How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[KarenNC]

Which God or goddess do you have a preference for?

We have a relationship with the Hellenic pantheon, primarily Hera (as we are a married couple), Athena (my husband and I are both handwork orientd, and love to study/research–as I said before our daughter has a particular affinity for Her as well), Hestia (as concerned with our home and home life), Hermes (my husband is in the IT industry, which seems a natural for Hermes, as well as in the areas of travel, boundaries, etc). Pan also holds a special place, both for music and for his liminality between the civilized and the wild.

We on occasion will pour libations to some of the other deities when a particular situation arises–to Poseidon when we visit the sea, for instance, or Demeter as we put in a garden.

 

[Keikiolu]

Well, the extremely backhanded apology is at least novel on these boards where few have the grace to do even that much.

So, which is it? Am I “true polytheist” (in which case I should be so easy to convert?) or a “closet atheist playing at being spiritualist” with my “plaything” deities?

You’re a TRUE modern polytheist, as you CAN’T be an aboriginal one, and you’re NOT one of those non-thinking modern polytheists who are “in it for the chicks/dudes”.

As a true modern polytheist, you’re a closet atheist, as your believing in anything means you believe in nothing. Unless it’s fun,… and you believe in things that are fun.

you can only not accept that one “type” of God exists. Ours. And why?

Because I have seen no compelling proof that your God is indeed a different “type” of God. “He says so” is not sufficient for me.

That’s cool. One of the foundations of Christian faith is called “grace”, which is a “gift” from God which allows us to understand the difference between the concepts of God and gods.

You haven’t quite got it, so it’s perfectly understandable that you don’t get it.

(( Yes,… that is circular, but it’s MEANT to be circular. ))

Maybe I am a true polytheist after all, as I did “know a better way when * it”, and am quite happy with it, thank you.*



Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mmortal03]

<post about holier than thou or obnoxious Catholics not trying to understand where someone of another faith is coming from, and about the fact that in these types of discussions, you don’t have convert yourself to the other religion, but instead should at least show some sort of empathy and understanding and respect of the other’s beliefs>

I completely agree with what you had to say in the above post. I will tell you right now that I think that the people who have been rude to you or not understanding on this board should not be representative of what Catholicism or this board strives for.

I have been on these boards for somewhere around three months now and it still astounds me that the folks here choose to persist in telling me what I believe. Do you not realize that you are actually being given a gift?

I think the problem is that those you are mentioning often truly can’t put themselves in your shoes. In other words, they have no context for understanding where you are coming from. I think in many cases they are just trying to rephrase your statements such that they can better understand your beliefs, and that it isn’t of ill intent when they state it back to you and get it wrong. (I am sure there are select posts here where there have also been rephrasing of your beliefs WITH malicious intent, however, it was probably along the same lines of, or in response to, for example, you comparing our Communion to cannibalism (hopefully without malicious intent, because that IS offensive.)

You can’t witness to someone who is trying to avoid you like the plague because you are obnoxious! It does not make you look smarter, more educated, superior or more confident in your faith–in fact the exact opposite. I have to remind myself that one merely reinforces every negative stereotype that that person has ever heard when I slip and fall prey to the temptation to do such (and I have so failed more often than I would like). Not only that, they will then go around telling their friends that, yes, it is true that anyone decribing themselves as the follower of that particular religion really is (insert negative stereotype) and should be avoided.

Richard Dawkins (a well known atheist) has this same problem when he describes his views on atheism when in comparison to other religions. He isn’t a very good teacher/persuader because of his “obnoxiousness” problem, because people from the other faiths feel that he comes across in a “matter of fact” way that is disrespectful, and this keeps them from listening to whether or not his arguments make sense. (My personal opinion has always been that they should still listen to his arguments if they make sense, but that is a whole 'nother issue!)

When asked about this, Dawkins usually just says that he doesn’t care, that he isn’t going to sugar coat these things that are so obviously true, when instead it is the problem of those whom he is speaking to that are so fundamentally religious, indoctrinated, and closed minded that they can’t even let themselves really try to understand. And, he says that they aren’t his target audience, anyway (he tries only to “convert” those on the fence, and doesn’t have as much confidence that he can persuade the truly fundamentally religious, because they are so far gone.)

I would say that the difference between Richard Dawkins’ method of spreading his ideas, and that of Catholics, is that Catholics DO include EVERYONE in their target audience, and Catholics should try to translate their arguments into words such that those coming from another religion can understand and relate to.

 

[mmortal03]

The problem here, I think, is that certain people on this board see your religion as so contrary to the norm, as such a minority, that they don’t know a way of, or don’t see the need to take the time in, going about discussing it with you on your terms. Some Catholics may also have the idea that because Catholicism considers itself to be the one true Christian religion, that it is instead the responsibility of those who have broken from the Church, to see the light. (this is usually in the context of how the Church will deal with Protestant church organizations as a whole, but this same way of thought often seems to trickle down to other individual person interfaith discussions). I think this “holier than thou”, or even this “more logical than thou” way of thinking needs to be removed as much as possible here.

He refused to have anything to do with the board after about a week of attempting to have actual theological discussions (and he is much more fond of such than I am) and was appalled that it was as bad or worse than encounters he has had with the worst of the Evangelicals. He had expected a much higher standard among Catholics.

I do too, and generally, Catholics WILL hold themselves to a much higher standard in these types of discussions. I am surprised that your experience here has been worse than encounters with “the worst of the Evangelicals”. Please understand that there are Catholics, just as any other people, that don’t have much of an exposure to the rest of the world, and are ignorant of outside ideas. This even goes for adults in later age! Religious intolerance should not be tolerated from anyone however, and I don’t much like these arguments that “their religion is so illogical that they don’t deserve respect”. It should be possible to have informative discussions and debate on the Catholic side of things, with complete tact, regardless of how much one thinks that that would be succumbing to relativism.

 

[Petergee]

The following is not addressed exclusively to Petergee (and I will say in advance that I have actually found that there are some on these boards who do not fit the following description, but you are unfortunately in the minority in my experience. I do appreciate you and that is why I am still here):

You are right. I should be stronger and avoid being led by example. Usually I do a better job of it, but there are simply days in which my tolerance for such is very low and I respond in kind–yesterday was one of them. My apologies and I promise all I will strive to do better in such discussions.

I have been on these boards for somewhere around three months now and it still astounds me that the folks here choose to persist in telling me what I believe. Do you not realize that you are actually being given a gift? Why choose to slap it out of the giver’s hands?

If the goal of your religion is to evangelize to those of other religions, don’t you think you would stand a better chance of your efforts working if you actually understood what the other person believed or means when he says “_____” rather than continually telling him what you think he believes?

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding you, but you appear to be accusing me of telling you what you believe. When have I done this?

The impressions of both myself and my husband of the Catholic Church, which were initially in the neutral to somewhat positive range on most things though I disagree with the theology, has not been changed for the better overall. He refused to have anything to do with the board after about a week of attempting to have actual theological discussions (and he is much more fond of such than I am) and was appalled that it was as bad or worse than encounters he has had with the worst of the Evangelicals. He had expected a much higher standard among Catholics.

It has become obvious to me that I must have simply been incredibly fortunate before this to meet only Catholics in real life and to read Catholic writers who were actually interested in and capable of having a true civil dialogue, even with those who were in almost complete disagreement. Not that such discussions did not get intense, but they did not sink to the level I have witnessed here.

Ask questions, and be willing to actually listen to the answers. You don’t have to believe something to attempt to understand that someone else does. You don’t have to convert to have a discussion comparing differences. This board’s entire purpose for existence is " to compare and contrast beliefs." If you don’t want to at least attempt such discussions in a civil manner, why come here at all?

Again, presuming these comments are directed to me, I am stunned. I have been attempting over and over again to have theological discussions with you and asking you to explain your beliefs and the reasons you have for them, with very little meaningful response from you. I’m all ears. And how has my manner been uncivil?

Btw I’m sure the other parents are concerned about YOUR professed beliefs and activities, not anything they find wrong with your daughter. And I’m concerned at your apparent idea that your daughter’s blonde hair should be a factor in other parents finding her a suitable playmate for their children. It seems you are as affected by “Deep South” attitudes as they are.

 

[Keikiolu]

** …{snip}…**
In a nutshell, believing in a religion founded on the concept that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save from Himself the creatures that He created who contravened laws that He set up, knowing when He created them that they were susceptible to doing so and, indeed would inevitably do so, then damning them to eternal torment for such? That will do for starters.

…{snip}…

I must admit, that is a great sentence…!!

The problem with your “logic” is that God created man with FREE WILL and “human reason”, which is why God went through the roundabout (to humans) process that He did (is).

It is simply demonstrable (observable) that humans have a sort of reason, and that they have free will.

Due to our wackily errant decision processes, it required various “object lessons” presented by God to teach His creations (us) how to be “more perfect”.

To address your issues specifically:

"God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save from Himself the creatures that He created…"

God made Himself into a real man, so that we would have an example (one of us) to observe of someone who freely chose to be wrongly tortured to death rather than do the evil of giving in to evil.

He didn’t sacrifice Himself (God as God) to Himself (God as God). He limited Himself as we are limited (became a true man) and sacrificed as we CAN sacrifice (by mortification) when it was right to sacrifice.

He (God) then said that he who sacrifices when it is right to sacrifice will be “arisen” by Him, as He rose up Himself, as only He can do.

We are “saved” by that sacrifice (which He demonstrated and we are to follow in example) because NOW we know that it IS right to do so and that it’s result is “eternal life”.

Being “saved” is simply choosing, and acting, rightly. It is always a free choice of each person, and God never damns anyone who doesn’t choose to be damned.

continued next post…

 

[Keikiolu]

…

"…creatures that He created who contravened laws that He set up, knowing when He created them that they were susceptible to doing so and, indeed would inevitably do so…"

His first decision in creating man was that they should have free will.

Once they were given free will, they could choose to not obey the rules of reality, which were not arbitrary, but “the best ones” originating from the creator of the whole deal (the creation).

Once they (man) chose that course, God had the mercy to help us learn in the best way possible (“the best” due to the source of the “help”).

The options were to simply wipe His creation out and start again, completely fresh,… or not do that. He chose the latter, and we’re in the midst of our “lessons” now, moving toward wherever we’re “going” (salvation or not).

"…then damning them to eternal torment for such."

Once again,… we choose to be damned, of our own free will, through not taking the example of Christ Jesus, and doing whatever needs doing to “stick up for what is right”.

Atheists always think that a “proof” that God doesn’t exist is that if He did, all creation would be a “peachy” place of perfect wonderfulness, because a REAL God wouldn’t allow suffering, as He could “do something about it”, and would in fact be FORCED to do something about it (immediately) because to NOT do so would make Him EVIL, and an EVIL supreme being is just too nasty a thing to contemplate existing…!

So the atheist is forced into either believing, because suffering DOES in fact exist, that God is evil or that there IS NO God.

…and chooses (sensibly enough given the options, usually) that He doesn’t exist.

Believing in a multitude of gods (spirits) with no actual CREATOR of them (or the physical universe) is the functional equivalent of atheism. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you believe or do if you can always justify your actions by invoking a “god” who says, “Sure,… go right ahead. That’s what I’m here for. To make you happy.”

If you tend to choose “gods” that don’t justify “evil” and promote “good”, then God has a hand in those “gods” and is using them to pull you toward Himself.

But if you know that a God exists who is the sum total of all the “good parts” of all the “gods”, and you fail to choose Him over your little partially (at best) good gods, then you simply prove yourself a little daft in your judgement.

If you persist in your choice to deal with partial good, and actively deny whole good, then the evil portion is what you are choosing, unecessarily, and you are thus actively promoting evil.

If you actively promote evil,… it grows.

Is that a good thing,… even for a “pagan”?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding you, but you appear to be accusing me of telling you what you believe. When have I done this?
Again, presuming these comments are directed to me, I am stunned. I have been attempting over and over again to have theological discussions with you and asking you to explain your beliefs and the reasons you have for them, with very little meaningful response from you. I’m all ears. And how has my manner been uncivil?

Btw I’m sure the other parents are concerned about YOUR professed beliefs and activities, not anything they find wrong with your daughter. And I’m concerned at your apparent idea that your daughter’s blonde hair should be a factor in other parents finding her a suitable playmate for their children. It seems you are as affected by “Deep South” attitudes as they are.

If you are not even willing to try to understand that the words “the following comments are not solely directed at Petergee” might mean that I am also addressing things that have occurred with others in the post and that the sole fact that I include the mention that my daughter has blonde hair makes you decide that I am some sort of racist rather than simply using a descriptor, there is no hope of ever having any sort of realistic dialogue.

Thanks for your time, but I am done.

 

[KarenNC]

**I must admit, that is a great sentence…!! **

Thank you.

The problem with your “logic” is that God created man with FREE WILL and “human reason”, which is why God went through the roundabout (to humans) process that He did (is).

Since you teach that He is omnipotent, in sole control of everything in the universe, as well as omniscient, knowing before anything began everything that would happen as a result of His choices in designing both humanity, the world in which humanity would live and the laws/situations that would earn His damnation of humans, I don’t really see that saying “God created man with free will” makes my reasoning invalid. He set the stage, He controls all the variables, then places blame on humanity when they do exactly what He knew ahead of time they would do based on His actions.

He didn’t sacrifice Himself (God as God) to Himself (God as God). He limited Himself as we are limited (became a true man) and sacrificed as we CAN sacrifice (by mortification) when it was right to sacrifice.

So the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was not then fully God at all times? If that is true, then He was just another man, able to be holy only as any other man to be holy, and where is the value of the sacrifice? It was my understanding that the value of the sacrifice was that it was Jesus as One of the Trinity who sacrificed Himself, that a human who did so would not have fulfilled the requirements (which were set by God, btw).

Being “saved” is simply choosing, and acting, rightly. It is always a free choice of each person, and God never damns anyone who doesn’t choose to be damned.

What does the Catholic Church teach about Judas and free will? To my mind, if God created Judas, knowing when He created him that Judas would be required to do as he did in betraying Jesus for the sacrifice to occur because that is the way God planned it, did Judas truly have free will? If Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus would the sacrifice not have occurred? Why could not the sacrifice occur without involving any other human who would then be damned? Why could Jesus not simply be a willing sacrifice in actually turning Himself over to the Romans and accomplishing the same thing (actually a better one, as He would be a more willing sacrifice)? If it was to fulfill a prophecy, who gave the prophecy as a requirement in the first place if not God? If it was other than God, what validity would it have?

 

[KarenNC]

His first decision in creating man was that they should have free will…The options were to simply wipe His creation out and start again, completely fresh,… or not do that. He chose the latter, and we’re in the midst of our “lessons” now, moving toward wherever we’re “going” (salvation or not).

Correct me if I am wrong, but, given the above, doesn’t saying that God had to choose (presumably at some point later than creation) to either start over or not based on the actions of man at least strongly imply that He is not omniscient? That would explain much about a few things in the scriptures that show God apparently changing His mind, for instance:

Genesis 6: 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal ** ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” (footnotes: Genesis 6:3 Or My spirit will not remain in, Genesis 6:3 Or corrupt )

As well as Genesis 6:5, etc
"5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. "

Lack of omniscience would also make the whole sacrifice/resurrection story more understandable. I am fully prepared to acknowledge that some of my arguments do not stand if I am mistaken and you do not actually believe that your God is omniscient.

**Atheists always think that a “proof” that God doesn’t exist is that if He did, all creation would be a “peachy” place of perfect wonderfulness, because a REAL God wouldn’t allow suffering, as He could “do something about it”, and would in fact be FORCED to do something about it (immediately) because to NOT do so would make Him EVIL, and an EVIL supreme being is just too nasty a thing to contemplate existing…!!

So the atheist is forced into either believing, because suffering DOES in fact exist, that God is evil or that there IS NO God.

…and chooses (sensibly enough given the options, usually) that He doesn’t exist.**

Good thing I’m not an atheist, then, I suppose (actually, I have more Gods than you do ). If you want to discuss what atheists believe, you will need to talk to an actual atheist.

**Believing in a multitude of gods (spirits) with no actual CREATOR of them (or the physical universe) is the functional equivalent of atheism.

No, it isn’t. BTW, I have never said that I believed there was no creator of the physical universe or of the Gods (who are part of the universe, physically apparent to us or otherwise). I have explicitly said that there may well be an ultimate ground of being, but that that ground of being is not in any sort of active relationship with humanity.

Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you believe or do if you can always justify your actions by invoking a “god” who says, “Sure,… go right ahead. That’s what I’m here for. To make you happy.”**

Wow, maybe I should find these Gods because They certainly seem to let people off the hook of personal responsibility a whole lot easier than any of the Gods I have heard of and certainly more than mine . I have to say that I have never heard any polytheist describe the purpose of the existence of his or her God or Gods as being “to make humanity happy.” In my religion, that would be beyond hubris, it would be claiming that we are not just the equals of the Gods, but in fact superior to Them, that the Gods exist solely for the benefit and use of humanity. Could you point to a polytheism (preferably a TRUE one, to use your phrasing ) that claims such?

The Gods I know do not necessarily either “justify evil” or “promote good.” Their focus in existence is not humanity, we simply happen to benefit from a relationship with Them. There are forces in the universe that can be benevolently inclined toward humanity, malevolently inclined, neutral, indifferent or a combination of all of the above. The human terms of "good’ and “evil” are not in relation to the Gods, but in relation to other humans.**

 

[KarenNC]

**But if you know that a God exists who is the sum total of all the “good parts” of all the “gods”, and you fail to choose Him over your little partially (at best) good gods, then you simply prove yourself a little daft in your judgement.

If you persist in your choice to deal with partial good, and actively deny whole good, then the evil portion is what you are choosing, unecessarily, and you are thus actively promoting evil.

If you actively promote evil,… it grows.

Is that a good thing,… even for a “pagan”?**

This would only be relevant in the case that one did believe that there was a “whole good” in which case one would have a monotheistic, not a polytheistic, understanding of religion (and, yes, I do believe that even an atheist can have either one or the other understanding of religion even if he does not personally believe in either one–claiming that the monotheistic God does not exist is not the same as claiming that no Gods exist).

For the discussion of whether this a good or bad thing in that context, you will need to take up the discussion with a Neopagan who has a monotheistic, or possibly even a monistic, understanding of his religion. As I am neither of these, I am neither qualified to nor interested in defending their position. I’'ll let them do that for themselves. I’ve got my hands full discussing my actual beliefs, which are polytheistic.

 

[Petergee]

If you are not even willing to try to understand that the words “the following comments are not solely directed at Petergee” might mean that I am also addressing things that have occurred with others in the post

Trust me, I am trying very hard indeed to understand what you are getting at. I take it then that you are saying I am not guilty of these sins which you have accused nameless others of committing against you. If so, then why are you “done” with me?

and that the sole fact that I include the mention that my daughter has blonde hair makes you decide that I am some sort of racist rather than simply using a descriptor, there is no hope of ever having any sort of realistic dialogue.

Thanks for your time, but I am done.

I merely pointed out that you are apparently influenced by your culture as much as they are. Why did you feel the need to insert any descriptor of your daughter’s physical appearance, which (I assume) has nothing to do with your religion, or with others’ distaste for it? I’m assuming you are not among those whose neopagan beliefs are inherently combined with theories of racial superiority.

 

[Petergee]

The problem with your “logic” is that God created man with FREE WILL and “human reason”, which is why God went through the roundabout (to humans) process that He did (is).

Since you teach that He is omnipotent, in sole control of everything in the universe, as well as omniscient, knowing before anything began everything that would happen as a result of His choices in designing both humanity, the world in which humanity would live and the laws/situations that would earn His damnation of humans, I don’t really see that saying “God created man with free will” makes my reasoning invalid. He set the stage, He controls all the variables, then places blame on humanity when they do exactly what He knew ahead of time they would do based on His actions.

“He knew ahead of time” is nonsensical when applied to God. God transcends (is outside of) time. If it were possible for us to describe them from God’s “point of view”, we would see the Creation, the Fall, the promise of the Saviour, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the Last Judgment as all “simultaneous”. You seem to have trouble grasping that man’s free will is absolute. Man controls his own destiny.

The same applies to the Biblical stories of God “changing His mind”. God never changes His mind, it’s expressed that way so that OUR limited human minds can understand. Just as the events of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday are really all one as far as God is concerned, but He separates them in time so that our limited minds can grasp their meaning.

He didn’t sacrifice Himself (God as God) to Himself (God as God). He limited Himself as we are limited (became a true man) and sacrificed as we CAN sacrifice (by mortification) when it was right to sacrifice.

So the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was not then fully God at all times? If that is true, then He was just another man, able to be holy only as any other man to be holy, and where is the value of the sacrifice? It was my understanding that the value of the sacrifice was that it was Jesus as One of the Trinity who sacrificed Himself, that a human who did so would not have fulfilled the requirements (which were set by God, btw).

It was actually Adam who “set the requirements”, and Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is simultaneously fully human AND fully divine. Christ’s human nature is limited just as our human nature is limited.

Being “saved” is simply choosing, and acting, rightly. It is always a free choice of each person, and God never damns anyone who doesn’t choose to be damned.

What does the Catholic Church teach about Judas and free will? To my mind, if God created Judas, knowing when He created him that Judas would be required to do as he did in betraying Jesus for the sacrifice to occur because that is the way God planned it, did Judas truly have free will? If Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus would the sacrifice not have occurred? Why could not the sacrifice occur without involving any other human who would then be damned? Why could Jesus not simply be a willing sacrifice in actually turning Himself over to the Romans and accomplishing the same thing (actually a better one, as He would be a more willing sacrifice)? If it was to fulfill a prophecy, who gave the prophecy as a requirement in the first place if not God? If it was other than God, what validity would it have?

Judas was perfectly free to betray Jesus or not. And the Church has no doctrine concerning whether or not Judas (nor the Pharisees and Scribes, the Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate nor the Roman soldiers, all of whom you seem to have forgotten about) is damned. He may have sincerely repented of his sins in the last moments before he lost consciousness. And Jesus did, in effect, turn Himself over. As He said, He could have summonned 12 legions of angels to fight off His enemies, but He chose not to.

 

[eliasaph99]

For the discussion of whether this a good or bad thing in that context, you will need to take up the discussion with a Neopagan who has a monotheistic, or possibly even a monistic, understanding of his religion. As I am neither of these, I am neither qualified to nor interested in defending their position. I’'ll let them do that for themselves. I’ve got my hands full discussing my actual beliefs, which are polytheistic.

In one of your earlier posts, you lamented the fact that no one is willing to have a cordial theological discussion with you. I am.

In fact, I think I’ve been trying to do just that.

When I asked you a question about where your gods are, you ridiculed the question. I bit my tongue and didn’t respond harshly, but instead reiterated the question which I think is extremely salient.

I’m still not really sure what your answer is, although you may have basically said, “I don’t know.” OK.

Here’s another question.

The Hellenic Pantheon is made up of gods and demigods who control parts of nature or embody certain emotions. As an example, Zeus is god of the sky (among other things), and Aphrodite is the goddess of love. As such, they reflect only those parts of nature of which the Greeks had knowledge.

Physics tells us that in the universe as we observe it today, there are four fundamental forces (three if you lump the weak and the electromagnetic force together, but let’s stick with four).

Here is my question:

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the gods which control nature to now be reduced to four gods, each one associated with one of the four fundamental forces?

i.e. a god of gravity, a god of electromagnetism, a god of the strong force, and a god of the weak force

 

[Keikiolu]

Part 1 of 2:

**I must admit, that is a great sentence…!! **

Thank you.

It was a beautiful construction…!! And tells me PERFECTLY where we differ in our understanding of what God is all about. I really REALLY appreciate your clarity of mind and bold unabashable honesty as to where your head is at.

You are a gorgeous person, as illustrated by your writings (as I haveno other information other than that), and a probably saint,… except for those various deluded ideas you lug around.

(( Just GOTTA get in a jab, don’t I…!? ))

The problem with your “logic” is that God created man with FREE WILL and “human reason”, which is why God went through the roundabout (to humans) process that He did (is).

Since you teach that He is omnipotent, in sole control of everything in the universe, as well as omniscient, knowing before anything began everything that would happen as a result of His choices in designing both humanity, the world in which humanity would live and the laws/situations that would earn His damnation of humans, I don’t really see that saying “God created man with free will” makes my reasoning invalid. He set the stage, He controls all the variables, then places blame on humanity when they do exactly what He knew ahead of time they would do based on His actions.

Your basic misunderstanding, most likely derived from your “contamination” (rather strong word!) by protestants, is that you think that an omnipotent God precludes free will. That free will and “omnipotent God” can’t possibly exist in the same universe.

They can, and are. The point is that God created man for His reasons, whatever those may be, as “proved” by the fact that we exist, and that, to “make it interesting”, He gave us free will.

The Church maintains that it is a “mystery” as to how free will and “predestination” (the result of God’s omnipotence) are reconcilable. It’s simply to “weird” a question for us humans to answer. But since God, by definition, IS omnipotent, and since free will DOES exist, and we ARE here in this universe, all those things must somehow be reconcilable, de facto ('cause they ARE).

He didn’t sacrifice Himself (God as God) to Himself (God as God). He limited Himself as we are limited (became a true man) and sacrificed as we CAN sacrifice (by mortification) when it was right to sacrifice.

So the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was not then fully God at all times? If that is true, then He was just another man, able to be holy only as any other man to be holy, and where is the value of the sacrifice? It was my understanding that the value of the sacrifice was that it was Jesus as One of the Trinity who sacrificed Himself, that a human who did so would not have fulfilled the requirements (which were set by God, btw).

Once again, you simply don’t know the basic tenets of the Church (Catholic). Christ Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man.

He was not just “a man”. The value of the sacrifice is that we UNDERSTAND that God “lowered” Himself to our condition to show us what we must do.

You cannot understand the importance of this act of His unless you KNOW (believe firmly) that Jesus was in fact fully God and fully human (man). Once you believe that, then His incredible act of “lowering” himself in humility and generosity (charity) is understandable.

continued at Part 2 of 2…

 

[Keikiolu]

Part 2 of 2:

Being “saved” is simply choosing, and acting, rightly. It is always a free choice of each person, and God never damns anyone who doesn’t choose to be damned.

What does the Catholic Church teach about Judas and free will? To my mind, if God created Judas, knowing when He created him that Judas would be required to do as he did in betraying Jesus for the sacrifice to occur because that is the way God planned it, did Judas truly have free will?

That’s the “mystery”…!

The Calvinist would say Judas was a robot. The Catholic would say that Judas indeed had a choice, and chose the one that fullfilled God’s plan.

You really should read up on the Catholic ideas regarding “free will”. Check out the CCC under “Freedom” (Catechism)

If Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus would the sacrifice not have occurred? Why could not the sacrifice occur without involving any other human who would then be damned? Why could Jesus not simply be a willing sacrifice in actually turning Himself over to the Romans and accomplishing the same thing (actually a better one, as He would be a more willing sacrifice)? If it was to fulfill a prophecy, who gave the prophecy as a requirement in the first place if not God? If it was other than God, what validity would it have?

Once again, you’re simply stating that either we are robots, or God (the omnipotent) can’t exist. This is a “protestant” misconception.

You believe that because you believe that if God exists, then He must be “justified” by YOUR human reasoning. That all things that He does MUST be “rational” in human terms.

God is “teaching” us, to help us “grow up”. We are creatures of TIME, which He is not, and He teaches us IN time (not “instantaneously” by simply “fixing” us), or “over time”, in sequential ways, as our nature requires.

Once you see that He is teaching us over time, in ways that we humans can “handle”, then you can understand that the “mysteries” of God, the seemingly utterly irreconcilable, are for us to ponder, but not to solve.

In pondering them we appreciate God and God’s plan.

In trying to solve them we distance ourselves from God by creating frustration that “we aren’t God”, and don’t understand.

Frustration at trying to do the impossible is, not only insane, but precisely what “the deceiver” uses to “capture our life-time” so that we stay as far away from (the real) God as possible, through our own FREE WILL.

It’s an evilly beautiful deception.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Part 1 of 2:

His first decision in creating man was that they should have free will…The options were to simply wipe His creation out and start again, completely fresh,… or not do that. He chose the latter, and we’re in the midst of our “lessons” now, moving toward wherever we’re “going” (salvation or not).

Correct me if I am wrong, but, given the above, doesn’t saying that God had to choose (presumably at some point later than creation) to either start over or not based on the actions of man at least strongly imply that He is not omniscient?

God exists in eternity, outside of time. By God “choosing”, I mean that He COULD have simply wiped us out entirely. He could also have done what He did, which was to “teach” us.

Once again, you are limiting “omniscience” to a “time bound” scope. You are defining “omniscience” (omnipotence) in such a way to definitively preclude God, who is the only one who CAN possess it, from possessing it…!

That would explain much about a few things in the scriptures that show God apparently changing His mind, for instance:

Genesis 6: 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (footnotes: Genesis 6:3 Or My spirit will not remain in, Genesis 6:3 Or corrupt )

As well as Genesis 6:5, etc
"5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. "

Lack of omniscience would also make the whole sacrifice/resurrection story more understandable. I am fully prepared to acknowledge that some of my arguments do not stand if I am mistaken and you do not actually believe that your God is omniscient.

Once again,… if you define omniscience and God to be irreconcilably contradictory, then that is YOUR belief.

God is presented as a FATHER. The prophets attributed to Him sensible fatherly feelings. Was He actually “grieved”? Yes. Was His being “grieved” outside of His plan? No.

The mystery is a MYSTERY, and not to be “solved”. It is to be observed, and appreciated.

What does this mystery “tell” you?

Atheists always think that a “proof” that God doesn’t exist is that if He did, all creation would be a “peachy” place of perfect wonderfulness, because a REAL God wouldn’t allow suffering, as He could “do something about it”, and would in fact be FORCED to do something about it (immediately) because to NOT do so would make Him EVIL, and an EVIL supreme being is just too nasty a thing to contemplate existing…!!

So the atheist is forced into either believing, because suffering DOES in fact exist, that God is evil or that there IS NO God.

…and chooses (sensibly enough given the options, usually) that He doesn’t exist.

Good thing I’m not an atheist, then, I suppose (actually, I have more Gods than you do ). If you want to discuss what atheists believe, you will need to talk to an actual atheist.

Hah ha ha ha…!! Touche…!

Since I consider folks like yourself to be “closet atheists”, through the “lack of contrast” theory (see paragraph below), You fit in with them, the atheists, quite well.

You CAN NOT bring yourself to understand (much less believe) that our “kind” of God is a valid “option”, because you insist on your gods and ALL OTHER GODS being able to exist simultaneously, and because our God does not allow for the possibility that yours exist (other than as “spirits”) then our God is simply invalid as a concept.

The denial of OUR GOD, not your gods, is the definition of an atheist. (( Not “technically” true, according to the dictionary, but since I define all non-monotheist religions as a-theist [since God is ONE, ONLY!] my “rule” holds for me. ))

I freely admit that my God utterly invalidates the possibility of your gods as “gods”.

You insist that all “valid” concepts of god MUST allow for your gods existence.

That is our basic impasse.

continued on Part 2 of 2…

 

[Keikiolu]

Part 2 of 2:

**Believing in a multitude of gods (spirits) with no actual CREATOR of them (or the physical universe) is the functional equivalent of atheism. **

No, it isn’t. BTW, I have never said that I believed there was no creator of the physical universe or of the Gods (who are part of the universe, physically apparent to us or otherwise). I have explicitly said that there may well be an ultimate ground of being, but that that ground of being is not in any sort of active relationship with humanity.

OKey Dokey… I believe you believe that. That makes you an essential pantheist (or possibly a theist), not a polytheist, then.

Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you believe or do if you can always justify your actions by invoking a “god” who says, "Sure,… go right ahead. That’s what I’m here for. To make you happy."

Wow, maybe I should find these Gods because They certainly seem to let people off the hook of personal responsibility a whole lot easier than any of the Gods I have heard of and certainly more than mine . I have to say that I have never heard any polytheist describe the purpose of the existence of his or her God or Gods as being “to make humanity happy.” In my religion, that would be beyond hubris, it would be claiming that we are not just the equals of the Gods, but in fact superior to Them, that the Gods exist solely for the benefit and use of humanity. Could you point to a polytheism (preferably a TRUE one, to use your phrasing ) that claims such?

The Mayan religion, which was polytheist, made the rulers of the people who believed it very happy with human sacrifice on a massive scale, as apparently they (the rulers) were sociopathic monsters.

That’s one. You just asked for one.

The Gods I know do not necessarily either “justify evil” or “promote good.” Their focus in existence is not humanity, we simply happen to benefit from a relationship with Them. There are forces in the universe that can be benevolently inclined toward humanity, malevolently inclined, neutral, indifferent or a combination of all of the above. The human terms of "good’ and “evil” are not in relation to the Gods, but in relation to other humans.

So you “worship”, via tribute, natural forces.

You USE them, in other words, to get what you want. Why do you want what you want?

You have no basis, other than a relativistic “assessment”, for descriptions of the words “good” and “evil”.

Each person, just as they can choose their own “gods”, can choose their own morality.

Which would be better? A world of humans working within a set of rules, or a world of humans who have no qualms about choosing any action that gets them what they want?

You do actually have a “ground” on which your morality is based. And it’s a Christian one. “Good” behavior existed prior to Christianity, but ALL of the “good parts” of human behavior were incorporated into Christianity, and have become THE rules for good behavior.

If you REALLY examine your conscience, you’ll quickly discover that none of your “good” morality conflicts with Christianity, and none of Christianity’s “bad” morality is actually bad.

You WILL rapidly find that the “bad” behavior of your fellow polytheists/atheists/pantheists/theists which they describe as “good” is not good, and since you give them the right to call it “good”, you yourself have defined “good” to mean nothing.

I have a place to go for a “ruling” about the “goodness” of a particular thing. You have only your feeling about a thing’s “goodness”, and the multitude of “forces” pulling you to accept a “presently pleasing” self-ruling as to it’s “goodness” make you very morally unstable.

I, of course, don’t have to BE good, regardless of the “ruling”, but you can be “good” without actually being good.

That is why the Maya, for one, gave up the human sacrifice thing. Too messy. Polytheism is VERY messy.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

But if you know that a God exists who is the sum total of all the “good parts” of all the “gods”, and you fail to choose Him over your little partially (at best) good gods, then you simply prove yourself a little daft in your judgement.

If you persist in your choice to deal with partial good, and actively deny whole good, then the evil portion is what you are choosing, unecessarily, and you are thus actively promoting evil.

If you actively promote evil,… it grows.

Is that a good thing,… even for a “pagan”?

This would only be relevant in the case that one did believe that there was a “whole good” in which case one would have a monotheistic, not a polytheistic, understanding of religion (and, yes, I do believe that even an atheist can have either one or the other understanding of religion even if he does not personally believe in either one–claiming that the monotheistic God does not exist is not the same as claiming that no Gods exist).

You don’t believe in a “whole good”. That’s cool. Not right, but cool (an option).

There is either God, or gods. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Period.

For the discussion of whether this a good or bad thing in that context, you will need to take up the discussion with a Neopagan who has a monotheistic, or possibly even a monistic, understanding of his religion. As I am neither of these, I am neither qualified to nor interested in defending their position. I’'ll let them do that for themselves. I’ve got my hands full discussing my actual beliefs, which are polytheistic.

Neopagans are fun to play with.

They have a non-argument for everything, which is perfectly expected, because they are utterly free to say whatever they wish, unencumbered by any “rules” whatsoever.

Their “religions” are perfectly suited to their minds. They believe what they can see, and believe what they can invent which no one else can see.

It’s the perfect religion for the functionally insane.

Why is it dangerous? Because it’s the perfect religion for the functionally insane…!

No. I don’t think you’re insane. But you’re not really a “polytheist” either, as you’re not an aborigine. You’re a overly pampered kindly rebel with the time and resources to “play religion” as an amusement.

That doesn’t make you a bad person. Just a typical western european spoiled kid, regardless of your age.

Go live with some REAL aboriginal polytheists for 10 years.

That might open your eyes.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

In one of your earlier posts, you lamented the fact that no one is willing to have a cordial theological discussion with you. I am.

Actually, I thought that I went to specific pains to say that I realized, thanked and appreciated those who do.

**When I asked you a question about where your gods are, you ridiculed the question. I bit my tongue and didn’t respond harshly, but instead reiterated the question which I think is extremely salient.

I’m still not really sure what your answer is, although you may have basically said, “I don’t know.” OK.**

I’ll try once again, then. It isn’t “I don’t know” as in “I am sure They are somewhere physical, I just don’t know where that is” which is the sense in which I saw you asking the question. It is that I cannot answer that question because it is simply not a relevant question for non-corporate beings.

It is like asking “what color is the smell of a rose?” There is nothing necessarily odd about the terms color, smell or rose, but that particular combination of words in that context has no answerable literal meaning, though one might answer it allegorically or poetically.

**The Hellenic Pantheon is made up of gods and demigods who control parts of nature or embody certain emotions. As an example, Zeus is god of the sky (among other things), and Aphrodite is the goddess of love. As such, they reflect only those parts of nature of which the Greeks had knowledge.

Physics tells us that in the universe as we observe it today, there are four fundamental forces (three if you lump the weak and the electromagnetic force together, but let’s stick with four).

Here is my question:

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the gods which control nature to now be reduced to four gods, each one associated with one of the four fundamental forces?

i.e. a god of gravity, a god of electromagnetism, a god of the strong force, and a god of the weak force**

Well, if one were to believe that a) the Gods have no independent existence, b) that They are in fact creations of humanity and therefore c) that we can change Their existence in some way by changing our definition of Them, I suppose you might find some merit in trying to reduce your Gods down to the least common denominator.

Since I believe that not only do They have a real, independent existence apart from humanity and that humanity does not create or control Them, though we can interact with Them, my answer would have to be “no.”

On the other hand, I also do not believe that the Gods are frozen in time, and limited only to the ways in which They were understood by the Ancients. For instance, Hermes is the one my husband sees as his Patron in terms of his work in computers, as part of Hermes’ realm has always been understood to be that of communication, commerce, etc.