to date him.

And you may or may not choose to talk with him, or other people, about why you made that choice.

But perhaps he'd have liked to have known how he could "improve" himself, as he thought you were a worthy seeming partner?

Is he REALLY just a creep? Are you REALLY such a worthy partner?

You lose your chance to find out if there's no talking.


You ask why does a person believe in a certain religion? The answer is "because they want to." Period. What "effect" that has on their lives is none of your fucking business.

I'm only peripherally interested in WHY someone is of a certain religion.

My real interest is in what that religion gives them.

If they don't want to share that, that's cool.

But it IS fun to talk about, if you want to talk about it.


Also, you presume to judge my religion by some expectation you have of its usefulness to society (based on your own ideas of "usefulness," of course)? Eat me. My religion is not about you or your needs. I don't have to account to you for what it has ever done or not done for you.

Absolutely true..! :)

Religion is not about it's usefulness to society, unless that's a part OF the religion in question.

No need to get defensive here. I'm not trying to change, or otherwise persecute, your religion.

I'm just trying, like the man-from-mars, to understand how it fits in with what I believe, and then tell you about what I've managed to discover in the process.


Quote:
Exactly. And that makes those "scriptures", however temporary and flexible in nature, MORE powerful and appropriate for the (usually smallish) group that they "represent".

Again you completely miss my point in your efforts to keep the conversation centered on yourself, but you try to cover it by redefining terms. Now you're using "scripture" outside of its proper meaning.

"Scripture" is not -- repeat NOT -- "temporary" or "flexible."

<groan> :)

Sure it is, otherwise it would be unalterable, which anything "written down" is obviously not.

It is "static" only in as much as it is KEPT static.

As soon as it is demed more valuable to be altered, it is altered, by whomever thinks it should be altered.


And the mere writing of something down does not make it "scripture." Yes, that right, merely "scripting" something does not make it "scripture," the shared root words notwithstanding. That's why television scripts and shopping lists are not scripture. That's why the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas are philosophy, not scripture.

Not content with redefining other people's beliefs, you now try to redefine common words? That's another game I won't play.

You fight over the meanings of words, while other people try to discern the meanings behind words.

If you simply want to fight, you might try finding someone who wants to fight, but to mistake someone who want's to discern the meanings of words for wanting to fight with you, then you don't do either yourself or the other person any favors.


It all boils down to your feistiness about any "questioning" of your beliefs.

If it's not important to you to understand other's beliefs, or for you to have them understand your's, then why bother talking about it?

First off,.. ALOHA Wills..!! :D


I don't know if this has been posted here yet, as I'm not willing to read 28 pages, but this fellow, Steve Falkenberg, in my opinion, has the right of it when it comes to Fundamentalists.


Quote:
...Fundamentalists then become neither Christian or Islam but rather defenders of the culture, dedicated to the preservation of "all we hold dear." In this regard, Christian fundamentalists are a lot more like the Pharisees than they are like Christ. Christ was a cultural and social revolutionary who disregarded the conventions of polite society, broke the religious laws regularly, associated with the "wrong crowd," and generally challenged the emptiness and superficiality of societies traditions and beliefs....

There is no "culture" or "society" of god. Anyone imposing limits of any kind on god are, by definition, "extremely silly" and should be laughed at (aka blasphemors).

God created "the world".

The world created "cultures".

Cultures give us something to do, be it to fight or grow closer.

Pick one.


...re: fundamentalism... Their position is "utterly non-negotiable." They believe they know what is right, wrong, moral, and immoral. As Dr. Neilson notes, this arises from a tendency toward literalism...

The ONLY thing that CAN BE non-negotiable is a thing SO INCONSEQUENTIAL that it's non-negotiable-ness is not dangerous.

The only thing that fits that description is god.

To be able to say, "The only thing for which I will NEVER negotiate is my belief in god!", is the ability to be reasonable in all other things.


Having strong beliefs is one thing. We all have strong beliefs that we are unwilling to change or reevaluate. Everyone has to have something to believe in and we can't be constantly questioning everything...

The disease for which god is the cure is the inability to come to a decision and act on it.


..But where fundamentalism crosses the line and becomes dangerous and destructive is when fundamentalists refuse to allow anyone to have beliefs different from them...

Amen.


...Fundamentalism is incompatible with freedom of religion. The basis of freedom of religion is respect for other peoples right to disagree with you...

How often do we fall into the trap of taking "This is what I mean!" for "You must believe as I say I do!".

That is the self imposed corollary of trying to make others believe as we do.


...Fundamentalism is incompatible with democracy....


...For democracy to survive, the majority must treat the minorities they way they would like to be treated if they were the minority. ...

The golden rule.


...Fundamentalism is incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is the religion of freedom. It is the religion of tolerance and diversity. Christianity is a religion for all peoples in all cultures in all times...

Do not mistake social systems for christianity.


...Christianity is about caring for the sinner as much as the saint, it is about understanding the factors that contribute to destructive behavior and leading those who have destroyed themselves, their families, and their friends to healing and forgiveness. Fundamentalists would have us believe that they are the guardians of Christian fundamentals but they are not. The are the guardians of their own position, culture, and power...

God, through the world, does not deform, but informs.


..There are Christian fundamentals (see article "What Christians Believe" for a summary) and many fundamentalists hold to some or all of the Christian fundamentals. However, it is this similarity to Christianity that makes fundamentalism so dangerous.

http://www.newreformation.org/fundamentalism.htm[/url]

What is termed the great deceiver, again?

Why is it evil?

Is it evil?

Is there evil?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Once again, for the forteen thousandths time, I can only speak from my own point of view. Of course the above is "my point of view".

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, and you're more than welcome to express your thoughts.



How am I stopping anyone from "postulating and understanding of the nature of god" that differs from mine?

Which scenario seems more "polite":

1) I give you my thoughts. You object that my thoughts aren't "everyone's" thoughts and are only expressive of "the speakers" opinion. I respond that you're perfectly correct, but that my job is to express MY opinions about the subject matter. You respond that it's "rude" to express my opinions as if I actually believe them and take them as absolute truth.

2) I give you my thoughts. You give me your thoughts. I comment on your thoughts. You comment on my thoughts. Etc...



I insist on my definition of god only for myself, and the consequences of that insistence (on myself) inform how I interpret what others say about their conceptualizations of god.

I'm not redefining other's beliefs,.. I'm interpreting other's expressions of their beliefs in terms of my understanding (definition) of god.

I cannot "redefine" other's beliefs.

Beliefs are entirely internal to the person believing them. If what I say somehow makes them think about another interesting way that they might see that which underlies their beliefs, then that is what happens, but that is what happens every time we speak to each other.

Do you see my stating what I see as what I see as somehow trying to "convert" (evangelize) those who are susceptable to "influence" in their beliefs?

If you see it that way, then what is your response? Is it to suppress the free flow of information about a particular matter, or is it to make a case for "your side"..?



Do you consider yourself the "protector of the primitives" who are "defenseless" in the face of such "rude" and imperialistic persuasion, or something else?


"Protector of the primitives"? Thank you very much for letting your true colors shine through at last. We've come full circle. You started this argument with an insult against my religion, and here you are ending with another insult against my religion. (Strange, but you remind me of someone I've met before. He liked to make insults about "primitives," too.)

Oy..! :)

Firstly, that was sarcastic,.. though your persecution complex will make it into whatever it wishes, of course.

I don't consider polytheists (animists or elsewise) to be primitives. I don't consider you to be a primitive.

My point was that you SEEM to be taking the position that I'm not allowed to express my opinions about how other's belief systems appear to me to correspond t my own beliefs.


I'm done chasing around this barn with you. This pointless argument has nowhere left to go but to follow you into ugly insults.

You can TRY to insult me, but I won't take them as such.

I'll simply respond to them as statements made by someone who doesn't quite understand what I meant, because if they DID understand what I meant they wouldn't have been insulted.


I have been extremely specific about the precise parts of your statements that have offended me and why they offended me. If you want to tell yourself that I haven't, go right ahead.

They offended you because you think that I'm "degrading" your beliefs.

I'm not doing that. I'm supporting your beliefs by explaining how I can see them as real, but through correspondence with my own beliefs.

That "support" you take to be me "co-opting" your religion, somehow, and that is unacceptable behavior to you.

Your misunderstanding of my intentions are unfortunate, but nothing I can do anything about other than to continue the dialogue as long as you wish to.


If you want to simply ignore the specific objections and questions that I and others have brought up, you can do that. If you want to misrepresent what other people have said to you, you can do that, too.

What questions have I not answered?

I rather thought I was being EXCEEDINGLY verbose..! :)


The record of this argument is on the forum for anyone who cares to read and judge for themselves who said what to whom, when. I never said you were not allowed to state your opinions. I only complained about your disrespectful manner of doing so.

Disrespectful to you, apparently.

It is indeed up to the readers to decide if that's the case.

And even if they do decide I've been disrespectful, it's still a misinterpretation of my intentions.

If you wish to see disrespect, you will. Nothing to be done about that.


No one is trying to "suppress the free flow of information." We are only asking that you show respect for the feelings of others. I never suggested that you were trying to evangelize. I only asked you not to make presumptions about other people's beliefs.

Presumptions about other's beliefs?

I simply make statements about what I believe, and about how I interpret the words of others in regards to what the subject is.

If something I say is "odd" to someone, we should talk about it. Period.


At no point did I express any opinion, let alone criticism, about your beliefs at all. Oh, I did also ask you to apologize for your insulting remarks to me.

I'd LOVE you to take a critical look at my beliefs, and let me know what you think.

That is the essence of talking to each other..!

And once again,.. I apologize profusely for my inability to make you understand that I wasn't being insulting toward you or your religion.


Your only response has been to insult me further.

Your manners are not my responsibility. If you can't be bothered to drum up the common courtesy to apologize when someone says you have offended them -- if you can't even stop yourself from insulting and ridiculing people in the first place -- then the hell with it.

Once again,.. If you want to stop talking to me,... STOP TALKING TO ME.

And the phrase is "..TO hell with it."


Before you decide to follow yourself down that "primitives" road, understand that I will not permit you to go about badmouthing my religion. If you don't want to start another fight, then leave my beliefs out of your claims. Other than that, go your way. I will treat you with the exact same degree of respect that you show to me.


Ah,.. youngin's... :)

So touchy.

I respect your religion, as I see your religion.

I don't know about how you respect your religion as you see your religion, because you can't seem to get over what you see as my "insults" to talk about what your religion really means to you.

If you choose not to share, that's fine,.. and we're both impoverished by it.


Once again,.. I don't badmouth anyone's religion.

I *MAY* badmouth the people holding their particular religion, though.

It's not for me to judge people's beliefs, that's god's job.

It IS for me to judge people's behavior, though, and juvenile "persecution complected" animists I shall continue to call juvenile "persecution complected" animists.

This is NOT an insult toward animists, of course. Nor really toward either juveniles, or the "persecution complected".

It's merely a description of a perception, and may be entirely incorrect.

Animists are great! If they are "good" animists. :)

I'm not telling you you're WRONG, just NOT CORRECT as it pertains to what I think. You're PROBABLY not wrong as it pertains to what you believe.

This and the rest of your post seem to suggest that you think the existence of God or gods is dependent upon what human beings believe. If God actually does exist, then God exists independent of what you or I think of God. Either or both of us can possibly be wrong in any description of God, because God is not defined by us, but by God's own existence.

If you think that God does not have an existence independent of your particular beliefs, then there is little point in continuing discussion.

Because my acceptance of the fact that "all conflicts can and will be resolved" because there exists one thing (and one thing only) that IS the ultimate example of reconciliation (god the impossible) brings me comfort.

Interacting with this "god", the god, mono-god, is entirely one-sided (I observe him) and that is the ONLY interaction possible.

Earlier, you stated that God cannot be observed. So which is it? Do you observe god, or can god not be observed?

And explaining what *I* mean by monotheism is what I'm doing.

Should all words be always understood to mean always and only ONE THING?

No, but there are standard agreed-upon definitions. Without them, language is entirely useless. No two people could ever understand each other, because they would never mean the same thing by any of the words they used.

If you choose to use a completely non-standard definition - indeed, one you have personally made up, you cannot expect *anyone* to understand what you are talking about without an in-depth explanation in which you actually do use standard definitions of words.

Insignificantia -

I think part of the problem that Muravyets (and also to an extent, myself) is that you are constantly explaining the logic behind your beliefs to us, but you are never letting yourself (or your mind) out of the box of your beliefs to attempt to understand the logic behind what we believe. It's perfectly fine for you to attempt to understand our religion within *your* belief system, but I think that it is also necessary for you to attempt to understand our religion within *our* belief system. I do not think you could possibly be accurate in doing the former without attempting to do the latter.

Again, understanding our beliefs on our ground does not require you to internalize our beliefs or negate your own; but it does give you a better understanding of our beliefs to try to fit them within your own worldview.

I am also of the opinion that one should always use respectful language when participating in a serious discussion, and therefore words like "silly", "goofy", and "fool" are inappropriate in such a discussion regardless of the fact that you felt some words on the screen were any of the above. The more respectful approach would be to say "I disagree with you" or something else to that point.

I don't ask that you (or anyone else, for that matter) be "nice", I ask that you (the general you) be respectful.

Of course, everything I say here applies to all participants in this discussion (that we should be respectful and attempt to understand others' belief systems on their grounds as well as our own).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
I'm not telling you you're WRONG, just NOT CORRECT as it pertains to what I think. You're PROBABLY not wrong as it pertains to what you believe.

This and the rest of your post seem to suggest that you think the existence of God or gods is dependent upon what human beings believe. If God actually does exist, then God exists independent of what you or I think of God. Either or both of us can possibly be wrong in any description of God, because God is not defined by us, but by God's own existence.

God's existence doesn't rely on whether humans (or anyone else) believes in him.

What DOES rely on whether humans believing in him is his utility.

God doesn't care if you believe in him, but you can't use him for that which he is useful unless you do believe in him.

And of course yu're exactly correct,.. god is not defined by us except in as much as we try to describe him, which will always be wrong (our description of him).


If you think that God does not have an existence independent of your particular beliefs, then there is little point in continuing discussion.

He does exist independently of any particular person's beliefs.

That is a simple unprovable axiomatic statement, which I have reason to believe.


Quote:
Because my acceptance of the fact that "all conflicts can and will be resolved" because there exists one thing (and one thing only) that IS the ultimate example of reconciliation (god the impossible) brings me comfort.

Interacting with this "god", the god, mono-god, is entirely one-sided (I observe him) and that is the ONLY interaction possible.


Earlier, you stated that God cannot be observed. So which is it? Do you observe god, or can god not be observed?

Both and neither, of course.

THIS IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY LOGICAL..!

I observe god by simply admitting that he exists.

I can't observe god, because god has no characteristics to observe, save one.

..and that characteristic is that he is unobservable.

Thus the "puzzle" that logic (mathematical) can not solve.


Quote:
And explaining what *I* mean by monotheism is what I'm doing.

Should all words be always understood to mean always and only ONE THING?


No, but there are standard agreed-upon definitions. Without them, language is entirely useless. No two people could ever understand each other, because they would never mean the same thing by any of the words they used.

That is true. But you continue to attempt to communicate with me to come to some sort of understanding as to what I'm talking about.

THAT is the difference between "all people must mean the same thing thing when they use the same words" and "communication".


If you choose to use a completely non-standard definition - indeed, one you have personally made up, you cannot expect *anyone* to understand what you are talking about without an in-depth explanation in which you actually do use standard definitions of words.

..then shall we continue the in-depth explanation,.. as that is the only way for us to explain and understand anything at all.

That was not a comment on Christianity.

That wasn't directed at your posts.

It's just rather silly (for people in general) to especially slam Christians for being intolerant and theocratic when the people of most other religions do the same.

Of course not. If you bothered to read my posts, you'd have sussed that on your own.
So why are they worth deifying.

And if Edwardis is frightening for saying he'd kill people if so ordered by God, and if you are right and God is just a figment of his imagination, then it could also be said that you and anyone else is equally scary because their intellect may come to believe that genocide is a good idea.


So you don't believe the OT is the infallible word of God?

I'm no Jew or Muslim. So no.

God commanded the civil government to kill. He did not command individual people to kill (except in self defense). In it is sinful for me to kill outside of war, execution, or self defense. And the first two are only for the civil government to do.
War and execution aren't moral either, you're only saying they are because of your political agenda.

Not really. The Judeo-Christians just stole theirs from everybody around them.
What are Judeo-Christians? Jews and Christians? Why not Judeo-Christo-Muslims?

Oy..! :)

Firstly, that was sarcastic,.. though your persecution complex will make it into whatever it wishes, of course.

I don't consider polytheists (animists or elsewise) to be primitives. I don't consider you to be a primitive.
I knew it was sarcastic. It was also rude and insulting. You could have just said you were sorry, but you choose instead to tell me I have a "persecution complex." Kindly point out where I said you were persecuting me. If you look, you'll see I never said any such thing or anything like it. All I said was that you were insulting me. And you continue to do so in this post.

My point was that you SEEM to be taking the position that I'm not allowed to express my opinions about how other's belief systems appear to me to correspond t my own beliefs.
I have said to you again and again that what I object to your MANNER of expression. You have plenty of examples in this thread of people expressing opinions about each other's religions without anyone getting offended. If you cannot see the difference between their posts and yours, then there is no point in further discussion with you.

You can TRY to insult me, but I won't take them as such.

I'll simply respond to them as statements made by someone who doesn't quite understand what I meant, because if they DID understand what I meant they wouldn't have been insulted.
You know, sometimes, when someone says something that they did not mean to be offensive, but the person they are talking to gets offended, the first person will apologize for giving the offense with a simple, "I'm sorry," even though they didn't mean it. That's called being polite.

Constantly telling the offended person that they are wrong because they can't understand what you are saying is not called being polite. It's called arrogance.

They offended you because you think that I'm "degrading" your beliefs.
No, they offended me because, as I have told you over and over, you never asked me what my beliefs were. You made assumptions and then told me what my beliefs were based on your assumptions, and when I challenged you on it, you told me I was wrong about my explanations of my own beliefs.

You cannot possibly "degrade" my beliefs, because you haven't even described them. You've been wrong from your first word about them.

But thank you for yet again telling me what I think about something. :rolleyes:

I'm not doing that. I'm supporting your beliefs by explaining how I can see them as real, but through correspondence with my own beliefs.
I do not need you to "support" my beliefs at all, thank you very much.

I certainly do not need to be "supported" by having you claim that my beliefs match yours in any way at all. I do not care whether you see them as real. Why on earth would I care about something like that?

When Dempublicents and I compare our beliefs to each other, we are not seeking to validate or support anything. We're just comparing viewpoints and nothing more. Neither one of us cares if the other thinks we're nuts or not. Our spiritual beliefs are not so frail that we need the reassurance of other people thinking they're "real" too.

So you can take a break from "supporting" me now. Please.

That "support" you take to be me "co-opting" your religion, somehow, and that is unacceptable behavior to you.
Thank you for continuing to tell me what I'm thinking. Do you make much money as psychic? Quick -- which playing card am I imagining right now? :rolleyes:

Your misunderstanding of my intentions are unfortunate, but nothing I can do anything about other than to continue the dialogue as long as you wish to.
You could apologize for calling me and my beliefs "silly," "goofy" and "foolish."

There is no dialogue here. There is only you refusing to apologize for having insulted me.

What questions have I not answered?

I rather thought I was being EXCEEDINGLY verbose..! :)
Many words =/= an answer.

Disrespectful to you, apparently.

It is indeed up to the readers to decide if that's the case.

And even if they do decide I've been disrespectful, it's still a misinterpretation of my intentions.

If you wish to see disrespect, you will. Nothing to be done about that.
You just simply do not give a shit about the feelings of others, do you?

Presumptions about other's beliefs?

I simply make statements about what I believe, and about how I interpret the words of others in regards to what the subject is.

If something I say is "odd" to someone, we should talk about it. Period.
I have already explained this many times. You should understand it by now. Either you cannot, or you choose not to.

I'd LOVE you to take a critical look at my beliefs, and let me know what you think.

That is the essence of talking to each other..!
I have no criticism to make of your beliefs. Your beliefs are yours and you are entitled to them. I think nothing of them. Other people's beliefs are interesting to me only if they (a) coincide with mine in some way, or (b) interfere with me in some way. Your beliefs do neither.

You seem to think that my beliefs are somehow similar to yours, but you are mistaken. You made this mistake because rather than question me about my beliefs, you simply made assumptions about them and went forward with your assumptions. Your assumptions about my beliefs were incorrect.

I have read your descriptions of your beliefs and compared them to my own. They do not coincide or overlap. Thus, there is nothing to discuss in that direction.

People's beliefs only interfere with me if they try to legislate their beliefs into laws that affect me, or if they discriminate on the basis of religion. I see nothing in your beliefs that could interfere with me in any way. You have not advocated theocracy or religion-based legislation, nor have you said anything indicating a religious bias. Thus, there is no conflict and nothing to discuss in that direction, either.

And once again,.. I apologize profusely for my inability to make you understand that I wasn't being insulting toward you or your religion.
I will accept this apology, provided you stop commenting on the content and nature of my beliefs from now on.

I will accept your apology more positively if you acknowledge that you DID insult me, even if you didn't mean to.

And if you make an effort to stop doing the things I have told you offend me, then we might even be able to have conversations again.

Once again,.. If you want to stop talking to me,... STOP TALKING TO ME.
You go first.

And the phrase is "..TO hell with it."
The phrase is "THE hell with it" in New York (where I'm from) and Boston (where I live).

Ah,.. youngin's... :)

So touchy.
And now age discrimination. Tell me, o great psychic, how old am I?

(Hint: It's been over 10 years since I got carded in a bar.)

I respect your religion, as I see your religion.
I don't need you to respect my religion. I need you to respect me.

I don't know about how you respect your religion as you see your religion, because you can't seem to get over what you see as my "insults" to talk about what your religion really means to you.
Why the fuck should I talk to you about what my religion means to me, when the very first thing you ever posted to me was to call me stupid for having my beliefs? Retract your insults, apologize for having said them, and then ask me a question, if you want to know something about me. Is that really so damned difficult?

If you choose not to share, that's fine,.. and we're both impoverished by it.
No, seriously, we are not.

Once again,.. I don't badmouth anyone's religion.[/quote
"goofy" "silly" "fool"

Where's that apology?

[quote]I *MAY* badmouth the people holding their particular religion, though.

It's not for me to judge people's beliefs, that's god's job.

It IS for me to judge people's behavior, though, and juvenile "persecution complected" animists I shall continue to call juvenile "persecution complected" animists.

This is NOT an insult toward animists, of course. Nor really toward either juveniles, or the "persecution complected".

It's merely a description of a perception, and may be entirely incorrect.
Another catalogue of insults. I shall now ignore you. 'Bye.

Animists are great! If they are "good" animists. :)
Screw you.

Insignificantia -

I think part of the problem that Muravyets (and also to an extent, myself) is that you are constantly explaining the logic behind your beliefs to us, but you are never letting yourself (or your mind) out of the box of your beliefs to attempt to understand the logic behind what we believe. It's perfectly fine for you to attempt to understand our religion within *your* belief system, but I think that it is also necessary for you to attempt to understand our religion within *our* belief system. I do not think you could possibly be accurate in doing the former without attempting to do the latter.

Again, understanding our beliefs on our ground does not require you to internalize our beliefs or negate your own; but it does give you a better understanding of our beliefs to try to fit them within your own worldview.

I am also of the opinion that one should always use respectful language when participating in a serious discussion, and therefore words like "silly", "goofy", and "fool" are inappropriate in such a discussion regardless of the fact that you felt some words on the screen were any of the above. The more respectful approach would be to say "I disagree with you" or something else to that point.

I don't ask that you (or anyone else, for that matter) be "nice", I ask that you (the general you) be respectful.

Of course, everything I say here applies to all participants in this discussion (that we should be respectful and attempt to understand others' belief systems on their grounds as well as our own).
Thank you, Sericoyote. I am happy to accept this as the last word on the subject.

Insignificantia -

I think part of the problem that Muravyets (and also to an extent, myself) is that you are constantly explaining the logic behind your beliefs to us, but you are never letting yourself (or your mind) out of the box of your beliefs to attempt to understand the logic behind what we believe.

That's primarily because I see no logic behind, or rather have heard no logic behind, what it is you believe.

That is cured by simply stating what you believe. Then we can talk about it.

I think there have been some side discussions about the reasoning (logic) behind your beliefs between yourself and Mura, I think, but unfortunately I have been (annoyingly) preoccupied with answering these calls from Mura to "apologize", and haven't been able to join that particular discussion.


It's perfectly fine for you to attempt to understand our religion within *your* belief system, but I think that it is also necessary for you to attempt to understand our religion within *our* belief system.

ABSOLUTELY!!

The problem for me has been lack of words to play with, from you (two), on the subject.

Another "complication" in understanding your system from within your system is that I "may" be able to get into your system as I don't necessarily understand your system well enough.

Thus, my need for you to tell me the reasoning behind your system.


I do not think you could possibly be accurate in doing the former without attempting to do the latter.

Again, understanding our beliefs on our ground does not require you to internalize our beliefs or negate your own; but it does give you a better understanding of our beliefs to try to fit them within your own worldview.

And that is what I'm trying to do, by feeding-back into our discussion what I "think" I understand about your system as it fits into my system.


I am also of the opinion that one should always use respectful language when participating in a serious discussion, and therefore words like "silly", "goofy", and "fool" are inappropriate in such a discussion regardless of the fact that you felt some words on the screen were any of the above. The more respectful approach would be to say "I disagree with you" or something else to that point.

Most definitely true.

The reason for using words like "silly/goofy/fool/etc" was to tell you those things that appear to be the acts of "silly/foolish/goofy/etc" people,.. who may or may not be the person I'm conversing with.

The simple fact remains that I will call silly/goofy/foolish acts silly, goofy and foolish when I see them as such.


I don't ask that you (or anyone else, for that matter) be "nice", I ask that you (the general you) be respectful.

Of course, everything I say here applies to all participants in this discussion (that we should be respectful and attempt to understand others' belief systems on their grounds as well as our own).

I thoroughly believe that everyone is sincere in their beliefs, and that those beliefs should be regarded as valid and respectable, to those who hold them.

That wasn't directed at your posts.

It's just rather silly (for people in general) to especially slam Christians for being intolerant and theocratic when the people of most other religions do the same.
I agree that it is invalid to act as if only one religion is at fault for being intolerant.

However, I think it is valid to criticize any religion on the basis of its own bad behavior. And if we are just talking about one religion, then, yes, all the criticism that is expressed will be just about that religion. As long as we are willing to admit the crimes in our own religions' histories if challenged about it, and also as long as we are able to back up accusations with evidence if challenged, I don't see a problem with this.

So why are they worth deifying.
You might want to read my conversation about animism with Dempublicents. I work from a somewhat different concept of "god" and I do not follow a god that tells me how to live or what to do. I don't follow gods at all. I follow a spiritual belief system that tells me how to live, and I venerate gods who I deal with in my life or who exemplify characteristics I wish to develop in myself. If any of them appeared before me and commanded me to participate in genocide, that god's symbols would be removed from my home shrine, toute suite, because that would be an evil god.

Btw, one does not "deify" something that is already a god. For instance, you did not make the Christian God a god, did you? No, of course not. However, Augustus Caesar got to be a god because the Romans deified him after he died. See the dif?

And if Edwardis is frightening for saying he'd kill people if so ordered by God, and if you are right and God is just a figment of his imagination, then it could also be said that you and anyone else is equally scary because their intellect may come to believe that genocide is a good idea.
First of all, kindly point out where I said that God is just a figment of Edwardis's imagination. I never said any such thing.

What I said was, how can he be sure that what he feels, thinks, or is told is coming FROM God, rather than from himself or another human being. It is far from the same as implying that his god is a fiction. I never did that.

Also, how do you make the leap from observing that Edwardis is capable of thinking that genocide is a good idea, to assuming that everyone is capable of thinking that? What do you base that on? I would be interested to hear, based on what I just told you about myself, above, how you think I would ever come to think that genocide is a good idea. The fact is, I do not think it is a good idea. It is contrary to every concept of "right" and "good" that I have, and I would never change that view.

Killing is bad. Period. Sometimes it is not avoidable (as in getting food). Sometimes it is even right (as in self-defense/defense of others). But it is never, ever good. Just because an action is justifiable, that does not automatically make it a good action.

Genocide is killing on such a scale that there can never be a valid justification for it. The badness it generates is such that it overwhelms even the most self-serving, utilitarian definitions of "good." Thus, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be considered a good idea.

Get around that, if you think everyone is capable of coming to think genocide is a good idea. Show me how I would come to think genocide is a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Oy..!

Firstly, that was sarcastic,.. though your persecution complex will make it into whatever it wishes, of course.

I don't consider polytheists (animists or elsewise) to be primitives. I don't consider you to be a primitive.

I knew it was sarcastic. It was also rude and insulting. You could have just said you were sorry, but you choose instead to tell me I have a "persecution complex." Kindly point out where I said you were persecuting me. If you look, you'll see I never said any such thing or anything like it. All I said was that you were insulting me. And you continue to do so in this post.

Your not a primitive.


Quote:
My point was that you SEEM to be taking the position that I'm not allowed to express my opinions about how other's belief systems appear to me to correspond t my own beliefs.

I have said to you again and again that what I object to your MANNER of expression. You have plenty of examples in this thread of people expressing opinions about each other's religions without anyone getting offended. If you cannot see the difference between their posts and yours, then there is no point in further discussion with you.

No more discussion needed then.


Quote:
You can TRY to insult me, but I won't take them as such.

I'll simply respond to them as statements made by someone who doesn't quite understand what I meant, because if they DID understand what I meant they wouldn't have been insulted.

You know, sometimes, when someone says something that they did not mean to be offensive, but the person they are talking to gets offended, the first person will apologize for giving the offense with a simple, "I'm sorry," even though they didn't mean it. That's called being polite.

If I state something, and you take offense, do what you have to do to try to get the response you need.

If you need for me to apologize, ask for it.

If you don't like my apology, sorry about that.


Constantly telling the offended person that they are wrong because they can't understand what you are saying is not called being polite. It's called arrogance.

If you can't act like an adult, there really is no need to discuss anything with you, as you won't stay on topic.

The topic is not "rudeness", it is something or other about god.


Quote:
They offended you because you think that I'm "degrading" your beliefs.

No, they offended me because, as I have told you over and over, you never asked me what my beliefs were. You made assumptions and then told me what my beliefs were based on your assumptions, and when I challenged you on it, you told me I was wrong about my explanations of my own beliefs.

Firstly, I can't possibly TELL YOU your own beliefs.

Secondly, if you believe that I can (even attempt to) do so, then you show too little maturity to be of value as a discussion mate.


You cannot possibly "degrade" my beliefs, because you haven't even described them. You've been wrong from your first word about them.

But thank you for yet again telling me what I think about something.

Of course I can't degrade your beliefs. That's what I'm saying.

Only you can describe your beliefs. And all I can do is to comment on what you've said.


Quote:
I'm not doing that. I'm supporting your beliefs by explaining how I can see them as real, but through correspondence with my own beliefs.

I do not need you to "support" my beliefs at all, thank you very much.

I never said you NEEDED me to support your beliefs.

I'm saying I *DO* support your beliefs.


I certainly do not need to be "supported" by having you claim that my beliefs match yours in any way at all. I do not care whether you see them as real. Why on earth would I care about something like that?

The point of talking about such things is to find out what someone else thinks of something that you'd like to discuss.

By entering into the discussion, you are saying you wish to share your thoughts and wish me to share mine.

If you have discussions where you don't care about what other's say regarding the topic of discussion, then what is the point of your entering into the discussion?


When Dempublicents and I compare our beliefs to each other, we are not seeking to validate or support anything. We're just comparing viewpoints and nothing more. Neither one of us cares if the other thinks we're nuts or not. Our spiritual beliefs are not so frail that we need the reassurance of other people thinking they're "real" too.

That's the way it should be.


So you can take a break from "supporting" me now. Please.


Quote:
That "support" you take to be me "co-opting" your religion, somehow, and that is unacceptable behavior to you.

Thank you for continuing to tell me what I'm thinking. Do you make much money as psychic? Quick -- which playing card am I imagining right now?

That is indeed my hallucination. And that's the way that I see you.

Whether you agree with me or not is not material to whether I believe it to be so.


Quote:
Your misunderstanding of my intentions are unfortunate, but nothing I can do anything about other than to continue the dialogue as long as you wish to.

You could apologize for calling me and my beliefs "silly," "goofy" and "foolish."

There is no dialogue here. There is only you refusing to apologize for having insulted me.

Your beliefs are not silly/etc to me, because I don't know what they are.

Your correct in the observation that there is no dialogue here, except it's because you're hung up on needing an apology to continue it.


Quote:
What questions have I not answered?

I rather thought I was being EXCEEDINGLY verbose..!

Many words =/= an answer.

True.

Now, that questions have I not answered?


Quote:
Disrespectful to you, apparently.

It is indeed up to the readers to decide if that's the case.

And even if they do decide I've been disrespectful, it's still a misinterpretation of my intentions.

If you wish to see disrespect, you will. Nothing to be done about that.

You just simply do not give a shit about the feelings of others, do you?

I'm not "moved" by your needs, just as you're not "moved" by mine.

Do you NEED to feel "loved and comforted" at all time to be effective in what you want to do?

If so, how's that working out for you?


Quote:
Presumptions about other's beliefs?

I simply make statements about what I believe, and about how I interpret the words of others in regards to what the subject is.

If something I say is "odd" to someone, we should talk about it. Period.

I have already explained this many times. You should understand it by now. Either you cannot, or you choose not to.

?


Quote:
I'd LOVE you to take a critical look at my beliefs, and let me know what you think.

That is the essence of talking to each other..!

I have no criticism to make of your beliefs. Your beliefs are yours and you are entitled to them. I think nothing of them. Other people's beliefs are interesting to me only if they (a) coincide with mine in some way, or (b) interfere with me in some way. Your beliefs do neither.

You're perfectly correct in clauses (a) and (b). Your quite wrong about your conclusion, though.


You seem to think that my beliefs are somehow similar to yours, but you are mistaken. You made this mistake because rather than question me about my beliefs, you simply made assumptions about them and went forward with your assumptions. Your assumptions about my beliefs were incorrect.

That's fine. You may tell me about your religion now, if that's what you want to do.

I rather doubt you do.


I have read your descriptions of your beliefs and compared them to my own. They do not coincide or overlap. Thus, there is nothing to discuss in that direction.

People's beliefs only interfere with me if they try to legislate their beliefs into laws that affect me, or if they discriminate on the basis of religion. I see nothing in your beliefs that could interfere with me in any way. You have not advocated theocracy or religion-based legislation, nor have you said anything indicating a religious bias. Thus, there is no conflict and nothing to discuss in that direction, either.

Very good..!

You're correct in nearly every way, here!


Quote:
And once again,.. I apologize profusely for my inability to make you understand that I wasn't being insulting toward you or your religion.

I will accept this apology, provided you stop commenting on the content and nature of my beliefs from now on.

But, if we're commenting (discussing) the content and nature of our respective beliefs, how am I, or you, to do that?


I will accept your apology more positively if you acknowledge that you DID insult me, even if you didn't mean to.

Sorry.


And if you make an effort to stop doing the things I have told you offend me, then we might even be able to have conversations again.

If I don't believe that I've offended you, then to bow to your demands is a betrayal to what I hold as true.

Therefore, unless you wish to inflict some form of violence on me to compel me to stop doing that which I feel justified in doing, you'll simply have to not bother having discussions with me again.


Quote:
Once again,.. If you want to stop talking to me,... STOP TALKING TO ME.

You go first.

Why?


Quote:
And the phrase is "..TO hell with it."

The phrase is "THE hell with it" in New York (where I'm from) and Boston (where I live).

As you wish.


Quote:
Ah,.. youngin's...

So touchy.

And now age discrimination. Tell me, o great psychic, how old am I?

(Hint: It's been over 10 years since I got carded in a bar.)[quote]

Age is shown by behavior, not by trips around the sun.

[quote]
Quote:
I respect your religion, as I see your religion.

I don't need you to respect my religion. I need you to respect me.

I do respect you, as a person.

Your behavior, on the other hand....


Quote:
I don't know about how you respect your religion as you see your religion, because you can't seem to get over what you see as my "insults" to talk about what your religion really means to you.

Why the fuck should I talk to you about what my religion means to me, when the very first thing you ever posted to me was to call me stupid for having my beliefs? Retract your insults, apologize for having said them, and then ask me a question, if you want to know something about me. Is that really so damned difficult?

I doubt I did that. If you felt I did, then I suggest you check out the facts.

If the facts show that I insulted you, then I suggest you show me specifically how I insulted you.

If I believe that I insulted you, then I will apologize for having done so.

So,.. what's your religion about, anyway?


Quote:
If you choose not to share, that's fine,.. and we're both impoverished by it.

No, seriously, we are not.

As you wish.

If your religion sees an opportunity to share denied as something other than a tragedy, I do then have a reason to call your religion foolish.


[quote]Once again,.. I don't badmouth anyone's religion.[/quote
"goofy" "silly" "fool"

Where's that apology?

?


Quote:
I *MAY* badmouth the people holding their particular religion, though.

It's not for me to judge people's beliefs, that's god's job.

It IS for me to judge people's behavior, though, and juvenile "persecution complected" animists I shall continue to call juvenile "persecution complected" animists.

This is NOT an insult toward animists, of course. Nor really toward either juveniles, or the "persecution complected".

It's merely a description of a perception, and may be entirely incorrect.

Another catalogue of insults. I shall now ignore you. 'Bye.

Excellent. Less time wasted on your infantile needs for ego stoking, and more time to deal with substance.


Quote:
Animists are great! If they are "good" animists.

Screw you.

I thought you said "Bye"..!?

..yet you continue to speak!

Please, take a stand, and stick with it..!

That's primarily because I see no logic behind, or rather have heard no logic behind, what it is you believe.

That is cured by simply stating what you believe. Then we can talk about it.

I think there have been some side discussions about the reasoning (logic) behind your beliefs between yourself and Mura, I think, but unfortunately I have been (annoyingly) preoccupied with answering these calls from Mura to "apologize", and haven't been able to join that particular discussion.

ABSOLUTELY!!

The problem for me has been lack of words to play with, from you (two), on the subject.

Another "complication" in understanding your system from within your system is that I "may" be able to get into your system as I don't necessarily understand your system well enough.

Thus, my need for you to tell me the reasoning behind your system.

And that is what I'm trying to do, by feeding-back into our discussion what I "think" I understand about your system as it fits into my system.

Most definitely true.

The reason for using words like "silly/goofy/fool/etc" was to tell you those things that appear to be the acts of "silly/foolish/goofy/etc" people,.. who may or may not be the person I'm conversing with.

The simple fact remains that I will call silly/goofy/foolish acts silly, goofy and foolish when I see them as such.

I thoroughly believe that everyone is sincere in their beliefs, and that those beliefs should be regarded as valid and respectable, to those who hold them.

If you recall seeing said side discussions, why don't you just go back and read them?

Again you're missing my point, which is that you must *first* understand my beliefs within my belief framework *before* you can attempt to put it into your own framework. Thus when you immediately come back with an interpretation of my beliefs within your framework, you are sidestepping a crucial part of understanding what I'm saying.

Perhaps if you would like to learn something of my beliefs, you could start with a few simple questions that I can answer to get the ball rolling. It is difficult for me to determine an adequate place to begin and how in depth I should go as well as how many subjects I should cover.

I still think that respectful language is absolutely crucial to positive discourse. I'm not talking about people's beliefs being "respectable" I'm talking about being respectful to the people with whom you are having a discussion. If you cannot understand the concepts I'm putting forth here then I will have to cease discussion with you.

If you recall seeing said side discussions, why don't you just go back and read them?

Again you're missing my point, which is that you must *first* understand my beliefs within my belief framework *before* you can attempt to put it into your own framework. Thus when you immediately come back with an interpretation of my beliefs within your framework, you are sidestepping a crucial part of understanding what I'm saying.

Perhaps if you would like to learn something of my beliefs, you could start with a few simple questions that I can answer to get the ball rolling. It is difficult for me to determine an adequate place to begin and how in depth I should go as well as how many subjects I should cover.

I still think that respectful language is absolutely crucial to positive discourse. I'm not talking about people's beliefs being "respectable" I'm talking about being respectful to the people with whom you are having a discussion. If you cannot understand the concepts I'm putting forth here then I will have to cease discussion with you.
You're a good moderator.

A long time ago, I got into an argument with someone I won't name because he's not here. It was a bad fight and did not end in friendship, but despite that, he still eventually was able to settle down and ask the kinds of simple questions you suggest. Because of that, we were able to learn from each other, as I was able to explain my beliefs to him in a way that allowed him to present corresponding beliefs of his in comparison, similar to the way Dempublicents and I did here. Even though, in many matters he and I were intellectual enemies (not just opponents), we were still able to have that dialogue because, by asking the questions, he let go of his preconceptions and let me into a conversation.

The reason he needed to be the one to initiate questions was because he was the one with preconceptions about my beliefs, so he needed to frame the questions based on his preconceptions. That way, I could see where his mistakes were, and that let me know where to begin in explaining myself.

So even though there was never going to be peace between us, he was still showing respect to me by allowing me to speak for, define and explain my own beliefs.

In case anyone has gotten the impression that I just make up stuff to accuse people of, here is the post that I have been complaining of. This was Insignificantia's first comment to me. He was interjecting into an argument that I was having with someone else. I had said nothing at all to him at this point:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11729733&postcount=310

Here is the quote from that post that angered me:

Originally posted by Insignificantia
<snip>
If "your" god is not "omnipotent", then it is not god. And as such you are a fool and follower of silly goofy thoughts.

As a follower of silly goofy thoughts, your indignation at the opinions of others is amusing at best.
<snip>

Insignificantia seems to think this is... well, insignificant. I disagree. That is all I'm going to say. Enough time has been spent on it.

Thank you, Sericoyote. I am happy to accept this as the last word on the subject.

Sounds good to me..! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clanbrassil Street
That wasn't directed at your posts.

It's just rather silly (for people in general) to especially slam Christians for being intolerant and theocratic when the people of most other religions do the same.

I agree that it is invalid to act as if only one religion is at fault for being intolerant.

However, I think it is valid to criticize any religion on the basis of its own bad behavior. And if we are just talking about one religion, then, yes, all the criticism that is expressed will be just about that religion. As long as we are willing to admit the crimes in our own religions' histories if challenged about it, and also as long as we are able to back up accusations with evidence if challenged, I don't see a problem with this.


Quote:
So why are they worth deifying.

You might want to read my conversation about animism with Dempublicents. I work from a somewhat different concept of "god" and I do not follow a god that tells me how to live or what to do. I don't follow gods at all. I follow a spiritual belief system that tells me how to live, and I venerate gods who I deal with in my life or who exemplify characteristics I wish to develop in myself. If any of them appeared before me and commanded me to participate in genocide, that god's symbols would be removed from my home shrine, toute suite, because that would be an evil god.

Hear hear..!


Btw, one does not "deify" something that is already a god. For instance, you did not make the Christian God a god, did you? No, of course not. However, Augustus Caesar got to be a god because the Romans deified him after he died. See the dif?


Quote:
And if Edwardis is frightening for saying he'd kill people if so ordered by God, and if you are right and God is just a figment of his imagination, then it could also be said that you and anyone else is equally scary because their intellect may come to believe that genocide is a good idea.

First of all, kindly point out where I said that God is just a figment of Edwardis's imagination. I never said any such thing.

What I said was, how can he be sure that what he feels, thinks, or is told is coming FROM God, rather than from himself or another human being. It is far from the same as implying that his god is a fiction. I never did that.

Also, how do you make the leap from observing that Edwardis is capable of thinking that genocide is a good idea, to assuming that everyone is capable of thinking that? What do you base that on? I would be interested to hear, based on what I just told you about myself, above, how you think I would ever come to think that genocide is a good idea. The fact is, I do not think it is a good idea. It is contrary to every concept of "right" and "good" that I have, and I would never change that view.

Since genocide MEANS something bad, to you, it would always be seen as bad.

But what if a completely craven bunch (in the thousands) of homocidal maniacs were about to descend on a helpless village, and the ONLY way to save the village's inhabitants that was available was to massacre the "bad guys", would that be acceptable?

In other words, if mass slaughter is the ONLY tactic available, can it be defined by you as non-genocide?

But, I agree with you. "Genocide" as commonly understood is always unacceptable.


Killing is bad. Period. Sometimes it is not avoidable (as in getting food). Sometimes it is even right (as in self-defense/defense of others). But it is never, ever good. Just because an action is justifiable, that does not automatically make it a good action.

Quite so..!


Genocide is killing on such a scale that there can never be a valid justification for it. The badness it generates is such that it overwhelms even the most self-serving, utilitarian definitions of "good." Thus, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be considered a good idea.

Get around that, if you think everyone is capable of coming to think genocide is a good idea. Show me how I would come to think genocide is a good idea.

You couldn't be persuaded thus.

And I laud you for your absolutism on this point.

If you recall seeing said side discussions, why don't you just go back and read them?

..in the process. And I very much like your explanations. :)

Thank you.


Again you're missing my point, which is that you must *first* understand my beliefs within my belief framework *before* you can attempt to put it into your own framework. Thus when you immediately come back with an interpretation of my beliefs within your framework, you are sidestepping a crucial part of understanding what I'm saying.

To be able to understand your beliefs within your framework, I must understand your framework.

To understand your framework, I must know how your framework "fits" within my framework.

If I'm only given instances of your beliefs, sans your framework, then I must infer the structure of your framework from what I do know, which is only the instance of your belief and how I "think" your framework corresponds to my framework.

To find out more clearly, and accurately, whether I'm correct or not in my inference, I need to tell you what I see, honestly, and you need to tell me where I'm in error.

Then the discussion will narrow our common "error" in understanding.

..But,.. I can never just "KNOW" what your framework of belief is with no information, so my knowledge of your framework CAN'T preceed my "fitting" it against my own framework of belief.


Perhaps if you would like to learn something of my beliefs, you could start with a few simple questions that I can answer to get the ball rolling. It is difficult for me to determine an adequate place to begin and how in depth I should go as well as how many subjects I should cover.

That would be lovely..!!

We should probably do that in another thread though, as this one is becoming unruly.

A topic such as, "Wacky Monotheist shares God with Beautiful Animist", perhaps..?


I still think that respectful language is absolutely crucial to positive discourse. I'm not talking about people's beliefs being "respectable" I'm talking about being respectful to the people with whom you are having a discussion. If you cannot understand the concepts I'm putting forth here then I will have to cease discussion with you.

You're very correct, and ultimately I agree with you entirely.

My use of "prodding" can sometimes be misconstrued, especially by those of more "refined" cultures than my own.

One of the purposes that I've "set" myself is to show people that the "dominant culture" can sometimes use a little "minority culture" input,.. and since the "dominant culture" here is (as opposed to my culture) a bit too "prissy", I will occassionally "zing" one in from left field.

But, yes,.. ultimately establishing a mutual understanding that we're all here to HELP each other understand each other, and broaden our perspectives is the goal, and that no animosity is meant in any real way whatsoever.

You're a good moderator.

A long time ago, I got into an argument with someone I won't name because he's not here. It was a bad fight and did not end in friendship, but despite that, he still eventually was able to settle down and ask the kinds of simple questions you suggest. Because of that, we were able to learn from each other, as I was able to explain my beliefs to him in a way that allowed him to present corresponding beliefs of his in comparison, similar to the way Dempublicents and I did here. Even though, in many matters he and I were intellectual enemies (not just opponents), we were still able to have that dialogue because, by asking the questions, he let go of his preconceptions and let me into a conversation.

It wasn't the preconceptions that he let down,.. it was the battle, the animosity, that he let down.

People will always have their preconceptions, but if the goal is not to DEFEND those preconceptions but rather to EXPLAIN them, and thereby discover what the other person is talking about, then the discussion moves from being a battle to being an exploration.


The reason he needed to be the one to initiate questions was because he was the one with preconceptions about my beliefs, so he needed to frame the questions based on his preconceptions. That way, I could see where his mistakes were, and that let me know where to begin in explaining myself.

Precisely correct..!

If I have a question about, for example, what an animist believes about affecting the weather, I ask them if they think they can do so, and why.

Then the animist might respond. And the discussion continues.


So even though there was never going to be peace between us, he was still showing respect to me by allowing me to speak for, define and explain my own beliefs.

What is the sense in conversation that doesn't allow the other person the opportunity to respond and contribute, doesn't allow for term definition, and doesn't allow people to explain themselves?

That I would not term "conversation".

In case anyone has gotten the impression that I just make up stuff to accuse people of, here is the post that I have been complaining of. This was Insignificantia's first comment to me. He was interjecting into an argument that I was having with someone else. I had said nothing at all to him at this point:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=310

Here is the quote from that post that angered me:


Quote:
Originally posted by Insignificantia
<snip>
If "your" god is not "omnipotent", then it is not god. And as such you are a fool and follower of silly goofy thoughts.

As a follower of silly goofy thoughts, your indignation at the opinions of others is amusing at best.
<snip>


Insignificantia seems to think this is... well, insignificant. I disagree. That is all I'm going to say. Enough time has been spent on it.

My statement was a "brash" statement that expressed my opinion that "god" (later defined as the mono-god as opposed to one of the poly-gods) is, in fact, "omnipotent" (which I would define as a ludicrously meaningless term) and that if you call any "god" (mono-god or poly-god) "god" (mono-god) without possessing that characteristic (which is actually no characteristic at all) then you're just being silly.

In other words, I made the "provocative" (purposefully annoying in tone) statement that "We may not be talking about the same thing here, buckeroo!".

Then, I foolowed that up with an observation that my "conversation partner" may be just a bit touchy about being "harrassed" or not having made themselves understood.

Sometimes it's rather easy for someone predisposed to getting "annoyed" because they are constantly (or NEVER, actually!) misunderstood to get annoyed.

But,.. that's all water under the bridge.

I won't be "prodding" you with my "what do you think of THIS apparent nonsense" stick, as it wouldn't serve any useful purpose to do so.

..in the process. And I very much like your explanations. :)

Thank you.

To be able to understand your beliefs within your framework, I must understand your framework.

To understand your framework, I must know how your framework "fits" within my framework.

If I'm only given instances of your beliefs, sans your framework, then I must infer the structure of your framework from what I do know, which is only the instance of your belief and how I "think" your framework corresponds to my framework.

To find out more clearly, and accurately, whether I'm correct or not in my inference, I need to tell you what I see, honestly, and you need to tell me where I'm in error.

Then the discussion will narrow our common "error" in understanding.

..But,.. I can never just "KNOW" what your framework of belief is with no information, so my knowledge of your framework CAN'T preceed my "fitting" it against my own framework of belief.

That would be lovely..!!

We should probably do that in another thread though, as this one is becoming unruly.

A topic such as, "Wacky Monotheist shares God with Beautiful Animist", perhaps..?

You're very correct, and ultimately I agree with you entirely.

My use of "prodding" can sometimes be misconstrued, especially by those of more "refined" cultures than my own.

One of the purposes that I've "set" myself is to show people that the "dominant culture" can sometimes use a little "minority culture" input,.. and since the "dominant culture" here is (as opposed to my culture) a bit too "prissy", I will occassionally "zing" one in from left field.

But, yes,.. ultimately establishing a mutual understanding that we're all here to HELP each other understand each other, and broaden our perspectives is the goal, and that no animosity is meant in any real way whatsoever.

Ah, or you could proceed from a standpoint of "I know nothing" and ask questions about everything, or we could include a discussion of my framework in with the discussion of my belief system for your benefit (and mine as well).

Actually I'm not an animist, I'm what can typically be referred to as a "hardcore" polytheist (but I won't contest the "beautiful" part.. haha!). There is, however, a lot of overlap between Muravyet's beliefs and my own.

If you would like to continue this discussion elsewhere, I will be pleased to participate in a respectful discussion focused on mutual understanding of each other's religious worldview.

Ah, or you could proceed from a standpoint of "I know nothing" and ask questions about everything, or we could include a discussion of my framework in with the discussion of my belief system for your benefit (and mine as well).

Actually I'm not an animist, I'm what can typically be referred to as a "hardcore" polytheist (but I won't contest the "beautiful" part.. haha!). There is, however, a lot of overlap between Muravyet's beliefs and my own.

If you would like to continue this discussion elsewhere, I will be pleased to participate in a respectful discussion focused on mutual understanding of each other's religious worldview.
I am always up for respectful, friendly, open discussions of comparative religion, but I'd like to emphasize the part of your post that I, um... emphasized. :)

I think this is absolutely vital to any such discussion. It is always best to start with questions rather than statements. All parties must be aware of their own preconceptions, if any, and be ready to lay them out for discussion. And all parties should avoid assuming that they already know what the other person is about.

I am always up for respectful, friendly, open discussions of comparative religion, but I'd like to emphasize the part of your post that I, um... emphasized. :)

I think this is absolutely vital to any such discussion. It is always best to start with questions rather than statements. All parties must be aware of their own preconceptions, if any, and be ready to lay them out for discussion. And all parties should avoid assuming that they already know what the other person is about.

Sounds excellent, would you like to create a new topic for it?

Sounds excellent, would you like to create a new topic for it?

Not really. ;)

I never initiate thread topics because I suck at it.

Not really. ;)

I never initiate thread topics because I suck at it.

I'm with you on that (the sucking at it part).

I'm with you on that (the sucking at it part).
Every time I think of a topic I might post, I always end up dismissing it as too broad or too narrow or too common or too obscure, and every new thread plan ends with a "feh, I'll watch tv instead."

Every time I think of a topic I might post, I always end up dismissing it as too broad or too narrow or too common or too obscure, and every new thread plan ends with a "feh, I'll watch tv instead."

that tv can be a pretty good convincer.. I've defeated mine by keeping it in the box ever since I moved (almost two months ago.. just no time for unpacking!)

that tv can be a pretty good convincer.. I've defeated mine by keeping it in the box ever since I moved (almost two months ago.. just no time for unpacking!)

What!?! And you call yourself an American? ;)

Television is how I know half the shit I know. It's my Wiki, the first reference that leads me to read further. I thank the gods of telecommunications (;) ;)) for PBS and the Discovery Network. It was an hour on Discovery that clued me that the Amazons were real people, 4 months before the first articles appeared in archeological journals. And right now, I'm watching "Engineering an Empire: Egypt." Animated CAD renderings are cool. :cool: