|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 40 From: Modena, Italy Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Monotheism or Enotheism? What is more apt for Christian Religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
When you say "classic" do you mean old testament?
Is the whole good Vs evil thing from Revelations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You are advocating a rather bizarre approach to terminology whereby everyone can have their own personal definition of the term god and then decide whether or not they are a theist, an atheist, a polytheist or a monotheist based on applying their own unique definition.
This leads to some rather ridiculous results. For example two people can believe in the existence of the exact same supernatural being but one of those people will be an atheist and the other a theist because they have different private definitions of the term god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, most of the modern concepts of Satan are from Dante's Inferno, but there are some extra biblical references that played a part in building the caricature. There is the extra biblical account of "The fall" where Satan refuses to fall down and worship Man as God's greatest creation (somehow that gets morphed into a rebellion against God). Revelation does play a part but again there it is really muddled like so many bad trips.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you trying to misunderstand me?
You are advocating a rather bizarre approach to terminology whereby everyone can have their own personal definition of the term god and then decide whether or not they are a theist, an atheist, a polytheist or a monotheist based on applying their own unique definition. Please provide the quotes that lead you to this conclusion so I can figure out why my writing is so bad. No, not everyone has their own definition of the term "god". We can use the definition you provided. What determines if something fits that definition is what the people who believe in that supernatural being think about it. The Norse assigned properties to Thor that qualify him for the description of a god. That's why we can call him a god. What other way is there to do it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: No, not everyone has their own definition of the term "god". We can use the definition you provided. Then let's do that.
CS writes: What determines if something fits that definition is what the people who believe in that supernatural being think about it. You don't need anyone to believe in a concept for it to qualify as a god. It is perfectly possible to think up god concepts which nobody believes in at all. Obviously. The concept (whether anybody believes in it or not) under consideration either meets the definition provided or it doesn't.
CS writes: The Norse assigned properties to Thor that qualify him for the description of a god. That's why we can call him a god. What other way is there to do it? The Norse defined a concept called Thor. The concept called Thor as defined by the Norse meets the definition of god as commonly used. I have previously defined a concept called Wagwah. The concept called Wagwah as defined by me meets the definition of god as commonly used. The fact that the Norse believed in the existence of Thor and nobody believes in the existence of Wagwah is completely irrelevant to whether either of the above qualify as gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You don't need anyone to believe in a concept for it to qualify as a god. It is perfectly possible to think up god concepts which nobody believes in at all. Obviously. Sure, but then you're just talking about recreational fiction. There's all kinds of gods in the Forgotten Realms D&D campaign. Then there's actual religions that people adhere to. Who gives a fuck about fantasy gods?
I have previously defined a concept called Wagwah. The concept called Wagwah as defined by me meets the definition of god as commonly used. Um, well:
quote: Your definition requires someone worshipping it.
The fact that the Norse believed in the existence of Thor and nobody believes in the existence of Wagwah is completely irrelevant to whether either of the above qualify as gods. What's the point in talking about made-up beings that are defined into being gods? Especially if nobody believes in them? Who cares? This is about Christian concepts and whether or not they qualify as gods. I'm saying that you should take into account what the Christians actually believe about their supernatural beings in order to determine whether or not they should be called gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I'm saying that you should take into account what the Christians actually believe about their supernatural beings in order to determine whether or not they should be called gods. If you are simply saying that how one defines a concept dictates whether or not it meets the definition of a god or not then — Duh! — Of course. How could it possibly be otherwise. If you define Satan as some sort of metaphor for temptation then — No Satan isn’t a god. If you define Satan as a being completely under Yahweh’s control with no power of his own over any aspect of reality then — No Satan isn’t a god. If you define Satan as the supernatural personification of evil who holds dominion over hell and all that dwell there — Then very arguably Satan would be classified as a god in any other context and it’s simply a matter of self-proclaimed monotheistic Christian equivocation that demands that we not apply that label. But it’s about how one defines the concept in question rather than anything to do with belief in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes:
You can perhaps until the cows come home but I'm talking about the fundamentalists whose catch phrase is, "The Devil made me do it." They definitely seem to be ascribing godlike powers to Satan.
perhaps God used satan as a tool to harden the heart. Thugpreacha writes:
So how do you know which one is the puppeteer? Perhaps everything you "know" about God was planted in your mind by Satan as a test. God can use satan as a tool, but satan cant use God for anything. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
This is what's confusing me...
What matters it what the believer in Thor thinks about Thor. I'm not a believer in Thor but I can recognize that Thor is a god.
I think it should matter if you guys actually see them as your king or not, and not whether or not I can define the word to include them.
Well there is a difference between "A King" and "Your King". The later you would need to belief. The former you would just need to understand what the definition of king is. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
re, but then you're just talking about recreational fiction. It all seems to be recreational fiction, in that people thought up the concept a one point when there was once no concept.
Then there's actual religions that people adhere to. Using the word "religion" does not make it any less fantasy than D&D.
Who gives a fuck about fantasy gods? You're drawing an odd destinction between the gods of what you're calling fantasy and the gods of religion, when no such destinction can be made about the way these concepts were created. Both are unevidenced concepts that have a date of origin (or time period of origin). They're both unfalsifiable. That people tend to believe in these gods more so than the ones of fantasy, even though I'm sure there are people out there who believe in these fantasy gods too, doesn't mean we can't refer to the fantasy concepts as gods. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 54
This is what's confusing me...
What matters it what the believer in Thor thinks about Thor. I'm not a believer in Thor but I can recognize that Thor is a god. Same here. And how do you determine that Thor qualifies for the label of a god other than by looking at the attributes that his believers ascribed to him? That is, what his believers think about him?
I think it should matter if you guys actually see them as your king or not, and not whether or not I can define the word to include them.
Well there is a difference between "A King" and "Your King". The later you would need to belief. The former you would just need to understand what the definition of king is. I'm not saying that I have to believe in the god to call it a god. I'm saying I should take into account what the believers in the questionable-supernatural-being think about it in order to determine if it qualifies as a god or not. Like, if I had a defintion of "king" that includes their princes, should I really expect them to accept that their princes are kings because I can define them that way? Should we really be calling them kings when their own subjects don't think of them that way? From Message 55:
re, but then you're just talking about recreational fiction.
It all seems to be recreational fiction, in that people thought up the concept a one point when there was once no concept. I wouldn't say it was at "one point". They typically emerge throughout a culture over multiple generations.
Then there's actual religions that people adhere to. Using the word "religion" does not make it any less fantasy than D&D. When people talk about gods in D&D, they know they're talking about things that nobody believes in. People who adhere to a religion actually hold their gods to be real things. That doesn't mean their gods are less fantasy, but it means we're talking about actual beliefs rather than hypothetical scenarios. Me being able to make up a god and say that he has some qualities is different than examining what a particular culture actually believed about their god.
You're drawing an odd destinction between the gods of what you're calling fantasy and the gods of religion, when no such destinction can be made about the way these concepts were created. One distinction is that a fantasy god typically has one author while a cultures' religion will contain gods that have evolved over many generations. They're not created in the same way at all. I wouldn't even say that a religions god was created but rather that it emerged.
Both are unevidenced concepts that have a date of origin (or time period of origin). They're both unfalsifiable. That people tend to believe in these gods more so than the ones of fantasy, even though I'm sure there are people out there who believe in these fantasy gods too, doesn't mean we can't refer to the fantasy concepts as gods. I'm not saying we can't. I'm saying we should look at what that culture actually believes about their "god" before we detemine if it deserves that label or not. If your determination is at odds with the people who actually believe in the thing, then I think it is your determination that is incorrect rather than their view of the thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Whether a concept qualifies as a god or not depends on how the concept is defined. It has nothing to do with belief in that concept. Belief in what does or does not exist is a separate question. You keep conflating the two things.
CS writes: I'm saying we should look at what that culture actually believes about their "god" before we detemine if it deserves that label or not. We should certainly ask how the concept under consideration is defined by those who are putting it forward. Beyond that it's simply a matter of comparing it to the definition of god being applied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3922 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
If you define Satan as some sort of metaphor for temptation then — No Satan isn’t a god. Why not? If I define Thor as a metaphor for thunder, does that make him any less a god? If you define Jehovah as a metaphor for gross incompetence being covered up by mystical bullshit, does that make his big white throne disappear?
If you define Satan as a being completely under Yahweh’s control with no power of his own over any aspect of reality then — No Satan isn’t a god. Christ excluded from Godhood on those same grounds. No?
self-proclaimed monotheistic Christian equivocation Except the actual authors do not hesitate to refer to these entities as "gods".
2Cor 4:3,4 writes: But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. It's only the alleged "believers" who feel bound to consistently argue against the truth. I've already shown why in regard to Genesis 3. It's "the Cretan liar" on a global scale, much as Paul (and Peter) predicted.
1Cor 1:28 writes: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: Keep in mind that in the original stories Ea (Yah) was a god of mischief who lied a lot and was always trying to put one over on the other gods. If Loki showed up and told you he was the REAL god, and all the Aesir were just puppets he controlled, well, you could believe him if you wanted to? He could even show you an interpretation of the younger Edda that backed up his claim quite literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: If you define Satan as some sort of metaphor for temptation then — No Satan isn’t a god. Iblis writes: Why not? Because I am talking metaphorically rather than referring to a supernatural being per se. It's like if I describe someone as an Adonis. Or describe someone as having the Midas touch. Or talk about opening Pandora's box. Etc. The metaphorical meaning has developed from the myth such that you can understand the meaning of the phrase without necessarily knowing anything about the myth.
Iblis writes: If I define Thor as a metaphor for thunder, does that make him any less a god? It depends. If in your metaphor you are still defining Thor as a supernatural being who causes thunder then - Yes Thor is still a god. If however (for example) the term "Thor" were to take on common meaning in the same sort of way that Adonis has such that it becomes metaphorically descriptive rather than a direct reference to any supernatural being then - No, not really. As things stand we generally use the term Thor to refer to the god and not as some euphamism for a particular weather pattern. At least so far as I am aware.
Straggler writes: If you define Satan as a being completely under Yahweh’s control with no power of his own over any aspect of reality then — No Satan isn’t a god. Iblis writes: Christ excluded from Godhood on those same grounds. No? It probably depends which version of Christ we are talking about. If it's one that is effectively just God's lackey - Then yes. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whether a concept qualifies as a god or not depends on how the concept is defined. It has nothing to do with belief in that concept. Belief in what does or does not exist is a separate question. You keep conflating the two things. No, you're still misunderstanding me. Belief comes in because it is the believers who define the concept. You and I don't get to decide what qualities Thor has, the Norse did that. If we want to determine whether or not Thor is a god, we need to look at what the Norse said about him. We can't just sit here and assign false attributes to him and then decide if we should be calling him a god or not.
We should certainly ask how the concept under consideration is defined by those who are putting it forward. Beyond that it's simply a matter of comparing it to the definition of god being applied. Exactly. Unfortunately, you're unwilling to do this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024