|
I missed a few pages, but I'd like to go back to some of the original questions of the thread and offer a hopefully unique perspective. I don't worship God in the Judeo-Christian sense, but a specific one from a pantheon. I'd rather not name the specific god however; I'm not entirely sure of the wisdom of saying so considering the likely poor and partly deserved reputation of the pantheon as a whole. (I may be convinced to do so if the thread cares enough and is willing to let me argue the case though) I will say though, that I worship the god I do because I have found researching many of the pantheons and the gods in general quite interesting, and out of all of the gods and goddesses I've read up on and researched, the one I worship is the only one I've found that lives up to what I consider a good moral code. All the same, he made mistakes and paid for them. He came across as a much more 'human' god than most, much more relatable being an imperfect being himself. (not to hate on Jesus though, he was a good dude) In all honesty, I don't absolutely know in my heart of hearts if he exists or not. But I find him and what he represents as a sort of ideal that I would like to live up to. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all, and I try to act toward others the way I understand that he would. Basically, he gives me an ideal to work toward being, while being comforting knowing that loving up is ok sometimes; nobody is perfect. You could probably say that a god in this case isn't necessary and that all this could be done just as easily without adding religion, and yeah, I get that. Having an image of sort, something even slightly solid that I can point to and say "I want to be like/act like that" makes it feel more concrete and more attainable, at least for me.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's what Jesus was wondering Yes. That's part of the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Here's another way to think about this problem of evil business. Where is God relative to the cross? God is the cross.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
And this is the point, those are both valid experiences (different than my own) that instead of being rationalized can be acknowledged and attempted to be understood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Why does God's position on the cross matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yes. That's part of the point. And then he died, the end. I "choose to believe" that God deceived his own son and left him to die, then instead of coming back he stayed dead. Oh you don't choose to believe what I choose to believe? I guess we'll remain estranged from one another then, locked in separate prisons of our own irrelevance. If only there was a way to bridge that gap, like getting shut of navel-gazing interpretations of the writings of dead cultures, or relinquishing a schizophrenic's reverence for the significance of metaphor. Ah, well...
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does God's position on the cross matter? That would broadly be my question also, I can't say I understand the purpose of the question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Rorac posted:I missed a few pages, but I'd like to go back to some of the original questions of the thread and offer a hopefully unique perspective. I don't worship God in the Judeo-Christian sense, but a specific one from a pantheon. I'd rather not name the specific god however; I'm not entirely sure of the wisdom of saying so considering the likely poor and partly deserved reputation of the pantheon as a whole. (I may be convinced to do so if the thread cares enough and is willing to let me argue the case though) no one is going to care about any of the rest of your post while this is dangling there, so you may as well tell us why Heimdall is the best god. also just in general there's no reason to be scared of what some dumb nerds on the internet think about your god of choice, we're unlikely to be able to do anything to you outside of smugly type some mean words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Sloppy Milkshake posted:no one is going to care about any of the rest of your post while this is dangling there, so you may as well tell us why Heimdall is the best god. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I would take a lot less issue with worshipping a classical pantheon because I can't really see any sort of inconsistency with them. Like I don't see the point in it but, well, if you think Zeus is up there loving people as a bull and throwing lightning at people he doesn't like, that's fine. He doesn't claim to be benevolent, he's just big and powerful and will gently caress you up if you get on his bad side. I would be interested to hear a sincere defence of classical paganism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would be interested to hear a sincere defence of classical paganism. It involves lots of beer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Wine surely, and only during Saturnalia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wine surely, and only during Saturnalia. Depends on your pantheon, if you worship the norse god you're pretty much getting shitfaced: Snorri Sturluson posted:It was an old custom, that when there was to be sacrifice all the bondis [freeholders] should come to the spot where the temple stood and bring with them all that they required while the festival of the sacrifice lasted. To this festival all the men brought ale with them; and all kinds of cattle, as well as horses, were slaughtered, and all the blood that came from them was called "hlaut", and the vessels in which it was collected were called hlaut-vessels. Hlaut-staves were made, like sprinkling brushes, with which the whole of the altars and the temple walls, both outside and inside, were sprinkled over, and also the people were sprinkled with the blood; but the flesh was boiled into savoury meat for those present. The fire was in the middle of the floor of the temple, and over it hung the kettles, and the full goblets were handed across the fire; and he who made the feast, and was a chief, blessed the full goblets, and all the meat of the sacrifice. And first Odin's goblet was emptied for victory and power to his king; thereafter, Niord's and Freyja's goblets for peace and a good season. Then it was the custom of many to empty the brage-goblet (1); and then the guests emptied a goblet to the memory of departed friends, called the remembrance goblet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
You are not seriously telling me that the Prose Edda contains the concept of pouring out a 40.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are not seriously telling me that the Prose Edda contains the concept of pouring out a 40. Snorri was the real OG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are not seriously telling me that the Prose Edda contains the concept of pouring out a 40. Where did you think that came from?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Well I guess it's not an unusual idea so I suppose it's probably been around as long as booze, it's just... odd seeing it so unchanged in something nearly a thousand years old.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Sloppy Milkshake posted:no one is going to care about any of the rest of your post while this is dangling there, so you may as well tell us why Heimdall is the best god. also just in general there's no reason to be scared of what some dumb nerds on the internet think about your god of choice, we're unlikely to be able to do anything to you outside of smugly type some mean words. I find it somewhat amusing from some of the other posts that it's automatically assumed to be a Norse god, but no. Quetzalcoatl, actually. From what research I've done a lot of the time he's attributed to intellectual pursuits, or the inventor of things like the calander or writing, and more than a few myths relate to him accomplishing some task that were only possible by some clever action. Unfortunately a lack of surviving records makes doing extremely deep research hard. In addition, that name was also a title, and sometimes separating total myth from something that may actually have happened gets difficult. I don't take the myths as an absolute truth, but more a collection of stories meant as guidance. Across the board though, he's regarded as intelligent, wise, fair and kind and giving toward humanity. He's one of the few gods that gave an honest gently caress about people, and one myth involves him raising the dead from their bones and his own blood, but unlike literally the rest of the pantheon never asked the same in return. All the same, he had flaws (and quarreled with his brother, with disastrous results sometimes) but tried to make amends for when those affected other individuals not because he was forced to, but of his own steam. Whether or not he actually exists or existed is of lesser importance to me. The idea of him and what he represents is inspiring to me. Set aside the mythos and the divine aspects and all of that and you're left with an honestly admirable individual IMO. I think that's worthy to try to be like, even if I don't live up to it all the time. VVV There is one image in one book depicting this, yes, but outside of that I have not been able to find anything about that in any texts that I could find, nor have I found anything specific about that image other than "It's in this one book". His myths and legends are overwhelmingly on the side of "he forbade human sacrifice". The book itself apparently was made on European paper so I have my doubts about it's authenticity to Mesoamerican mythology, or at least that it's free from outside influences in it's artistry and depictions. Rorac fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
My aztec mythology is terrible but I thought Quetzalcoatl ate people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Rorac posted:I find it somewhat amusing from some of the other posts that it's automatically assumed to be a Norse god, but no. Quetzalcoatl, actually. People assumed that because you mentioned the worship of your particular pantheon having a bad reputation, and Norse god worship is somewhat common (relative to the worship of other pantheon gods by white people) and heavily associated with white supremacism. I don't think the worship of Aztec gods has any especially bad connotations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does God's position on the cross matter? It is a way to think about how different people approach the issue of human suffering and evil. It's also a way to critique those approaches. It's also a way to use multiple approaches, without being inconsistent, to think about the question. This also includes the viewpoint "absent". SedanChair posted:And then he died, the end. I "choose to believe" that God deceived his own son and left him to die, then instead of coming back he stayed dead. Oh you don't choose to believe what I choose to believe? I guess we'll remain estranged from one another then, locked in separate prisons of our own irrelevance. If only there was a way to bridge that gap, like getting shut of navel-gazing interpretations of the writings of dead cultures, or relinquishing a schizophrenic's reverence for the significance of metaphor. Ah, well... "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." I think the way the things were left at the end of the earliest version is a very human one. It's fine for each of us to risk living our lives on differing belief sets. Reaching understanding doesn't make separation go away. Edit: I should clarify, I am comparing my beliefs to the end of Mark not yours. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:\ A choice time for me to recount the time I met a Theophrastus scholar at a neighborhood party who just put it out there that given the historical context, the classical philosophers had some thoughtful and rather sophisticated defenses of slavery as a concept.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:People assumed that because you mentioned the worship of your particular pantheon having a bad reputation, and Norse god worship is somewhat common (relative to the worship of other pantheon gods by white people) and heavily associated with white supremacism. I don't think the worship of Aztec gods has any especially bad connotations.  For the record, I had a hunch it might have been a Central American deity, but I didn't get to the thread in time to post my guess. I guess you'll just have to take it... on faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Rorac posted:I find it somewhat amusing from some of the other posts that it's automatically assumed to be a Norse god, but no. Quetzalcoatl, actually. soooo you don't believe in Quetzalcoatl the god as a thing of worship?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:People assumed that because you mentioned the worship of your particular pantheon having a bad reputation, and Norse god worship is somewhat common (relative to the worship of other pantheon gods by white people) and heavily associated with white supremacism. I don't think the worship of Aztec gods has any especially bad connotations. Ah, that makes sense, although I wasn't actually aware of the connection between Norse worship and white supremacists. I'm curious as to how that happened, but that's it's own discussion for it's own thread/PMs. My worries were the connotations with human sacrifice that the Aztecs performed. Not that any sane individual practices that anymore, but it is a somewhat uncomfortable association, and I am rather loathe to talk religion too deeply with most people since most of what your average person knows about the Aztecs is "They sacrificed people for their gods." Which, yeah, they did. A lot.  Sloppy Milkshake posted:soooo you don't believe in Quetzalcoatl the god as a thing of worship? It's complicated. It's a somewhat agnostic view, I think. It's more correct to say that I don't absolutely know if he exists but I think he is a good example to emulate. If he does not exist, and all of him consists of the stories and myths, then his characterization is still one of a noble and good character. Isn't that worth trying to be? If he does exist, I hope that he would see that I follow him because I believe he is the best example of how to live a good life, and be a good person. Yes, I think he is worthy of worship, but that belief is tempered by the fact that I don't absolutely know if he exists. I think he does of course, but that is something taken on faith, and not something I have anything I can point to and say definitively "this is why".  I'm just a guy trying to do his best in an often confusing world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Quetzalcoatl was actually one of the nicer Aztec gods if I remember correctly. He just wanted humingbird feathers and butterflies to be sacrificed, which is quite sweet in it's way. The rest of the pantheon on the other hand was pretty mental.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would take a lot less issue with worshipping a classical pantheon because I can't really see any sort of inconsistency with them. Like Rorac I was deliberately vague about God in my posts because I felt going to deep into which God would just invite ridicule, but I too follow a god from a classical pantheon, because I'm a Discordian. I'm not really a classical pagan because I don't follow any of the other Greco-Roman gods, but after soul-searching a lot on the nature of God I found I couldn't reconcile the problem of evil with an omni-benevolent God, nor could I credibly believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God would even bother to make a universe. Meaning that if there is a God, she must either have been created along with, or after, the universe, or if God did create the universe, she would have created it to exist within it. And if God made the universe and humans, or is herself a facet of creation, then God, humanity and the universe would all share a nature. What do humans and the universe have in common? Chaos. The universe is on an irreversible one-way trip to maximum entropy. We see localised reversals of entropy, but these stem from other kinds of chaos: atoms bouncing around randomly and getting stuck or being crushed into larger ones. Our universe is random enough we can use it for random number generation. And humans are much the same; we fight, argue and quarrel with one another. Though recently we've begun to build more complex and ordered societies, we can't help smashing them into each other until they fall apart. And if she did make us, she chose to do it in the most violent, random and ridiculous manner you could ever conceive of: evolution. No sane deity with the power to make a universe from whole cloth would choose such a method to create intelligence, so either she had no other way to make it (not omnipotent) or she picked the most chaotic and random method on purpose. To me the universe and humanity isn't evidence of a perfect loving God building a giant universal watch, it's evidence that if God exists she built us and our universe as a giant hot mess, or she is the universe's internal manifestation of hot messiness. The best fit for such a God that I could find is the various polytheistic pantheons depiction of a chaos deity, Eris, Discordia, Kali. I have no way at all of knowing if God is real, or really knowing anything about her, but this is my best guess and so when I feel like praying, I pray to her. If I'm wrong and there is no God, I haven't really lost anything. I had fun along the way, and while I'd never dream of trying to convert atheists (Because if have literally no evidence or proof), arguments with theists are loads more fun now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:The universe is on an irreversible one-way trip to maximum entropy. We see localised reversals of entropy, but these stem from other kinds of chaos: atoms bouncing around randomly and getting stuck or being crushed into larger ones. Our universe is random enough we can use it for random number generation. And humans are much the same; we fight, argue and quarrel with one another. Though recently we've begun to build more complex and ordered societies, we can't help smashing them into each other until they fall apart. One minor gripe I have is that I don't think it makes sense to compare entropy in the sense of "energy and the universe as a whole" with human conflict. Whether humans are fighting or not doesn't really have a direct influence on entropy. Obviously the use of modern weapons can, but I don't see how humans stabbing each other with spears and swords has much an an effect on entropy (other than perhaps decreasing it due to there being fewer humans), so it's not the conflict itself that affects entropy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:One minor gripe I have is that I don't think it makes sense to compare entropy in the sense of "energy and the universe as a whole" with human conflict. Whether humans are fighting or not doesn't really have a direct influence on entropy. Obviously the use of modern weapons can, but I don't see how humans stabbing each other with spears and swords has much an an effect on entropy (other than perhaps decreasing it due to there being fewer humans), so it's not the conflict itself that affects entropy. I think it's reasonable to see a resemblance between the entire universe tending towards an inert, "dead" state and human mortality, between heat death and hunger, between the tendency for systems to break down and nations going to war, and so on. It's anthropomorphizing to be sure but that's kind of a given in this discussion. It's not (necessarily) about being literally, scientifically correct as it is recognizing the common trend in spiritual or aesthetic terms. It's also the point where I think even an atheist can appreciate concepts in a religious or religion-like mode. For example, my faith, insofar as I have one, is to recognize the mindless hostility and hunger of the universe and to try and be as unlike what I see as possible; to protest by example, even if it's futile. This doesn't strike me as that different than what Reveilled describes, apart from the posture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:One minor gripe I have is that I don't think it makes sense to compare entropy in the sense of "energy and the universe as a whole" with human conflict. Whether humans are fighting or not doesn't really have a direct influence on entropy. Obviously the use of modern weapons can, but I don't see how humans stabbing each other with spears and swords has much an an effect on entropy (other than perhaps decreasing it due to there being fewer humans), so it's not the conflict itself that affects entropy. To be clear, I'm not drawing a link as close as that. Human conflict and the universe's tendancy toward entropy are different things, but they're both manifestations of chaos. So, they're like I dunno, broccoli and ice cream, they're very different things but they're both food.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:(other than perhaps decreasing it due to there being fewer humans) That isn't quite how entropy works, all activity increases entropy. Though someone who worships the chaos of the universe would presumably have a somewhat odd worldview if they also believe in entropy given the universe's inexorable slide towards a completely uniform state. Or, well, I guess not that odd given that it's presumably a view shared by most secular scientists but I would think an awareness of the cosmic timescale combined with a specific appreciation for the disparity and disorder in the world would perhaps impart an emotional connection that most may lack. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That isn't quite how entropy works, all activity increases entropy. True, though different activity could increase it relatively more or less, with humans killing each other possibly leading to a slower increase due to subsequent less activity. To better state my earlier point, I don't think that human conflict inherently increases entropy any more or less than a lack thereof. It's fine if you're just talking philosophically, but I've seen many people say that human conflict accelerates the increase of entropy, which isn't necessarily the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Well it's obviously utterly meangnless in context of the rest of the universe or even just our local star, but I suppose you could argue that conflict is a motivator of industrialization and that overall leads to massive energy expenditure that otherwise wouldn't occur on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That isn't quite how entropy works, all activity increases entropy. For me it's more of a philosophical point than an emotional one, I see a parallel between human lives and the universe. We begin in confusion; we build up intricate and detailed existences, full of moving parts, creation and destruction; eventually we die and cease to exist, but even then there's a sort of death beyond death--your remains and memories of you continue on in others, for a time, but eventually your remains end up digested by microbes and memories of you die or fade, and you're left with a uniform state of your existence being all but gone. That might sound nihilistic but I guess I'm more of a theistic existentialist. You need to be realistic about what you can achieve in your lifetime! Just make your life a happy one, be someone others will share their memories of, and don't gamble your life's precious hours on the assumption that this universe is the tutorial level. And lastly, never forget to invite Eris to your parties--She never comes but the invitation shows you care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:The best fit for such a God that I could find is the various polytheistic pantheons depiction of a chaos deity, Eris, Discordia, Kali. Ehhhhhh. A very common Bengali view of her is definitely more alien than a lot of Hindu deities, and the Ramakrishna viewpoint (which I subscribe to) is that the universe exists because the universe existing is interesting, but that's not quite in line with what you've been saying. You bet your britches there are people in India who A) venerate her and B) subscribe to that general view. I don't know of any offhand, but Hinduism. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Ehhhhhh. A very common Bengali view of her is definitely more alien than a lot of Hindu deities, and the Ramakrishna viewpoint (which I subscribe to) is that the universe exists because the universe existing is interesting, but that's not quite in line with what you've been saying. Well, the universe existing because the universe is interesting is more or less what I meant by saying that if God created the universe, she must have made it to dwell within it. I think the universe has value for the experiences it brings, and I think that applies to God as much as to us, which for me is a point against god's omniscience: if there was nothing novel to experience in creating the universe, there'd be no point in making it. I'll certainly grant you that my interpretation of the divine is wildly divergent from traditional interpretations of Kali or Eris in other ways, but since I figure her position on what I believe would sit somewhere between vague indifference and mild interest, I'm not too concerned about the differences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It is a way to think about how different people approach the issue of human suffering and evil. It's also a way to critique those approaches. It's also a way to use multiple approaches, without being inconsistent, to think about the question. This also includes the viewpoint "absent". I guess I don't take your point. Are you saying suffering doesn't matter because God suffered too? Or are you just tossing in a few more pieces of the puzzle for consideration without a stance to accompany them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I guess I don't take your point. Are you saying suffering doesn't matter because God suffered too? Or are you just tossing in a few more pieces of the puzzle for consideration without a stance to accompany them? No what I'm saying is that we can look at suffering as an event that happens. We could look at Jesus on the cross. Or we could look at Pipel being hanged by the Nazis. Or we could look at someone's child dying of cancer. Suffering is a real thing that happens in the world. It's not an abstraction, it's something we each can experience in differing degree. God's and our own position relative to the event are how we interpret the event. Take me, I think God is one the cross, on the gallows as Pipel, and dying as the child with cancer. Some one else might think of God as having a plan for the world (an do have one in the thread), and these events are things that happen in God's plan. Another person might think of God as absent from the situation. And as SedanChair pointed out Jesus dying on the cross is referring to a psalm. "My God, my God, why have you left me and have removed from me my salvation in the words of my folly? (Aramaic Bible in Plain English Psalms 22:1). I'm not saying suffering doesn't matter, very far from that. I'm saying it's a real thing. Possibly one of the most real things human experience. We can use the questions "Where is God?" and "Where am I?" to understand how we relate to the event of suffering being experienced relative to how others relate to that event,
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Like Rorac I was deliberately vague about God in my posts because I felt going to deep into which God would just invite ridicule, but I too follow a god from a classical pantheon, because I'm a Discordian. I'm not really a classical pagan because I don't follow any of the other Greco-Roman gods, but after soul-searching a lot on the nature of God I found I couldn't reconcile the problem of evil with an omni-benevolent God, nor could I credibly believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God would even bother to make a universe. you really should have waited for page 23 to post this 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No what I'm saying is that we can look at suffering as an event that happens. We could look at Jesus on the cross. Or we could look at Pipel being hanged by the Nazis. Or we could look at someone's child dying of cancer. So what about this solves the problem of evil, if indeed you are suggesting it does (even partially)? I think everyone is on board with suffering being a real event. How does God being on the gallows alongside Pipel annul his suffering? Isn't a child dying of cancer still suffering, needlessly, for nothing the child herself has done, even if God is suffering alongside her? The problem is not so much, "how bad does God feel about suffering?" so much as it is, "why was the concept of suffering invented and put into the universe to begin with?" I suppose I am still failing to take your point, unless it is just "here is another dimension we can consider" with no conclusions or further implications included along with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 15:04
|
|