Menewsha Avatar Community
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Menewsha Avatar Community (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/index.php)
-   Extended Discussion (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=111)
-   -   Gods? (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161047)

reddeath26 05-26-2010 02:46 PM
@Dr. Nyx-
Your post is little more than an appeal to nineteenth century evolutionism, which is a painfully flawed and ethnocentric approach to the study of culture. As this has been disproved so strongly by anthropologists, I will simply turn to a quote from Robert H. Lowie. I find it sums my reaction to your post up quite nicely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert H. Lowie
It may be said categorically that even at his worst Morgan never perpetrated more palpable nonsense, and that is saying a good deal.

Codette 05-27-2010 02:55 PM
Philomel, I'm not going to get into an arguement about religion with you. I'm just saying I have no faith in any 'Supreme Being (s)'. I'm not converting anyone, just stating my belief. Yes there are religions where the 'god(s)' play no part, but in this specific debate was about the one 'God' creating others. I was saying that religion is humanity created, so it doesn't make sense for the one 'God' to make other religions, based on my own perspective.

Philomel 05-27-2010 03:01 PM
That disclaimer does not allow you to get away with stating a falsehood, Syraanabelle. I honestly do not care about your beliefs about deity, but I do have a problem with you promoting the same tired, recycled, completely baseless anti-religion rantings.

Codette 05-27-2010 03:15 PM
I'm sorry, I am not anti-religion. You believe in whatever you desire, I wont stand in your way. I have yet to find any religion that makes sense to me, so I've choosen not to believe in something I see as false. Anyway this debate is not about personal beliefs. The OP asked if one thing created another thing, and in this case I stated that I found it impossible. If this was a debate about a dog giving birth to a monkey, sure, there would be someone out there that would say, yes it's true. But I would find no logic in that analysis.

For me the one 'god' is a dog and the other religions the monkey. My logic refuses to see the connection of creations between the two.

Crimson Fang 05-27-2010 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle (Post 1767355512)
I'm sorry, I am not anti-religion.
One does not have to personally be anti religion to make an anti religion ranting. The point here was that your post consisted of the same flaws which are commonly present in said rants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle (Post 1767355512)

You believe in whatever you desire, I wont stand in your way.
I am not entirely convinced that people play such an active role in regards to their culture. While there is certainly some area for choice in regards to a person's cultural understandings. This however will be limited very much so by the culture they initially acquire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle (Post 1767355512)
I have yet to find any religion that makes sense to me, so I've choosen not to believe in something I see as false. Anyway this debate is not about personal beliefs.
Although as God identified, nobody is refuting your personal beliefs. We are simply questioning what you have presented as reasoning. I have identified false representations of culture in your posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle (Post 1767325113)
Religions were created so that mankind would have some kind of guide to how to live, also so that humanity could have something/one to blame when something went wrong.

So no. No 'God' created any other religion. That was all humanity.
These are the two assertions I found suspect from you initial post which started this encounter. Although I am more concerned with the first one. As it takes only a basic rudimentary understanding of culture to realize that it comes as a result of its own unique context. As such it is not so easy to make such a sweeping generalization hold any value or worth at all. After all any attempt to make a generalization on such a scale must choose a particular cultural perspective to look at them from. So not only have you removed them from their meaning, but subsequently you have applied what is for many of them irrelevant meaning.

Codette 05-27-2010 06:26 PM
Well then educate me since I am so apparently wrong. If the life lessons I've learned, the religious and government issued educations has obviously lead me down the wrong path, I would ask that you give me the correct information.

Crimson Fang 05-27-2010 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle (Post 1767359408)
Well then educate me since I am so apparently wrong. If the life lessons I've learned, the religious and government issued educations has obviously lead me down the wrong path, I would ask that you give me the correct information.
While I do suspect you are being disingenuous with your request, I will however attempt to provide some assistance. I also point out that I am not under any false illusions that you will go through the effort of accepting my assistance. I am quite aware that through virtue of being a discussion on Menewsha this might have little value to you. Furthermore I highly doubt my value to you would be either greater than or even equal to that of Menewsha.


That aside the Arizona State University have lectures from their Cultural & Social Anthropology class freely available for download on I-Tunes. I have listened to twenty of their twenty two lectures and find them to be quite clear. Of particular interest to the discussion we are having are Introduction to Culture (50min) and Anthropological Perspectives on the Implication of Culture (55min). Although the second one would be quite sufficient at explaining my point to you. The first is as the titles suggests an introduction to what culture is. The second deals with how culture shapes the way we perceive the world.

Codette 05-28-2010 12:10 AM
actually I was being completely honest. I wanted to know. And I thank you for giving me this link.

PoetsRequiem 05-28-2010 01:44 AM
Well, that statement is really why I don't have any religon.
After all, isn't that what all religons say? That their's is the correct one, and those who don't worship it are thus in the wrong or going to hell, perguatory, or something like that.
That's a concept I don't get though, if someone created you, wouldn't they just automatically let you know, so that way you'd know? Instead of putting you through a test and seeing if you pass or fail to gain something from him/her, shouldn't this being(s) have made it that right off the bat you knew, because these being/beings are suppose to be alimighty, all-knowing, and all-encompasing then there presence should be known so that way their 'children' can go to wherever it is they're suppose awaiting them after this.
I don't know, that's how I feel. I'm not against religon, I just don't get certain things, and thus are questionative.
I must also agree with some others that, if you were to say that your god created all others, it would mean that the bible trumphs all other religous texts as well as your beliefs being superior, or at least holding reign over all others.

Philomel 05-28-2010 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoetsRequiem (Post 1767369544)
After all, isn't that what all religons say? That their's is the correct one, and those who don't worship it are thus in the wrong or going to hell, perguatory, or something like that.
Not berating you or anything, but I must point out that no, this is not what all religions say.

Also, I'd like to ask you lovely people something (not directed at you, Requiem, your post simply reminded me of it). Every day of our lives, we separate our beliefs from those whose beliefs do not coincide with ours by saying they are wrong and we are right. And I'm not talking about facts, things we can prove. I'm talking about opinions. Certainly, we can support our opinions, but the whole reason we all have differing opinions is that, no matter how sound someone's argument is, it still depends wholly on the other person to be convinced that it's right and their way is wrong. And yet, it seems like most of the people who have posted in this and other religious threads bring up the dismissing of other people's opinions as a horrible, inexcusable thing. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily, and it doesn't affect me personally as I do not belong to a faith that sets followers and non-followers apart as right and wrong and don't honestly care whether or not people think I'm right, but I am curious as to why something which is perfectly acceptable and normal in every other facet of our lives is suddenly so terrible in the area of religious thought.

Dr. Nyx 05-31-2010 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1767325468)
...Unless I misread your post, you are suggesting polytheists no longer exist. I hate to break it to you, hun, but you're wrong. Not only do polytheists exist, but polytheists who worship gods who, according to you, became "obsolete" a long time ago, such as Hellenics, Khemetics, and Asatru, still exist. Why is this? Because you're also way off in your assumption of why people believed (and still believe) in gods. It's true, humans have long used gods to explain things, but it doesn't take too in-depth an understanding of ancient theology to know that isn't all they were for. And if we're going to go way back, to the very beginning of theistic belief, they weren't used for that at all. Our (early, early) ancestors worshiped those forces they were subject to -- the Sun, fire, and the earliest we've found yet, bears. They were attempting to supplicate them, yes, but they weren't attempting to explain any phenomena. Likewise, the Greeks, while they believed earthquakes were the work of Poseidon and lightning, Zeus, their use for these gods was not limited to explanations of natural events.

Also, proof human nature is flawed nature. Objectively-speaking, I mean. Note that in order to do this, you must dismiss a great many groups' understandings of the terms "flawed" and "perfect".

Syraanabelle: The same goes for you. Prove that all the religions of the world, all that exist now and have ever existed, were created to tell people how to live and to have someone to blame. Unless you're limiting it to the religious life, I know of several which break the first one, and the second part is immediately wrong even without considering it, since there are atheistic religions and thus, no one to blame but yourself, but is further proved wrong by systems like deism in which the deity plays no part in the world or what happens therein.
Of course I wasn't suggesting that poly-theists do not exist at all. I was meaning the majority. The majority used to be polytheists, now they are monotheists. Many different kinds, but all very similar. And of course I am aware that that that was not all the gods of the old days represented. I was just trying to keep it short and simple, more or less.

And there are some things I am pretty sure are universally "flawed" such as one who makes rash decisions based mostly on emotions like anger, sadness, etc. It does not take a highly enlightened fellow to know that it is not prudent.

Also, the note you made on atheism about "having no one to blame but yourself", suggests that theists are partly theists because they do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. o.O

Crimson Fang 05-31-2010 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx (Post 1767449205)
Of course I wasn't suggesting that poly-theists do not exist at all. I was meaning the majority. The majority used to be polytheists, now they are monotheists. Many different kinds, but all very similar. And of course I am aware that that that was not all the gods of the old days represented. I was just trying to keep it short and simple, more or less.
The majority of people, or the majority of cultures? I would also draw attention to the role which colonialism and marginalization played. I refer to Margaret Trawick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trawick
Euroamericans changed the identity of the peoples they encountered so these people came to see themselves as well as to be seen by others as inferior, powerless, and knowledgeless.
The implications of this process have been far reaching and highly devastating on their victims. One of the ways through which this was achieved was the nature of research. More specifically in the Hegemonic position which was granted to scholars and scientists from 'Western society'. They alone were seen as knowers. From this power imbalance came such theories as nineteenth century evolutionism, and other generalizing approaches to the study of society. Instead of understanding the societies and cultures in their own context and importantly how they were understood by those being studied, researchers were content to create meanings for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx (Post 1767449205)
And there are some things I am pretty sure are universally "flawed" such as one who makes rash decisions based mostly on emotions like anger, sadness, etc. It does not take a highly enlightened fellow to know that it is not prudent.
Although would actions which qualify as this really be understood and interpreted the same way in every culture?

Edit:
An interesting blog entry I found which critiques the colonial nature historically present in research can be found here

Philomel 05-31-2010 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx (Post 1767449205)
Of course I wasn't suggesting that poly-theists do not exist at all. I was meaning the majority. The majority used to be polytheists, now they are monotheists. Many different kinds, but all very similar. And of course I am aware that that that was not all the gods of the old days represented. I was just trying to keep it short and simple, more or less.
What do you mean by "all very similar"? The monotheistic religions? That's really off, unless you're thinking that the only monotheistic religions are Abrahamic. It's also incorrect if you're referring to all pantheons. The only time you find two gods from two different pantheons who are similar is when one borrowed from another, such as a few of the Roman gods being nigh-identical to some of the Greek gods.

Quote:
And there are some things I am pretty sure are universally "flawed" such as one who makes rash decisions based mostly on emotions like anger, sadness, etc. It does not take a highly enlightened fellow to know that it is not prudent.
And you would be wrong. My own definitions of "perfect" and "flawed" (perfect meaning anything that is a being's nature, flawed meaning anything they do that is not) mean that at least one person disagrees with you. As my definition is heavily influenced (and, in my opinion, backed) by the religion I follow, and as I am not the only member of my faith, there are other people in the world who disagree with you. Undoubtedly, as Red mentioned, there are entire cultures who disagree with you. So no, it's far from universal. Nothing is universal.

Quote:
Also, the note you made on atheism about "having no one to blame but yourself", suggests that theists are partly theists because they do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. o.O
No, it does not. If you read the post I was replying to, Syraanabelle made the claim that religions were created as a way of having someone to blame for what goes wrong in the world. I made the note that there are atheistic religions, and since if there is no higher entity there is no one to blame but oneself, that reasoning is flawed. I'm not sure how you got me basically rephrasing the very argument I was disagreeing with out of that, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were genuinely confused and are not intentionally attempting to misrepresent me.

Clarise 05-31-2010 10:12 PM
I study the ancient Near East, and I can tell you that most scholars agree that the Israelites of the Old Testament were not monotheistic but henotheistic. That means that they acknowledged that other people had other gods, but Israel could worship only Yahweh. That's why certain parts of the Bible are written that way.

The belief was that Yahweh was better than the other gods. It is not to far of a stretch to imagine why. Other gods of the Near East are primarily incarnations of natural forces--for instance, Athena (taking a later deity here, but one that most people are sure to know) IS wisdom, meaning that no one does anything wise or clever without the help of Athena. Yahweh is a non-"elemental" deity, which also happens to be one of the major reasons that other cities in the Near East did not like or understand him all that much.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 PM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page