E
eliasaph99
Guest
Why would a non-corporate immortal being be interested in human commerce?
- Status
K
KarenNC
Guest
**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.**
Well, seeing as I was raised Protestant, that I should understand Christianity primarily in Protestant terms is hardly surprising
. I have actually learned a fair amount of new information regarding nuances of Catholic teaching from my participation in this forum. However, I would say rather that my “misunderstanding” is more of a result of expecting the English language to mean what it is generally accepted to mean.
I think that “omnipotent” means “all-powerful,” “almighty” as in "having absolute power over all " as the dictionary labels it (Merriam Webster online). I take that to mean that God is capable (has the power to) of doing anything that He desires. If He desires to create humans with free will, I don’t see that there is a barrier to that.
I simply think it is rather circular to claim that the actions of an omnipotent, omniscient God orignate from any reason other than His own desire. If He did not, for some unknown reason and in some way, desire that some portion of humanity be damned, then there is, by your own definition, no possible barrier to His preventing such an occurrence. If He chooses to cede that power to humanity, thereby choosing to limit His power, well, I suppose that is also His desire.
Perhaps I understand the words “all powerful” and “having absolute power” in some way other than Catholics do.
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.
Okay, I can live with a religion saying “there is no logical basis for this, you simply have to take it on faith.” I don’t, however, acknowledge that that makes it incumbent upon me to then believe it because the religion says so. I prefer less special pleading.
** 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).**
If you say so. To me, it is simply further special pleading and circular reasoning.
Once again, you simply don’t know the basic tenets of the Church (Catholic). Christ Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man.
Well, I thought I did. I was taken a bit off guard by your statement that “He limited Himself as we are limited.” Seems to me that if God, in His being as Jesus, “limited Himself as humans are limited,” He was therefore no longer omnipotent (as humans are not omnipotent) and, therefore, by your own definition of God as omnipotent, not any longer God, as no being that is less than omnipotent can be God.
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.**
Well, seeing as I was raised Protestant, that I should understand Christianity primarily in Protestant terms is hardly surprising
. I have actually learned a fair amount of new information regarding nuances of Catholic teaching from my participation in this forum. However, I would say rather that my “misunderstanding” is more of a result of expecting the English language to mean what it is generally accepted to mean.I think that “omnipotent” means “all-powerful,” “almighty” as in "having absolute power over all " as the dictionary labels it (Merriam Webster online). I take that to mean that God is capable (has the power to) of doing anything that He desires. If He desires to create humans with free will, I don’t see that there is a barrier to that.
I simply think it is rather circular to claim that the actions of an omnipotent, omniscient God orignate from any reason other than His own desire. If He did not, for some unknown reason and in some way, desire that some portion of humanity be damned, then there is, by your own definition, no possible barrier to His preventing such an occurrence. If He chooses to cede that power to humanity, thereby choosing to limit His power, well, I suppose that is also His desire.
Perhaps I understand the words “all powerful” and “having absolute power” in some way other than Catholics do.
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.
Okay, I can live with a religion saying “there is no logical basis for this, you simply have to take it on faith.” I don’t, however, acknowledge that that makes it incumbent upon me to then believe it because the religion says so. I prefer less special pleading.
** 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).**
If you say so. To me, it is simply further special pleading and circular reasoning.
Once again, you simply don’t know the basic tenets of the Church (Catholic). Christ Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man.
Well, I thought I did. I was taken a bit off guard by your statement that “He limited Himself as we are limited.” Seems to me that if God, in His being as Jesus, “limited Himself as humans are limited,” He was therefore no longer omnipotent (as humans are not omnipotent) and, therefore, by your own definition of God as omnipotent, not any longer God, as no being that is less than omnipotent can be God.
E
eliasaph99
Guest
I don’t want to get into dissecting the merits of someone else’s argument, but I will say this. What is stated above is not circular reasoning or special pleading.
These kinds of situations arise in the physical world as well as the philosophical world.
The canonical example is the inability to reconcile quantum physics and general relativity. One deals with the micro world of atoms and sub-atomic particles, and one with the macro world of planets, and bubble gum and what have you. They both explain their given spheres almost exactly. The problem is, when they meet, they cannot be reconciled. We don’t know how the forces and laws at the sub-atomic level translate into the forces and laws at the macro level, but they do. It’s right in front of you every day, so there must be a reconciliation.
Even within quantum physics, there are seeming contradictions. An electron is both a wave and a particle. This seems contradictory, but there it is, and it works. There isn’t really a great reconciliation between these two concepts, but they’re both simultaneously true. So it’s accepted as axiomatic and then predictions and models are built from there.
Now, are the things contradictory? Of course not. We observe their simultaneous existence all the time. But we don’t know what the reconciliation is, just that there must be one.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Have you by chance read the book of Leviticus? There are no fewer than 24 verses devoted to what God (presumably a non-corporate immortal being) says should be done about mildew. I don’t find it any more surprising that a non-corporate immortal being would be concerned with human commerce than that such would be concerned with how to clean mildew off of a human’s clothing.
E
eliasaph99
Guest
Except that in a monotheistic belief system, and especially in Christianity, we are God’s special creation. God loves and cares for us because, in a way, we are his children.
Hermes did not create humans. Why would he care if someones telephone operated well or if they sold a lot of slinkys?
K
KarenNC
Guest
Why wouldn’t He? I truly do not know why the Gods choose to interact with humans. They simply do. Perhaps we are interesting
.
K
KarenNC
Guest
That’s the “mystery”…!
Well and good. It is a mystery. All religions have their mysteries. What compelling reason is there for me to accept that your claim that your mystery is superior to any other kind of mystery, in fact so superior as to preclude the possibility that any other mysteries could possibly exist?
Once again, you’re simply stating that either we are robots, or God (the omnipotent) can’t exist. This is a “protestant” misconception.
No, I have not said that. I have said that if God is omnipotent, then there is no barrier to His doing whatever He so desires. If something occurs, it must be because He desires it for some reason.
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.
Quite the contrary. I have specifically stated that the Gods are not bound by human restrictions or to behave in ways that we decide are appropriately “god-like.” They quite simply are. Their actions are “god-like” because they are the actions of the Gods, not the other way around.
**the “mysteries” of God, the seemingly utterly irreconcilable, are for us to ponder, but not to solveIn 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.**
So God is as the monotheists describe Him and no other Gods can exist because we can ponder but not fully understand the plans of the God of the monotheists? I can ponder and not fully understand the plans of my Gods. Why does that make the God of the monotheists unique?
Well and good. It is a mystery. All religions have their mysteries. What compelling reason is there for me to accept that your claim that your mystery is superior to any other kind of mystery, in fact so superior as to preclude the possibility that any other mysteries could possibly exist?
Once again, you’re simply stating that either we are robots, or God (the omnipotent) can’t exist. This is a “protestant” misconception.
No, I have not said that. I have said that if God is omnipotent, then there is no barrier to His doing whatever He so desires. If something occurs, it must be because He desires it for some reason.
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.
Quite the contrary. I have specifically stated that the Gods are not bound by human restrictions or to behave in ways that we decide are appropriately “god-like.” They quite simply are. Their actions are “god-like” because they are the actions of the Gods, not the other way around.
**the “mysteries” of God, the seemingly utterly irreconcilable, are for us to ponder, but not to solveIn 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.**
So God is as the monotheists describe Him and no other Gods can exist because we can ponder but not fully understand the plans of the God of the monotheists? I can ponder and not fully understand the plans of my Gods. Why does that make the God of the monotheists unique?
K
KarenNC
Guest
** That makes you an essential pantheist (or possibly a theist), not a polytheist, then.**
Let’s see:
pantheist:
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
That would be “no” to number 1, “no” to 2a, and “yes, depending on the circumstances” to 2b. Would that make the Romans not polytheist, either? Is an “essential pantheist” different from a run of the mill “pantheist?”
Theist
belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
“Yes” to the general, “no” to the second.
polytheist:
: belief in or worship of more than one god
“yes” to that one.
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.
Was that the sole stated purpose for the existence of that God or those Gods–to make the rulers happy? I am not familiar enough with Mayan culture to say whether they were sociopathic monsters or not or whether all of their Gods demanded such sacrifice. I do not deny that there have been those through the ages who have found it convenient to emphasize (or to corrupt) beliefs or practices related to religion for their own means, but that does not mean that that is the only purpose or the reason for the existence of a particular God or Gods.
So you “worship”, via tribute, natural forces.
No, I worship, via tribute, Gods.
You USE them, in other words, to get what you want. Why do you want what you want?
No. I offer them gifts in the hopes that it will dispose them to perhaps be willing to exert themselves on my behalf if they are so inclined. I set up a “guest-host” relationship with them. I neither command nor compel.
You have no basis, other than a relativistic “assessment”, for descriptions of the words “good” and “evil”.
How does one define “good” or “evil” other than relationally? They have no meaning in the absence of the other.
Each person, just as they can choose their own “gods”, can choose their own morality.
I would instead say that my Gods, for whatever reason, chose me. By accepting a relationship with them, I also accept a particular way of looking at the world, which includes morality.
You seem to be assuming that I am following my religion because I consider it “good” and Christianity “bad” in terms of morality. Christian morality is a fine thing. I would only use the term “good” in this respect to mean “a more accurate way of describing the reality of my experiences with the spiritual world” and “bad” as “a less accurate way of describing the reality of my experiences with the spiritual world,”
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.
Have I claimed that Christianity’s morality is by definition entirely bad simply because it is Christian?
You WILL rapidly find that the “bad” behavior of your fellow polytheists/atheists/pantheists/theists which they describe as “good” is not good, .
Example? By whose standard?
and since you give them the right to call it “good”, you yourself have defined “good” to mean nothing
Example of “you give them the right to call it good?” Not sure what you mean here.
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.
Concrete example, please, of my moral instability. Why do you presume that Christianity is the only religion that provides a standard of behavior? Have you read the precepts of Solon, for instance? The Delphic Maxims?
ecauldron.com/greekethics.php
I, of course, don’t have to BE good, regardless of the “ruling”, but you can be “good” without actually being good.
?
Too messy. Polytheism is VERY messy.
Of course it is. Religion is messy. Life is messy.
Let’s see:
pantheist:
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
That would be “no” to number 1, “no” to 2a, and “yes, depending on the circumstances” to 2b. Would that make the Romans not polytheist, either? Is an “essential pantheist” different from a run of the mill “pantheist?”
Theist
belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
“Yes” to the general, “no” to the second.
polytheist:
: belief in or worship of more than one god
“yes” to that one.
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.
Was that the sole stated purpose for the existence of that God or those Gods–to make the rulers happy? I am not familiar enough with Mayan culture to say whether they were sociopathic monsters or not or whether all of their Gods demanded such sacrifice. I do not deny that there have been those through the ages who have found it convenient to emphasize (or to corrupt) beliefs or practices related to religion for their own means, but that does not mean that that is the only purpose or the reason for the existence of a particular God or Gods.
So you “worship”, via tribute, natural forces.
No, I worship, via tribute, Gods.
You USE them, in other words, to get what you want. Why do you want what you want?
No. I offer them gifts in the hopes that it will dispose them to perhaps be willing to exert themselves on my behalf if they are so inclined. I set up a “guest-host” relationship with them. I neither command nor compel.
You have no basis, other than a relativistic “assessment”, for descriptions of the words “good” and “evil”.
How does one define “good” or “evil” other than relationally? They have no meaning in the absence of the other.
Each person, just as they can choose their own “gods”, can choose their own morality.
I would instead say that my Gods, for whatever reason, chose me. By accepting a relationship with them, I also accept a particular way of looking at the world, which includes morality.
You seem to be assuming that I am following my religion because I consider it “good” and Christianity “bad” in terms of morality. Christian morality is a fine thing. I would only use the term “good” in this respect to mean “a more accurate way of describing the reality of my experiences with the spiritual world” and “bad” as “a less accurate way of describing the reality of my experiences with the spiritual world,”
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.
Have I claimed that Christianity’s morality is by definition entirely bad simply because it is Christian?
You WILL rapidly find that the “bad” behavior of your fellow polytheists/atheists/pantheists/theists which they describe as “good” is not good, .
Example? By whose standard?
and since you give them the right to call it “good”, you yourself have defined “good” to mean nothing
Example of “you give them the right to call it good?” Not sure what you mean here.
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.
Concrete example, please, of my moral instability. Why do you presume that Christianity is the only religion that provides a standard of behavior? Have you read the precepts of Solon, for instance? The Delphic Maxims?
ecauldron.com/greekethics.php
I, of course, don’t have to BE good, regardless of the “ruling”, but you can be “good” without actually being good.
?
Too messy. Polytheism is VERY messy.
Of course it is. Religion is messy. Life is messy.
K
KarenNC
Guest
There is either God, or gods. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Period.
Is it really necessary for us to agree on this roughly every third post?
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.
It is a “non-argument” to suggest that if you want to discuss a certain set of beliefs, it might be more productive to do so with a person who actually held such, rather than simply one that you keep insisting does so despite being told the opposite?
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.
So the “proof” of your religion is that it is not invented because everyone else can plainly see it? In what way can you “plainly show” me that your God is singular and therefore mine cannot exist?
**No. I don’t think you’re insane. But you’re not really a “polytheist” either, as you’re not an aborigine. **
Have you contacted the dictionaries to tell them to add that to the definition? Are all aborigines, then, by definition polytheists regardless of their religion? Who do you classify as aboriginal enough to be a polytheist by the way? What is the cutoff point?
You’re a overly pampered kindly rebel with the time and resources to “play religion” as an amusement.
If you choose to regard your religion as an amusement, by all means do so. I do not.
Go live with some REAL aboriginal polytheists for 10 years.
That might open your eyes.
You speak from experience?
Is it really necessary for us to agree on this roughly every third post?
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.
It is a “non-argument” to suggest that if you want to discuss a certain set of beliefs, it might be more productive to do so with a person who actually held such, rather than simply one that you keep insisting does so despite being told the opposite?
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.
So the “proof” of your religion is that it is not invented because everyone else can plainly see it? In what way can you “plainly show” me that your God is singular and therefore mine cannot exist?
**No. I don’t think you’re insane.
But you’re not really a “polytheist” either, as you’re not an aborigine. **Have you contacted the dictionaries to tell them to add that to the definition? Are all aborigines, then, by definition polytheists regardless of their religion? Who do you classify as aboriginal enough to be a polytheist by the way? What is the cutoff point?
You’re a overly pampered kindly rebel with the time and resources to “play religion” as an amusement.
If you choose to regard your religion as an amusement, by all means do so. I do not.
Go live with some REAL aboriginal polytheists for 10 years.
That might open your eyes.
You speak from experience?
K
KarenNC
Guest
Your argument, however, is exactly that you do know what the reconciliation is–that God is as defined by the monotheists.
P
Petergee
Guest
Please explain your basis for believing why Poseidon, the supposed supreme controller of the oceans and everything therein, would get so excited by your paltry “gift” of a slop of wine spilt on the beach that he would ensure you don’t drown or get attacked by a shark, throw up the exact type of shells that you want, etc. etc. Gee if I was him I’d demand that in return for doing all that you’d at least occasionally sacrifice me a virgin.
P
Petergee
Guest
The proposition “all true polytheists have an aboriginal polytheism” does not logically lead to “all aborigines are polytheist”. As you told us you were raised protestant, your polytheism is obviously not aboriginal. Aboriginal polytheists are that way because they don’t know any better. When they are introduced to the reality of God and discover they no longer need to fear or propitiate the imagined vengeful forces of nature, they embrace this reality with great relief and their descendants do not return to their groundless superstitions.**No. I don’t think you’re insane.
Have you contacted the dictionaries to tell them to add that to the definition? Are all aborigines, then, by definition polytheists regardless of their religion? Who do you classify as aboriginal enough to be a polytheist by the way? What is the cutoff point?
But I’m sure you actually know all this. Having decided that following Christ was just too difficult, you apparently have decided to attempt to justify your failure as a Christian by blaming Christianity and amusing yourself by annoying Christians by pretending that your “polytheism” is a real religious belief to you equivalent to “their” Christianity. You might fool some of them, but not all.
E
eliasaph99
Guest
Actually, I think that its incumbent upon you to explain why an immortal, incorporate, finite being with supernatural powers would be interested in interacting with mortal corporate beings.Why wouldn’t He? I truly do not know why the Gods choose to interact with humans. They simply do. Perhaps we are interesting
I find it hard to believe that the lack of satisfaction and rational explanation you profess to have found in Christianity was satisified by the above explanation. Does such an explanation really inspire devotional worship in you?
Why do they want “libations” poured out to them? Do they partake of them?
E
eliasaph99
Guest
First of all, as I stated, its not my argument.
Second of all, that is not the reconciliation. The reconciliation is simply that, although appearing contradictory, the two states exist simultaneously, therefore they must not be contradictory. However, as of this moment, we do not know why they are not contradictory.
That is what I said. I did not claim to know the reconciliation to the philosophical conundrum. I will say that the reconciliation is not the person of God. It is that the two states are not actually contradictory, they only appear to be so to us.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Fair enough.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Actually, I think that its incumbent upon you to explain why an immortal, incorporate, finite being with supernatural powers would be interested in interacting with mortal corporate beings.
Well, you may think it is incumbent upon me, but that doesn’t change the statement that I made previously. I do not know, I simply know that there is evidence that They are. If I were able to fully explain and understand every aspect of Them, They would not be Gods.
I find it hard to believe that the lack of satisfaction and rational explanation you profess to have found in Christianity was satisified by the above explanation. Does such an explanation really inspire devotional worship in you?
No, it doesn’t. This was not presented as either a creedal statement nor a summation of the entirety of my religion.
Why do they want “libations” poured out to them? Do they partake of them?
Well, you may think it is incumbent upon me, but that doesn’t change the statement that I made previously. I do not know, I simply know that there is evidence that They are. If I were able to fully explain and understand every aspect of Them, They would not be Gods.
I find it hard to believe that the lack of satisfaction and rational explanation you profess to have found in Christianity was satisified by the above explanation. Does such an explanation really inspire devotional worship in you?
No, it doesn’t. This was not presented as either a creedal statement nor a summation of the entirety of my religion.
Why do they want “libations” poured out to them? Do they partake of them?
- Tradition–We pour libations because that was a method of honoring the Gods modeled for us by the ancients and the stories of their relations with the Gods tells us that the libations were well-recieved. Yes, they used other methods as well, some of which are viable alternatives in modern society and some which are not. As the ancients had a millenium or more of interaction with the Gods on which to base their understanding of what worked and what did not, I am more than willing to use that as a starting point in my own devotions.
- Experience. I continue to pour libations because they appear to be well received in my experiences with my Gods.
E
eliasaph99
Guest
Can you make a creedal statement so that I can see what it is that inspires devotion?
K
KarenNC
Guest
No, Hellenic Neopaganism isn’t really about creeds. It’s more orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. If you want to see what inspires devotion, you could begin by reading the myths. They are readily available.
You might find the following useful as a starting point for more info:
hellenion.org/Mission.html
sponde.com/EthicsInHellenismos.html
sponde.com/OfferingsInHellenismos.html
ecauldron.com/dc-faq.php
- Status