How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[KarenNC]

I imagine many more refrain from mentioning it because they are afraid it would bring the govt down on their backs. If it’s anything like ours it already has a huge derry on homeschoolers.

Why would you suppose that rather than that they meant what they said, especially in an anonymous survey? The government here is not against homeschooling, if that is what derry means (based on context). I am not familiar with homeschooling in Australia.

The laws vary by state, but it is legal in every state. True, they do not provide financial support for it, as they do in Canada, but that also means they do not dictate the curricula or much else about it. In my state, for instance, one must have a high school diploma or GED to teach, keep attendance and immunization records, and give the child a nationally normed standardized test once a year. There is no requirement that the child achieve a certain level, study a certain curriculum, etc. Some states have stricter standards, some more lenient. Pretty easy overall as far as the government is concerned.

**AFAIK every developed country does with the exception of yours. **

Do they all equally support religious schools of other religions as well? If not, I am hard pressed to see why you consider the US funding policies of not actively funding any religious or private school with tax dollars (other than the subsidy they can get by declaring themselves nonprofit and not having to pay taxes, which I would argue is a case of indirect funding) more discriminatory than funding only a particular one. Interesting to see how the dynamic plays out in different societies.

OK if you want duelling dictionaries: Australian Contemporary Dictionary: church n.“a building for Christian worship; collective body of Christians; a denomination or sect of the Christian religion; the clergy; the church service.”(there are no other meanings given)

Always interesting to see how much a common language can divide us. This is why it pays to define terms in a discussion. I looked online for an Australian dictionary, but couldn’t find one–any recommendations? Merriam Webster online (www.m-w.com) is a good one for the US.

Btw this has been upheld in law in one case I know of where a Court ruled that a mosque cannot be built on a piece of land which had been “reserved for a church”.

In your country or mine? I would not expect that Australians would be held to US law anymore than Americans are held to Australian law.

This is probably a major reason why people find your sect objectionable, because whilst you affect to totally reject Christianity root and branch, you simultaneously adopt wholesale Christian theology, terminology etc and apply it to your religion.

If you mean Unitarian Universalism, it does not totally reject Christianity. There are Christian UUs. It is, however, non-creedal, so there are also Jewish UUs, Hindu UUs, Neopagan UUs, etc. Both Unitarian and Universalist sects have been around for at least a couple of centuries, but admittedly they have morphed from their liberal Christian roots to become what they are today.

How, specifically, has UU “adopted wholesale Christian theology,” btw?

 

[boppaid]

What about the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away?

Hi. Where is that written in scripture? I"m doing a search, and can’t find it.

 

[KarenNC]

Hi. Where is that written in scripture? I"m doing a search, and can’t find it.

Job 1:21 (KJV)
21And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

In the NIV
21 and said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. [a]
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised.”

and in the online Tanakh
21 And he said; naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; HaShem gave, and HaShem hath taken away; blessed be the name of HaShem.

 

[KarenNC]

No, but if Christianity totally disappeared for 1600 years and then had a supposed “revival”, there is no way I would believe in the truth of it.

And you are welcome not to.

You take the arguments of Aquinas, based on the Greek philosophers who had rejected polytheism as irrational more than 1500 years earlier, and attempt to twist them to prove polytheism. Sorry, but that just screams “humbug”.

No, I said that Aquinas did not find the ontological or a priori argument a sufficient proof for Christianity, the religion it purports to “prove.” Quite a different thing.

“Actually the ontological argument is pretty weak as a “proof” of theism of any sort. Most Christian scholars don’t find it acceptable even for Christianity, including Aquinas.”

 

[eliasaph99]

So your basis for believing in the existence of a God depends on whether or not a particular side wins in a war? Does that mean that if a Christian country were to lose a war to a non-Christian country, the Christian God would be proved not to exist or would cease to exist? Only in that country or world-wide? Do you believe that the Christian God ceased to exist or was less “real” because Eastern Europe was Communist?

Where are who now, specifically?

You dodged the questions.

I’ll answer your questions in order.

First question: No, my belief in God has nothing to do with war.

Second question: No. Monotheistic belief does not logically lead to such a conclusion. However, polytheistic belief could easily lead one to this conclusion or, perhaps, to the conclusion that the gods of the other nation defeated the gods of the loser.

Third question: Part of the above answer.

Fourth question: Answered by the previous. Rejection of theism or preponderance or dominance of atheism does not logically lead to the non-existence of God in a monotheistic belief system. However, in a polytheistic system it does.

Fifth question: The “who’s” I’m referring to are clearly the Hellenic gods you have stated you believe in. Where are they? Are they on Mount Olympus? Were they killed by the other gods? Is the Christian God just part of the pantheon and He’s got them locked up somewhere? Did He kill them?

OK, I have answered your questions.

I’m really curious to know your answers to my original questions. I’m very curious to know how a modern believer in the Hellenic gods would deal with these questions.

 

[KarenNC]

First question: No, my belief in God has nothing to do with war.

Good to know. Neither does my belief in my Gods.

Second question: No. Monotheistic belief does not logically lead to such a conclusion. However, polytheistic belief could easily lead one to this conclusion or, perhaps, to the conclusion that the gods of the other nation defeated the gods of the loser.

Or that the Gods were not involved in or concerned with the war in the first place.

Fourth question: Answered by the previous. Rejection of theism or preponderance or dominance of atheism does not logically lead to the non-existence of God in a monotheistic belief system. However, in a polytheistic system it does.

Why? There are many Gods in which I do not “believe” if by believe you mean worship. I can conceive that They may well exist and accept that the religious experiences of others who do worship these other Gods is as likely to be as valid as my own. I do not think that Their existence is dependent upon my, or for that matter, anyone’s, belief in Them.

Fifth question: The “who’s” I’m referring to are clearly the Hellenic gods you have stated you believe in. Where are they? Are they on Mount Olympus? Were they killed by the other gods? Is the Christian God just part of the pantheon and He’s got them locked up somewhere? Did He kill them?

Well, the last forwarding address I got for Athena was on the French Riviera… . Is this really a serious question? They are Gods, not my neighbors. Shall I ask you which particular cloud your God sits on? For the satellite photos of the streets paved with gold and pearly gates in Heaven?

No, they were not killed by the other Gods, nor by the Christian God, nor are they “locked up” anywhere by anyone. No, the Christian God is not part of my pantheon, anymore than the Norse, Hindu, African or Shinto ones are.

 

[eliasaph99]

Well, the last forwarding address I got for Athena was on the French Riviera… . Is this really a serious question? They are Gods, not my neighbors. Shall I ask you which particular cloud your God sits on? For the satellite photos of the streets paved with gold and pearly gates in Heaven?

No, they were not killed by the other Gods, nor by the Christian God, nor are they “locked up” anywhere by anyone. No, the Christian God is not part of my pantheon, anymore than the Norse, Hindu, African or Shinto ones are.

It is a serious question. The ancient Greeks taught and believed that the home of the gods was Mount Olympus. Do you believe this?

Your response is unnecessarily sarcastic and patronizing. Moreover, you are attempting to ridicule Christian belief by introducing popular artistic fantasy (angels sitting on a cloud) as actual Christian dogma. I don’t see how the discussion is advanced by doing this.

My question to you relates to actual dogmatic beliefs held by the ancient practitioners of the religion you claim to subscribe to. They believed that their gods lived on Mount Olympus. Do you believe it? If not, why not and where are they?

 

[KarenNC]

It is a serious question. The ancient Greeks taught and believed that the home of the gods was Mount Olympus. Do you believe this?

Your response is unnecessarily sarcastic and patronizing. Moreover, you are attempting to ridicule Christian belief by introducing popular artistic fantasy (angels sitting on a cloud) as actual Christian dogma. I don’t see how the discussion is advanced by doing this.

My question to you relates to actual dogmatic beliefs held by the ancient practitioners of the religion you claim to subscribe to. They believed that their gods lived on Mount Olympus. Do you believe it? If not, why not and where are they?

You may understand that I do not.

I am not ridiculing Christian belief, because I understand that it is not that simplistic. I am simply surprised that you cannot understand that others may have as complex a religion as you do and that if the question applies to my Gods, it should be able to be applied to yours as well. If it would be absurd to ask such a simplistic question about your religion, it is highly likely that the same will be true for another religion. My point was that it makes no more sense for you to ask me where my Gods live, as if they were corporate beings, than it would for me to ask you where yours lives. They are Gods.

Early Christians also believed that if they could get high enough, they would be able to actually see Heaven, see the golden streets and pearly gates, that the stars were tears in the sky that let the light of that Heaven shine through. They believed it in more than as an artistic fantasy. It persisted for a very long time in some circles and was an argument against space travel. Modern Christians do not, to the best of my knowledge, still hold to that as dogma. There are millions of examples of things that Christians have held as dogma over the centuries that do not hold up to scientific knowledge as literally true and that Christians can understand that without losing their faith.

I am asking that you apply the same considerations to my religion that you apply to yours in looking at these sorts of questions. Christians are perfectly capable of understanding that the way in which a society relates to deity and understands its sacred stories can change and grow over time as knowledge is gained. They are perfectly capable of making a distinction between artistic portrayals, allegory to get at a deeper spiritual truth and reality. They are perfectly capable of reading their sacred stories (the Bible) as having different levels of meaning and embodying truths that are deeper than the simple surface meaning of the words. So are Neopagans. So am I.

The myths are not dogma. They are not revealed unchanging Scripture. They are not considered authoratative. There was no “canon” of Greek belief. The myths were not considered unchanging dogma, even by the ancient Greeks. They are the record, usually poetic, of a people’s experience with their Gods, stretching back to time immemorial. I worship those same Gods, so it is useful for me to read and study them, but I am in no way constrained to believe that they are literally true rather than that their purpose is to convey spiritual truths.

 

[Mr.Bee]

There’s something that is bothering me about this statement. You are saying that polytheism doesn’t need to answer the arguement on the bandwagon principal, since nobody is answering the question I don’t have to either.

The discussion began because I mentioned to Everyman, IIRC, a book that looks at the classical arguments for theism and says that polytheism meets them as well as monotheism does, despite Western claims to the contrary (ie that only monotheism answers them adequately). Since that particular argument doesn’t hold up even for monotheism (which it purports to prove), I don’t see that polytheism must defend itself against it. The argument fails on it owns merits.

The obstacle to polytheism seems to be that there needs to be one final decision maker for the universe, I can’t imagine we are all being run by committee, I’ve seen many business decisions made by “groupthink”… It doesn’t work, I don’t think God has a corporate mentality.

Oh, I think it explains a great deal about the universe. Without trying to reconcile everything to a single omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, one has much less trouble comprehending why there might be evil in the world, why suffering exists, why people describe vastly different religious experiences, etc.

I just don’t know, I’m not buying it. Evil, suffering, and vastly different religious experiences might be a creation out of our own self-centered nature, a feeble attempt to control our universe, when in fact we are not in control of anything, God is. And God controls all those other gods some claim to have an element of control over our lives, when in fact those gods are just as helpless as we are.

If I’m to liken this to a corporate structure, God is the boss, and through lack of understanding, most resent his position of power, so we kiss his butt, which angers Him even more (note the difference between patronizing and respect) but His position of power is not for us to question, he’s still the boss, it’s His universe and he can do whatever he wants. Now, your middle-managers (gods) might be far more pleasant to deal with, like having their butt kissed, agree with you request for a raise and a corner office, but they are not in control, even they need to ask permission. Those of us who don’t like the rules, or dislike the person in charge, try to change the rules, or undermine the authority of the boss politically. Now, if the boss is actually an honest straight-shooter with the best interest of the company in mind and not concerned with the selfish complaints of certain individuals, then those who follow the leadership of the boss, no matter how difficult, tend to succeed, those who don’t, remain frustrated and disgruntled.

The big differnce is, God is not a jerk CEO, who smites people for fun and profit.

He in essence gave us an opportunity to run the company ourselves, because we asked to be our own boss, God said: "Okay, suit yourself…(sits back patiently with arms folded) And what did we do? we formed committees and appointed numbskulls to run the different departments of the universe…

So, when you speak of gods, who are they?

 

[KarenNC]

**I just don’t know, I’m not buying it. Evil, suffering, and vastly different religious experiences might be a creation out of our own self-centered nature, a feeble attempt to control our universe, when in fact we are not in control of anything, God is. And God controls all those other gods some claim to have an element of control over our lives, when in fact those gods are just as helpless as we are. **

Agreed that some people may believe this, but it is not my position as a polytheist. I do not believe that your God controls all of the other Gods, that they are all merely facets or aspects of a singular God, etc. They are individual entities of a different level of being than humanity. I do believe that it is possible that there is some ultimate ground of being in the universe from which everything, including the Gods came, but that that ground of being is not a sentient entity and has about as much relationship with us and our lives as the Horsehead Nebula has with the ant in my yard.

I am willing to accept that your God may well exist and that your experiences with him are as valid as my experiences with my Gods, but I do not believe that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent or different in substance from my Gods or those of others.

The Gods do have limitations but are far from “as helpless as we are.” We are neither like the Gods nor are They like us. In fact, hubris, believing that we are the equivalent of the Gods or have control over Them, is a specific religious prohibition in my tradition.

Now this is not to say that I don’t believe that the vast majority of the problems and ills we encounter in this life is either due to our own or others’ self-centered nature, hubris, or sheer happenstance. I don’t believe that everything that happens to a person is ordained or caused by the Gods. At some points and times, Their existence intersects with ours and it may be beneficial or not, from our perspective, or neutral. We are not the sole focus of Their existence, nor are They mine.

So, when you speak of gods, who are they?

When I speak of the Gods in general, I mean the conception of deities as understood by polytheists. When I speak specifically of my Gods, I speak of the Hellenic pantheon, as They are the Gods that speak to me and Whom I worship. Within that pantheon, I have a particular worship relationship with Athena, Hestia, Hermes, Demeter, Persephone, Hades, Pan, and Hera. I will pour libations to the other Gods as appropriate, such as one to Poseidon when we visit the ocean. I have poured libations to the land spirits and water spirits of my physical area. I honor and pour libations for the spirits of my ancestors, those of blood, those of place and those of spirit.

 

[eliasaph99]

You may understand that I do not.

I am not ridiculing Christian belief, because I understand that it is not that simplistic. I am simply surprised that you cannot understand that others may have as complex a religion as you do and that if the question applies to my Gods, it should be able to be applied to yours as well. If it would be absurd to ask such a simplistic question about your religion, it is highly likely that the same will be true for another religion. My point was that it makes no more sense for you to ask me where my Gods live, as if they were corporate beings, than it would for me to ask you where yours lives. They are Gods.

Early Christians also believed that if they could get high enough, they would be able to actually see Heaven, see the golden streets and pearly gates, that the stars were tears in the sky that let the light of that Heaven shine through. They believed it in more than as an artistic fantasy. It persisted for a very long time in some circles and was an argument against space travel. Modern Christians do not, to the best of my knowledge, still hold to that as dogma. There are millions of examples of things that Christians have held as dogma over the centuries that do not hold up to scientific knowledge as literally true and that Christians can understand that without losing their faith.

I am asking that you apply the same considerations to my religion that you apply to yours in looking at these sorts of questions. Christians are perfectly capable of understanding that the way in which a society relates to deity and understands its sacred stories can change and grow over time as knowledge is gained. They are perfectly capable of making a distinction between artistic portrayals, allegory to get at a deeper spiritual truth and reality. They are perfectly capable of reading their sacred stories (the Bible) as having different levels of meaning and embodying truths that are deeper than the simple surface meaning of the words. So are Neopagans. So am I.

The myths are not dogma. They are not revealed unchanging Scripture. They are not considered authoratative. There was no “canon” of Greek belief. The myths were not considered unchanging dogma, even by the ancient Greeks. They are the record, usually poetic, of a people’s experience with their Gods, stretching back to time immemorial. I worship those same Gods, so it is useful for me to read and study them, but I am in no way constrained to believe that they are literally true rather than that their purpose is to convey spiritual truths.

Part of the core of Hellenistic belief was that their gods were corporate. It is strange to me that you claim to believe in those gods and yet deny one of the main aspects of them.

As for your commentary in the third paragraph about ancient Christian belief on the structure of the universe, where did you get those ideas from? The things you say may have been speculated upon or proposed, or even believed by some people, but never were they dogmatic. Personally, as relates to your third paragraph, I think that you’re just writing something to take up some space and make it seem as if you have a lot to say. I can back this up by pointing to your comment about space travel. By the time space travel was something that man could reasonably conceive of because of his increasing knowledge of the universe, the ideas you brought up would have been completely debunked. That is, if they had ever been held at all. If you have some citation of overlap of these concepts, present it.

As for your fourth paragraph, I am giving the same consideration. The God of the Bible never has Earth for His dwelling. He lives in Heaven. If you wish, you may ask me where that is. With the modern knowledge that I have, I would tell you that I believe Heaven to exist outside of the Universe and, even more amazingly, outside of time. I can give many logical and consistent arguments for why I believe this to be so, backing them up both from scientific knowledge and from revealed truth in the Bible. If you were to ask an ancient Christian, where God lived, he would also tell you Heaven. If you asked him where Heaven was, he would probably point up. His understanding would not be exactly the same as mine, and he may indeed simply understand that to mean, beyond the sky. But, in general, the answer is “Heaven, not Earth.”

Now, lets look at Hellenism. I ask you where you the gods live, and you respond by saying that I can’t be serious. Moreover, this is your second response, and you still haven’t answered the question. If I asked an ancient Greek where the gods lived, he would point to Mount Olympus. In his mind, he would believe that there were crystal mansions there where they lived. The point is, they lived on Earth, with men.

So, I ask you again, where are your gods?

 

[mmortal03]

I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems that as soon as you impose any limitations on gods, and since polytheism embraces multiple gods, which requires that each god have a set of limitations, you make them in a sense finite and human. By acknowledging thier limitations, even if we only know those limitations exist and not exactly what they are, each god becomes bound by those limitations and its actions or ability to act is governed by such limitation.

Playing devil’s advocate here, but you are assuming that a god, or THE god must be infinite. Why is that a required trait? Building upon the Christian idea of God being the creator of the universe, couldn’t there be an argument for the state of the universe where it was created by a god whom is finite (e.g. with a finite universe)?

 

[LSK]

In all my life, I never thought I would be one to utter the question of how I can claim my faith to be the only true one. I mean, I’ve always been dogmatic and viewed others’ beliefs as wrong-headed. But now I don’t know.

I was raised in a fundamantalist, evangelical atmosphere, came to be a Calvinist as a young adult, and recently joined the Catholic Church after a three-year study of it. Interestingly, after I moved from one position to another, I suddenly saw those who believed like I use to as inferior.

Maybe I’m just a jerk.

But I think there’s more at stake than just that. I’m beginning to think this: before globalization, we were all relatively tucked away in our cultural corners safely with our own traditions. We knew there were those that believed differently than us, we came into contact with them on occasion, but they were wrong in what they believed. And we were right. I mean, it’s how we were all raised.

But now, we are a global society, without the luxury of being cut off from these other cultures. And it’s becoming harder and harder to resist the temptation of not seeing similarities between, say, the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Christ. And it’s becoming harder to reconcile the teachings of Paul with the teachings of Christ.

Point is, claiming dogmatically that mine is the exclusive, true faith is looking pretty narrow and meaningless in this small world of ours. What do we do?

The Church teaches that everyone who accepts that Jesus Christ is God and believes in the Holy Trinity are a part of the Body of Christ - but some may or may not be in complete communion with all three aspects of the Holy Mother Church…do you remember, from your RCIA, what those three aspects are?

 

[Petergee]

**AFAIK every developed country does with the exception of yours. **

Do they all equally support religious schools of other religions as well? If not, I am hard pressed to see why you consider the US funding policies of not actively funding any religious or private school with tax dollars (other than the subsidy they can get by declaring themselves nonprofit and not having to pay taxes, which I would argue is a case of indirect funding) more discriminatory than funding only a particular one. Interesting to see how the dynamic plays out in different societies.

In Aus there is no discrimination BETWEEN schools run by different religions, although all religious schools do receive far less govt funding than secular schools. Most of them do get a significant proportion of their running costs covered though. Your govt seems to have usurped from parents the right to educate their children how they see fit, except for those parents wealthy enough to finance their children’s entire education from their own resources.

OK if you want duelling dictionaries: Australian Contemporary Dictionary: church n.“a building for Christian worship; collective body of Christians; a denomination or sect of the Christian religion; the clergy; the church service.”(there are no other meanings given)

Always interesting to see how much a common language can divide us. This is why it pays to define terms in a discussion. I looked online for an Australian dictionary, but couldn’t find one–any recommendations? Merriam Webster online (www.m-w.com) is a good one for the US.

Btw this has been upheld in law in one case I know of where a Court ruled that a mosque cannot be built on a piece of land which had been “reserved for a church”.

In your country or mine? I would not expect that Australians would be held to US law anymore than Americans are held to Australian law.

Oh no, this is not an Americanism, it’s a politically correct neologism invented by antiChristian zealots and unthinkingly adopted by others who are persuaded that it’s a sign of “tolerance of others’ differences”. Church comes from AngloSaxon “Cirice” from Greek “Kuriakou (Doma)” = “The House of the Lord”.

This is probably a major reason why people find your sect objectionable, because whilst you affect to totally reject Christianity root and branch, you simultaneously adopt wholesale Christian theology, terminology etc and apply it to your religion.

If you mean Unitarian Universalism, it does not totally reject Christianity. There are Christian UUs. It is, however, non-creedal, so there are also Jewish UUs, Hindu UUs, Neopagan UUs, etc. Both Unitarian and Universalist sects have been around for at least a couple of centuries, but admittedly they have morphed from their liberal Christian roots to become what they are today.

IOW it’s a glorified social club whose members’ beliefs endlessly contradict each other, but which has chosen to call itself a religion, and even a “church”, to get the supposed “benefits” which accrue from being Christian. I understand that the (original) Unitarians are “Bible-based” Christians who deny the Trinity based on their strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. If you are claiming that this sect has somehow morphed into an “absolutely anything goes” position of total religious relativism, that is a transformation almost as remarkable as the self-destruction of (US) Episcopalianism in the past few decades.

How, specifically, has UU “adopted wholesale Christian theology,” btw?

OK that was hyperbole. You pretend to be Christian when you see an advantage to being Christian, yet ostentatiously condemn Christianity when the tide’s flowing that way.

 

[Petergee]

First question: No, my belief in God has nothing to do with war.

Good to know. Neither does my belief in my Gods.

Second question: No. Monotheistic belief does not logically lead to such a conclusion. However, polytheistic belief could easily lead one to this conclusion or, perhaps, to the conclusion that the gods of the other nation defeated the gods of the loser.

Or that the Gods were not involved in or concerned with the war in the first place.

So what have you done with Ares, the ancient Hellenic war-god? I’m sure that both the polytheists and the anti-polytheists among the ancient Greeks would have thought it ridiculous to assert that some of their gods are real whilst others are myths.

And why choose the Hellenic gods anyway, out of all the dozens of polytheistic belief-systems? Are you of Greek extraction?

 

[Mr.Bee]

**
When I speak of the Gods in general, I mean the conception of deities as understood by polytheists. When I speak specifically of my Gods, I speak of the Hellenic pantheon, as They are the Gods that speak to me and Whom I worship. Within that pantheon, I have a particular worship relationship with Athena, Hestia, Hermes, Demeter, Persephone, Hades, Pan, and Hera. I will pour libations to the other Gods as appropriate, such as one to Poseidon when we visit the ocean. I have poured libations to the land spirits and water spirits of my physical area. I honor and pour libations for the spirits of my ancestors, those of blood, those of place and those of spirit.**

This is nice and I believe to be peaceful and good. But respectfully, do you realize that all of these gods are answerable to a higher authority, (at least that is what I believe) The Hellenistic gods were all ultimately rejected,and died, conquered by the monotheistic God. He didn’t even have to fight them, they faded away, forgotten, like a washed-up silent movie star… Compared to the one God I speak of, those gods are considered weak, the power those gods wield can be conquered - by humans. I might be mistaken in my opinion, but is seems like these gods are controllable to a certain extent. I’m not afraid to insult the pagan gods because I do not allow them any power over me. The one God I believe in has complete control over everything, my fear of God is out of respect.

The equation always adds up to 1 for me, the dieties honored in pagan worship are creations of a higher power, you can eliminate everything we know out of the equation and 1 still remains. If you honor Poseidon when you visit the sea, you honor the power and beauty of the ocean which Poseidon presides over, (and takes credit for), but you are neglecting the one who gave it to you (and Poseidon) in the first place, it’s like you are giving credit to the invention, not the inventor.

All faiths are fine and dandy, but it all boils down to one.

 

[mgupta]

Could it be that other religions are just different interpretations and there is no one true religion? Just truths and falsehoods in all religions? Could God be too complex for any human being to fully understand??

 

[Petergee]

You may understand that I do not.

I am not ridiculing Christian belief, because I understand that it is not that simplistic. I am simply surprised that you cannot understand that others may have as complex a religion as you do and that if the question applies to my Gods, it should be able to be applied to yours as well. If it would be absurd to ask such a simplistic question about your religion, it is highly likely that the same will be true for another religion. My point was that it makes no more sense for you to ask me where my Gods live, as if they were corporate beings, than it would for me to ask you where yours lives. They are Gods.

Early Christians also believed that if they could get high enough, they would be able to actually see Heaven, see the golden streets and pearly gates, that the stars were tears in the sky that let the light of that Heaven shine through. They believed it in more than as an artistic fantasy. It persisted for a very long time in some circles and was an argument against space travel. Modern Christians do not, to the best of my knowledge, still hold to that as dogma. There are millions of examples of things that Christians have held as dogma over the centuries that do not hold up to scientific knowledge as literally true and that Christians can understand that without losing their faith.

Absolute nonsense. This is a lie invented by late-19th century antiChristian secularists, and promoted in a slightly different form by anti-Catholic “liberal” protestants: that people of the ancient and middle ages were ignorant anti-scientific morons who though they lived on a flat earth with the stars holes in a screen just a few miles away and God and the angels and saints sitting on clouds. Unfortunately many today are woefully ignorant of history and believe this lie. In fact modern science was founded upon principles deduced from Catholicism. I doubt if anyone in Christendom, even the most ignorant illiterate peasant, would have ever believed what you claim “early Christians” believed. eg the Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy (yes one of those ancient Greeks who realised how irrational polytheism is), which was the standard astronomy textbook in Christendom for more than a millennium, states in Chapter 1, “In relation to the distance of the stars, the earth has no appreciable size and must be treated as a locus (a mathematical point)”.

I am asking that you apply the same considerations to my religion that you apply to yours in looking at these sorts of questions. Christians are perfectly capable of understanding that the way in which a society relates to deity and understands its sacred stories can change and grow over time as knowledge is gained. They are perfectly capable of making a distinction between artistic portrayals, allegory to get at a deeper spiritual truth and reality. They are perfectly capable of reading their sacred stories (the Bible) as having different levels of meaning and embodying truths that are deeper than the simple surface meaning of the words. So are Neopagans. So am I.

The myths are not dogma. They are not revealed unchanging Scripture. They are not considered authoratative. There was no “canon” of Greek belief. The myths were not considered unchanging dogma, even by the ancient Greeks. They are the record, usually poetic, of a people’s experience with their Gods, stretching back to time immemorial. I worship those same Gods, so it is useful for me to read and study them, but I am in no way constrained to believe that they are literally true rather than that their purpose is to convey spiritual truths.

Whoa, first you say you want us to apply the same considerations to your religion that we apply to Christianity. Then you say you DON’T want us to consider your religion’s myths the way we consider our Scriptures. Certainly we can see that many of the Greek myths teach moral lessons or comment on the human situation. But all mainstream Christians believe that if Scripture says something happened, it DID happen, it’s not just a myth. Moreover the historical, archeological etc evidence supports this in many ways.

If someone said “The Bible is just a lot of myths meant to convey spiritual truths”, that person would not be a Christian. In fact he would be either woefully ignorant or irrational. Now you’re saying that everything written about your “gods” is just a lot of myths meant to convey spiritual truths (I broadly agree with you here) yet you say you believe these gods, or some of them, are real, and even that they “speak to you”. OK, you say you’re not trying to evangelise anybody, but you’re not giving anyone a good impression of your rationality either.

 

[KarenNC]

You pretend to be Christian when you see an advantage to being Christian, yet ostentatiously condemn Christianity when the tide’s flowing that way.

Excuse me? I pretend to be a Christian?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You pretend to be Christian when you see an advantage to being Christian, yet ostentatiously condemn Christianity when the tide’s flowing that way.

Excuse me? I pretend to be a Christian?

I must agree with KarenNC on this one…!

KarenNC “pretends” to believe in her (?) gods, and wants us to to admit that we pretend to believe in our God.

Problem is that we DO believe in our God, and she’s annoyed that we are better “believers” (or at least think we are) than she is.

As Chesterton said: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing—they believe in anything.”

(( Neopagans were not once-upon-time pagans. They were once non-pagans, and are now anti-Christians. Neopagan actually means anti-Christian. ))

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