Do you belive other gods exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoosier_Daddy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate new age religion trash.

No one knows what the ancestors practiced and worshipped.

Stupid naïve fools that practice ridiculous “wicca” and other pathetic new age trash know nothing and another point is few properly follow the old ways…
 
Ecclesiaticus_S said:
I hate new age religion trash.

No one knows what the ancestors practiced and worshipped.

Stupid naïve fools that practice ridiculous “wicca” and other pathetic new age trash know nothing and another point is few properly follow the old ways…
Click to expand...
Um… excuse me. I have never attacked your religion in this manner don’t insult mine and bundle it with what it isn’t.
Wait woah woah WOAH! Ecclesiaticus? Man I thought we were getting along!
 
Yes, various Gods (capital ‘G’) exist.

Whether adherents of various religions chose to believe or accept each others’ deities does not change their existence.
 
Lokadottir said:
Um… excuse me. I have never attacked your religion in this manner don’t insult mine and bundle it with what it isn’t.
Wait woah woah WOAH! Ecclesiaticus? Man I thought we were getting along!
Click to expand...
Sorry i did not insult your religion that is not my intent…

I spoke with the White Nationalist pagans who actually follow the old ways - they even hate neo-paganism it is a slap in the face and a disgrace to our ancestors.

Do you not agree?
 
Ecclesiaticus_S said:
Sorry i did not insult your religion that is not my intent…

I spoke with the White Nationalist pagans who actually follow the old ways - they even hate neo-paganism it is a slap in the face and a disgrace to our ancestors.

Do you not agree?
Click to expand...
It was so out of context it seemed sweeping. I don’t like it either, but I want respect from Christians so I believe I should offer respect to the light-and-love crowd.
 
Kallisto said:
Yes, various Gods (capital ‘G’) exist.

Whether adherents of various religions chose to believe or accept each others’ deities does not change their existence.
Click to expand...
Actually they do not and it would be *g not G
 
Lokadottir said:
It was so out of context it seemed sweeping. I don’t like it either, but I want respect from Christians so I believe I should offer respect to the light-and-love crowd.
Click to expand...
Ok i agree it was completely out of context but true nevertheless…
 
Lokadottir said:
No you called it “demonic” then you said it had been condemned. You also illustrated all the nasty evil people who follow it. However I apologize if I’m reading in between the lines wrongly.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re getting it quite wrong. We aren’t painting the adherents of Santa Muerte as evil people. We are saying that there are people like ourselves - sinners - who are practicing devotion and worship of a being who seek its endorsement and validation of the very sins they are committing, and that is itself wrongdoing. Christian sinners seek the intercession of saints for the cause only of good. Of healing, of release from privations and trials, to help ourselves and others in their path to holiness and glorification of God. The saints intercede with God for the common good. It is actually impossible for a saint’s intercession to cause evil to be done. Murderers and homosexualists surely pray to Catholic saints as well, but it would not flow from an orthodox belief in Catholicism that the saints would bless and encourage their activities. We can’t prove that devotion to the Communion of Saints is demonic based on the type of people who are devoted to them.

This is how we know that Santa Muerte is demonic. That people - I don’t care what kind of person it is - seek the furthering of evil intent by their devotion, is not a belief worthy of respect. It would not be love to accept these activities. It would not be love to reject and judge people’s souls because of what they do. It is our duty to reach out to drug dealers and homosexualists with love and empathy. Everyone I know is a sinner. I try to treat them with all the love I have. That doesn’t mean that I have to accept, condone and encourage all of their activities. I let them know when they have strayed from the path of good. I pray on their behalf. I earnestly hope that they will be blessed abundantly. If I began to reject people based on the type of sin they were involved in, I would not have any friends for very long.
 
Ecclesiaticus_S said:
Sorry i did not insult your religion that is not my intent…

I spoke with the White Nationalist pagans who actually follow the old ways - they even hate neo-paganism it is a slap in the face and a disgrace to our ancestors.

Do you not agree?
Click to expand...
Neopaganism has little to do with ancestral or reconstructionist polytheism (and commonly neither of which tend to self-identify as “pagan”), and do not consider their religions as coming under the heading of Neopagan. To be fair, Neopaganism is quite diverse and there are practices that are quite respectable. The issue is that a large Neopagan segment (if not the largest) is what’s labeled “Eclectic” and/or “Solitary”, meaning individuals who adhere to no pre-existing defined religion, largely void of traditions and engage in individualized modes of spirituality which draw on a number of influences from ancient polytheism to western esotericism to New Age practices - and even the Abrahamic religions.

Also, actual authentic Wicca is quite different from the Neopagan eclectic witchcraft often referring to its self as “Wicca” (a whole other discussion in itself). While actual Wicca is not ancient, it is not incompatible with nor “a slap in the face” to other polytheistic practices as it tends to have parallels in such things as tradition and orthopraxy.
 
Lokadottir said:
Come on man! I don’t tell you Jesus isn’t a “Christ” or anything! If you believe in the Gods then yes its a big G out of respect.
Click to expand...
From our perspective, the big “G” isn’t simply a matter of respect, but an important philosophical distinction between superhuman beings in general and the one Ultimate Source of the universe.

If you will explain how else I may make that distinction so as not to be disrespectful to your faith, I will give the suggestion serious consideration. But the distinction is absolutely vital to this discussion (which is why I made myself quite obnoxious to my fellow-Christians earlier on this thread). The two terms refer to completely different realities–God is far more different from the “gods” than they are from us. To speak of “Gods,” defining “God” as we do, would be incoherent. There is no debate over whether there is more than one “God.” There is only, philosophically, a debate over whether “God” exists or not (and religiously there are then the further questions of how God is known and what honor should be paid to other beings who might be called divine).

Edwin
 
Kallisto said:
Neopaganism has little to do with ancestral or reconstructionist polytheism (and commonly neither of which tend to self-identify as “pagan”), and do not consider their religions as coming under the heading of Neopagan. To be fair, Neopaganism is quite diverse and there are practices that are quite respectable. The issue is that a large Neopagan segment (if not the largest) is what’s labeled “Eclectic” and/or “Solitary”, meaning individuals who adhere to no pre-existing defined religion, largely void of traditions and engage in individualized modes of spirituality which draw on a number of influences from ancient polytheism to western esotericism to New Age practices - and even the Abrahamic religions.

Also, actual authentic Wicca is quite different from the Neopagan eclectic witchcraft often referring to its self as “Wicca” (a whole other discussion in itself). While actual Wicca is not ancient, it is not incompatible with nor “a slap in the face” to other polytheistic practices as it tends to have parallels in such things as tradition and orthopraxy.
Click to expand...
Haha actually none of what you said there came to a point so what was it all about?

You repeatedly stated what is in fact common knowledge and made little sense throughout it all… try again.
 
Ecclesiaticus_S said:
Haha actually none of what you said there came to a point so what was it all about?

You repeatedly stated what is in fact common knowledge and made little sense throughout it all… try again.
Click to expand...
You didn’t get the point?

Different religions are… different.

Maybe the poster finds the tap tap taping of the keyboard soothing.😉
 
Contarini said:
From our perspective, the big “G” isn’t simply a matter of respect, but an important philosophical distinction between superhuman beings in general and the one Ultimate Source of the universe.

If you will explain how else I may make that distinction so as not to be disrespectful to your faith, I will give the suggestion serious consideration. But the distinction is absolutely vital to this discussion (which is why I made myself quite obnoxious to my fellow-Christians earlier on this thread). The two terms refer to completely different realities–God is far more different from the “gods” than they are from us. To speak of “Gods,” defining “God” as we do, would be incoherent. There is no debate over whether there is more than one “God.” There is only, philosophically, a debate over whether “God” exists or not (and religiously there are then the further questions of how God is known and what honor should be paid to other beings who might be called divine).

Edwin
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you do this, merely that you respect her right to do so because in her faith (and mine actually) it is in fact the right and proper thing to do.
 
However, you cannot expect others to view and refer to any deity solely on Christian terms. Our Gods are not lesser than your god (which you refer to as “God”). It’s not simply a matter of respect and the Gods are not inferior.

Attempting to maintain what “is” per one religion’s pov doesn’t change that.
 
Ecclesiaticus_S said:
Haha actually none of what you said there came to a point so what was it all about?

You repeatedly stated what is in fact common knowledge and made little sense throughout it all… try again.
Click to expand...
You not comprehending is not the same as me not explaining. “Try again.”
 
Kallisto said:
Yes, various Gods (capital ‘G’) exist.

Whether adherents of various religions chose to believe or accept each others’ deities does not change their existence.
Click to expand...
Under the rules of grammar, capitalization applies when a proper noun refers to a specific individual. We do not capitalize words like humans, tigers, meadowlarks, etc. because these refer to a group and not a specific individual. If gods exist, there would be no need to capitalize the word because in this capacity the word gods does not refer to a specific individual.

On the other hand, when referring to the Uncaused Cause of all that exists (aka God), we are necessarily referencing one specific being who is Being Itself, whose essence is Existence Itself. Ipsum Esse Subsistens. In this case, and only in this case, is God, under the rules of grammar a proper noun that is capitalized because only this “God” is one individual that the word God references.

If pagans choose to honour gods, whether existing in reality or not, is neither here nor there, because ultimately these gods cannot account for reality itself. Since ultimate reality is one, the question remains, “Is there one supreme God that accounts for all of reality and is the one Supreme Deity over all?”

This, I submit, is the difference between paganism (which honours ostensibly “higher” beings) and monotheistic religions that propose one Supreme Being over and above all that exists and explains all that exists, including those domains inhabited by pagan deities.

So your comment “…whether adherents of various religions chose to believe or accept each others’ deities does not change their existence…” applies here as well, but even more so because if one Supreme Being exists then that God is due honour and worship far above all other gods. Whether adherents of pagan religions choose to believe that or not is irrelevant and as you say “does not change” his existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top