Todays God v Yesterdays gods.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Mythology
  3. » Todays God v Yesterdays gods.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:13 pm
Is God today (the one God) any less accessible than the old gods of yesterday (the family gods) who used to romp and make god-human babies?

I know this is a generalisation as many people today rekindled the old religions. But a rekindling of religion over the accepted resurrectional and prophecy based religion of the new wolrd.
The statu quo God worship v the fetishists gods worship?

Which do you prefer? And why?

Does sex and procreation available with a god make them more accessible than one you cannot touch?

Or does this keep them in a place where God cannot or will not abide?

What are the differences and what the similarities?

What does sex with your God give or take away from you? or give and take away from Them?
 
melonkali
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 02:04 pm
@sometime sun,
Being raised in a modern western society, I have trouble "feeling" the relationship between old gods and men. I do enjoy studying and trying to share the experience of modern peoples who have an unbroken "pagan-ish" tradition: India, The Republic of Georgia (officially Christian, but in actuality assimilated Christianity with longstanding paganism).

Also, my Christianity is of a personal variety -- I think of "Christ" as a person and a personal name for God. He may be as real to me as the old gods were to their followers. Same with Mary.

I don't "do" abstractions well, and I'd be lost trying to follow an abstract god.

rebecca
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 04:14 pm
@sometime sun,
To be honest I really don't see a difference between old gods or new gods. I just finished reading "The God Virus" and it definitely has changed the way I view the topic of religion and theology. Some of the ideas I had already understood but there was quite a bit of new perspective on the topic that I had never considered before. For some I bet they would just see the book as another atheist attack on religion but it doesn't really read like an attack. At least not in my perspective. The premise is religion is a mental virus. The way it propagates and controls it's host. The difficulty at a cure and the problems it creates for both followers and non-followers.

I have also been doing a lot more studying in Islam and I have to mention pretty much everything I have learned it just paints an even worse picture of Islam in general. There religion itself makes hate and discrimination too easy to develop. Now I know most Muslims are probably non-confrontational type of individuals however the extremists make up for all those peaceful ones when they insight hatred and insight attacks on groups they oppose. However we are not talking about one bad Muslim out of a hundred thousand doing something extreme. The numbers are much closer than that. It is more like one out of every ten Muslims is an extremist. That makes those radical numbers huge and the hatred or discrimination wide spread.

I find it incredibly funny when I get called a militant atheist, because I have never blown up a building, hijacked a plane or threatened to kill opposing groups for their infidel ways. I don't even condemn them to any eternal torment either. So how exactly am I militant?

So in conclusion, gods of yesterday are the same gods of today, just altered a little to suit our new life style. But people still insist in believing gods exist. When will we grow up and not need these delusions?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:04 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;133638 wrote:
To be honest I really don't see a difference between old gods or new gods. I just finished reading "The God Virus" and it definitely has changed the way I view the topic of religion and theology. Some of the ideas I had already understood but there was quite a bit of new perspective on the topic that I had never considered before. For some I bet they would just see the book as another atheist attack on religion but it doesn't really read like an attack. At least not in my perspective. The premise is religion is a mental virus. The way it propagates and controls it's host. The difficulty at a cure and the problems it creates for both followers and non-followers.

But the point i think this book makes is that even pigeons have the disease, called superstition at least. So if they can be 'infected' what makes us think it is not a natural phenomina, not an infection but a natural reinforcement of judgement probability.
God is believed not just because God is spread , God is believed because because it is probable, else why would we have the capasity for it to become something if it weren't there waiting to become. Pronounced.
Krumple;133638 wrote:

I find it incredibly funny when I get called a militant atheist, because I have never blown up a building, hijacked a plane or threatened to kill opposing groups for their infidel ways. I don't even condemn them to any eternal torment either. So how exactly am I militant?

Because you are not content with your own truth to be yours alone, you still want to spread your own 'gospel', you still want to be seen to be believed.
I would not go so far as to call you militant because you at least are still willing to hear something even if you will dismiss it, you are still willing to recognise of the others right to express their falicy.
Concering conscription; the question could be, have you already made up your mind, or has your mind already made you up?Smile
Krumple;133638 wrote:

So in conclusion, gods of yesterday are the same gods of today, just altered a little to suit our new life style. But people still insist in believing gods exist. When will we grow up and not need these delusions?

We will grow up when we dont have to fear death when we can live forever.Smile
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:22 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;133638 wrote:

I have also been doing a lot more studying in Islam and I have to mention pretty much everything I have learned it just paints an even worse picture of Islam in general. There religion itself makes hate and discrimination too easy to develop. Now I know most Muslims are probably non-confrontational type of individuals however the extremists make up for all those peaceful ones when they insight hatred and insight attacks on groups they oppose. However we are not talking about one bad Muslim out of a hundred thousand doing something extreme. The numbers are much closer than that. It is more like one out of every ten Muslims is an extremist. That makes those radical numbers huge and the hatred or discrimination wide spread.
One thing I think you need to keep in mind when dealing with this subject is something that Saint Augustine once said and that is, "never judge a philosophy by its abuse." Would we judge science by its abuse and conclude it should be stricken/outlawed? Think about the countless horrible things that have been done in the name of science. In spite of this, I think the answer is clearly no.

The point is, instead of judging something by its abuse, judge it instead by its merits.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:58 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;133654 wrote:
The point is, instead of judging something by its abuse, judge it instead by its merits.


Well isn't that just as one sided as only looking at the negative impact? This saying of yours just sounds like to me, "Ignore all the bad things that religion has caused and only consider the good things it has done."

To be quite honest here, we would have to conclude if we consider both, that religion has done far more harm than it has ever done anything good.

But to also counter your science argument. I think we should hold science to the same standard that you just said we shouldn't. I think if science is causing harm then by all means it should be squelched. Why should we tolerate something causing harm only because we support it's general position? No, and that is bad.

You also don't believe in what you claim anyways. Because I can sight two examples that you would not agree with, yet they have merit. The war on drugs causes more violence than it solves. And illegal prostitution causes more harm than it solves. So should we only reflect on the merits of legalizing drugs and prostitution? I bet you wouldn't agree to that, so you don't honestly believe what you say.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:39 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;133658 wrote:
Well isn't that just as one sided as only looking at the negative impact? This saying of yours just sounds like to me, "Ignore all the bad things that religion has caused and only consider the good things it has done."

Dont judge a truth by its proof:) Always how we prove rather than the truth.
Krumple;133658 wrote:

To be quite honest here, we would have to conclude if we consider both, that religion has done far more harm than it has ever done anything good.

Not true. We are still here aren't we? we are still striving, surviving, thriving? Christian and athiest is built upon those who survive it. Taking form it only the best and spreading that instead of the dirt.
Krumple;133658 wrote:

But to also counter your science argument. I think we should hold science to the same standard that you just said we shouldn't. I think if science is causing harm then by all means it should be squelched. Why should we tolerate something causing harm only because we support it's general position? No, and that is bad.

But is not science less 'accountable' because it is 'true'?
Science doe snot hold its self up to the same logic as the faithful
Scienc eis either all right or all wrong, science can still blame the user.
Just as some blame faith and religion because of its users.
(Hope this made sence, trying to be quick.)
Krumple;133658 wrote:

You also don't believe in what you claim anyways. Because I can sight two examples that you would not agree with, yet they have merit. The war on drugs causes more violence than it solves. And illegal prostitution causes more harm than it solves. So should we only reflect on the merits of legalizing drugs and prostitution? I bet you wouldn't agree to that, so you don't honestly believe what you say.

Where the two sided conflict must be resolutioned.
Bad fights both good and fights other bad.
Good fights only the bad.
 
melonkali
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 08:23 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;133638 wrote:
To be honest I really don't see a difference between old gods or new gods. I just finished reading "The God Virus" and it definitely has changed the way I view the topic of religion and theology. Some of the ideas I had already understood but there was quite a bit of new perspective on the topic that I had never considered before. For some I bet they would just see the book as another atheist attack on religion but it doesn't really read like an attack. At least not in my perspective. The premise is religion is a mental virus. The way it propagates and controls it's host. The difficulty at a cure and the problems it creates for both followers and non-followers.

I have also been doing a lot more studying in Islam and I have to mention pretty much everything I have learned it just paints an even worse picture of Islam in general. There religion itself makes hate and discrimination too easy to develop. Now I know most Muslims are probably non-confrontational type of individuals however the extremists make up for all those peaceful ones when they insight hatred and insight attacks on groups they oppose. However we are not talking about one bad Muslim out of a hundred thousand doing something extreme. The numbers are much closer than that. It is more like one out of every ten Muslims is an extremist. That makes those radical numbers huge and the hatred or discrimination wide spread.

I find it incredibly funny when I get called a militant atheist, because I have never blown up a building, hijacked a plane or threatened to kill opposing groups for their infidel ways. I don't even condemn them to any eternal torment either. So how exactly am I militant?

So in conclusion, gods of yesterday are the same gods of today, just altered a little to suit our new life style. But people still insist in believing gods exist. When will we grow up and not need these delusions?


Soooo, are you going to make me google "The God Virus", or could you describe it for me in this thread?

Re: Islam: I fully agree that if the non-Islamic world does not address this tension realistically and pragmatically, trouble lies ahead for all. IMO, change will have to come from inside the Islamic community. I know there are a few schools or traditions, particularly (surprisingly) within the Shi'a (sp?) sect, which offer the flexibility for change. There's one tradition, I can't think of its name, which, though fundamentalist, interprets the Quran as (roughly) "conditional verses trump unconditional verses". If any verse puts a condition on something, say Jihad, that condition holds for all verses pertaining to Jihad.

You've set my mind to pondering: pragmatically, how can a non-Muslim encourage the growth of the more flexible and reasonable Islamic traditions? A non-Muslim can't, at least not these days, IMO.

Perhaps universalists, or humanitarians or those not invested in any one tradition or name for god, might want to consider converting to Islam, for the sake of the ultimate good. That's something I will seriously study on, and I'll need to put a time limit when "study" must conclude in decision and/or action.

Realistically, I don't have enough time left in this realm to accomplish much, if anything. Do you think this is a potentially good idea? If so, do you think there are people in younger western generations who might consider taking a similar path? If not, what are some viable alternative ideas?

rebecca
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 02:16 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;133647 wrote:
that even pigeons have the disease, . Pronounced..
Concering conscription; the question could be, have you already made up your mind, or has your mind already made you up?

We will grow up when we dont have to fear death when we can live forever.Smile


:bigsmile:Who wants to live for-ever ? What would you do ?


Well, that's not possible. Yet. Anyway, I love the plurality in the world, the languages, rituals. Do I have to mention the beauty of the different races ? I think the most beautifull children ever will be born.

Hopefully we have an Earth to pass on to Humanity.:a-thought:
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 02:27 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;133724 wrote:
Soooo, are you going to make me google "The God Virus", or could you describe it for me in this thread?

You've set my mind to pondering: pragmatically, how can a non-Muslim encourage the growth of the more flexible and reasonable Islamic traditions? A non-Muslim can't, at least not these days, IMO.

Perhaps universalists, or humanitarians or hermetic students and humanisten and those not invested in any one tradition or name for god, might want to consider converting to Islam, for the sake of the ultimate good. That's something I will seriously study on, and I'll need to put a time limit when "study" must conclude in decision and/or action.

Realistically, I don't have enough time left in this realm to accomplish much, if anything. Do you think this is a potentially good idea? If so, do you think there are people in younger western generations who might consider taking a similar path? If not, what are some viable alternative ideas?

rebecca

:bigsmile:
Sometime is not necessary to convert to work on a religion in-side out. In Amsterdam it is possible to talk with your local butcher about things like this.

I know of one Dutch who lived and studied Islam in Indonesia and converted (suppossedly). He went to Mecca ... There still is a Collection in Leyden.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 12:06 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
:perplexed: Would it be possible to sub-stitute Masculine Deities after this Month oF March ? I could Wage a bet on the Future Godess. If we really screw up it will be the Moon or Venus.Laughing
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:39 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;133724 wrote:

Re: Islam: I fully agree that if the non-Islamic world does not address this tension realistically and pragmatically, trouble lies ahead for all. IMO, change will have to come from inside the Islamic community. I know there are a few schools or traditions, particularly (surprisingly) within the Shi'a (sp?) sect, which offer the flexibility for change. There's one tradition, I can't think of its name, which, though fundamentalist, interprets the Quran as (roughly) "conditional verses trump unconditional verses". If any verse puts a condition on something, say Jihad, that condition holds for all verses pertaining to Jihad.

I have only ever been friends with female Muslims, even though i once flirted with the idea, ideal, idealism of becoming a man.

melonkali;133724 wrote:

You've set my mind to pondering: pragmatically, how can a non-Muslim encourage the growth of the more flexible and reasonable Islamic traditions? A non-Muslim can't, at least not these days, IMO.

They will be given a sign, we need to let them and their faith breath, it will correct itself, or the people will do it for themselves.
These times are a changin.
melonkali;133724 wrote:

Perhaps universalists, or humanitarians or those not invested in any one tradition or name for god, might want to consider converting to Islam, for the sake of the ultimate good. That's something I will seriously study on, and I'll need to put a time limit when "study" must conclude in decision and/or action.

I once considered it, just needs one good leader, they may still be fine.
melonkali;133724 wrote:

Realistically, I don't have enough time left in this realm to accomplish much, if anything. Do you think this is a potentially good idea? If so, do you think there are people in younger western generations who might consider taking a similar path? If not, what are some viable alternative ideas?

rebecca

Religious schools?
(Learn their, Teach them their good book.)
The Quran is beautiful and can be read by anyone.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 02:02 AM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;134737 wrote:
:bigsmile:Who wants to live for-ever ? What would you do ?

I dont want to live foreverm, i welcome my life ending even though i dont encourage it.

Pepijn Sweep;134737 wrote:



PLAY THIS A LOUD AS YOU CAN HANDLE.
YouTube - Queen - Who Wants to Live Forever (HIGHLANDER VIDEO)

Pepijn Sweep;134737 wrote:

Well, that's not possible. Yet. Anyway, I love the plurality in the world, the languages, rituals. Do I have to mention the beauty of the different races ? I think the most beautifull children ever will be born.

Hopefully we have an Earth to pass on to Humanity.:a-thought:

Beautiful beacuse they are different. And beacuse i can love them more for it.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 03:33 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;136737 wrote:
I have only ever been friends with female Muslims, even though i once flirted with the idea, ideal, idealism of becoming a man.


They will be given a sign, we need to let them and their faith breath, it will correct itself, or the people will do it for themselves.
These times are a changin.

I once considered it, just needs one good leader, they may still be fine.

Religious schools?
(Learn their, Teach them their good book.)
The Quran is beautiful and can be read by anyone.



---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 02:02 AM ----------


I dont want to live foreverm, i welcome my life ending even though i dont encourage it.


PLAY THIS A LOUD AS YOU CAN HANDLE.
YouTube - Queen - Who Wants to Live Forever (HIGHLANDER VIDEO)


Beautiful beacuse they are different. And beacuse i can love them more for it.


:bigsmile: liked video / hardly watch TV etc.

Do not think of Abraham as a thing of the Past
Think Religions did de-terriorate; starting with 10 rules...
Now a life-time study; scilly traditions and a former SS as leader of the RC Church !

I choose to look a'round; may-by I am wrong, but it is my choice

No "divine" Law for me.

If a Messiah will come back I will first Question the fact.

I will be 2nd in line to help as much as I can.
I believe it's time for a positive leap.
I want to say I love your Forum>

:detective:PSH
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 01:43 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;140500 wrote:
:bigsmile: liked video / hardly watch TV etc.

Do not think of Abraham as a thing of the Past
Think Religions did de-terriorate; starting with 10 rules...
Now a life-time study; scilly traditions and a former SS as leader of the RC Church !

I choose to look a'round; may-by I am wrong, but it is my choice

No "divine" Law for me.

If a Messiah will come back I will first Question the fact.

I will be 2nd in line to help as much as I can.
I believe it's time for a positive leap.
I want to say I love your Forum>

:detective:PSH

Abraham has not finished until we are, we needed a human father figure.
And Jesus was never a father until he died.
Before the 10 rules, magic and blood wa sin charge, i thinkl the ten rules made for a safer clearer more measurable religion format.
And dont forget our 'modern' law and concept of law all comes from those first 14 rules. The Mishnah i could never even crack.

You are not blind if you have a religious faith, it just means you dont look at everything with the same expression or perspective, and of course perspective ought to be abstract but is not and not especially for the ones who have their own religious icon.
I have never found Jeus nailed to the cross beautiful, and think the image in the wrong mind has the tendancy to look at life and existance as a torture.

As i said todays law what ever its idiotics and brilliances all come from the first or last 10
All society is an extention of Abrahamic law, and i think law is not just a matter of faith but a matter of conviction.

When th eMessiah come sback and if we are aorund to ask him anything, He will answer everything you will ever need to answer.
Who knows maybe God does owe us all an apology?
But by the time all our questions are answered we will also have learned in th eprocess of this enlightenment to understand and to forgive not just Gods ignorances but our own.

I want to say i love your forum also but as always afraid of refusal and of a denial to fearful to bear.
Love rebuked is a sad affair.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 01:17 pm
@sometime sun,
As I told earlier I admire more gods and goddesses and heros etcetera. I think t:bigsmile:hey teach us values for life. Organisated reliligion is based on un-equality of the religious themselves. Non of my business ? It violates human rights.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 01:37 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;141279 wrote:
As I told earlier I admire more gods and goddesses and heros etcetera. I think t:bigsmile:hey teach us values for life. Organisated reliligion is based on un-equality of the religious themselves. Non of my business ? It violates human rights.

I used to pray to a Goddess, which is your favourite goddess?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:16 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;141284 wrote:
I used to pray to a Goddess, which is your favourite goddess?


It was Aethena Nike but I met Tanit-Astarte on Ibiza. Then I got inti it and respect woman gods the same as woman around me.

Hera is my favourite. I feel her as my mother feels to me. Venus stands for Moral Decay. Hera - Hearth
Laughing:devilish:Laughing
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 06:57 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;141368 wrote:
It was Aethena Nike but I met Tanit-Astarte on Ibiza. Then I got inti it and respect woman gods the same as woman around me.

Hera is my favourite. I feel her as my mother feels to me. Venus stands for Moral Decay. Hera - Hearth
Laughing:devilish:Laughing

The cow that is the marriage, the marriage that is the cow,
are you a worshipper of the poppy or just the pomegranate?
Hera warm clean blood.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 11:55 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;141381 wrote:
The cow that is the marriage, the marriage that is the cow,
are you a worshipper of the poppy or just the pomegranate?
Hera warm clean blood.


 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 11:54 am
@sometime sun,
I would have hoped that we would have moved beyond conceiving of god as a sexual being or even as a person at all. God is a spirit, a process, the rational ordering creative principle of reality. The conception that god desires any form of blood sacrifice for forgiving our "sins" is also a rather primitive conception that is hard to rationally or coherently hold in the modern world. The universe was clearly not created as the stage for some earthly human drama (the fall and the redemption). The earth is not the center of the universe, man is not the crown of creation and creation is an ongoing process in which death and destruction play a vital role. In fact creativity is the ultimate principle and process is the ultimate reality. IMHO
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Mythology
  3. » Todays God v Yesterdays gods.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 08:25:45