• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there anything inconsistent with the premise of no gods?

Acim

Revelation all the time
If we use the definitions of sacred meaning "entitled to reverence and respect" or "highly valued and important", then no connection to a deity is necessarily implied at all.

If we use the definition of god as "influential being or entity" then it arguably does imply that. Or the definition of "accorded supreme importance" then there is connection to a deity, thus the implication stands.

So, if we are changing the definitions of one, I say why not the other?

Ultimately, all this comes back to the idea that existence itself, through consciousness, is the self ability to define or limit the awareness of God (which again is existence itself).
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If we use the definition of god as "influential being or entity" then it arguably does imply that. Or the definition of "accorded supreme importance" then there is connection to a deity, thus the implication stands.

I don't use either of those definitions myself, except metaphorically.

So, if we are changing the definitions of one, I say why not the other?
Who's changing definitions?

Ultimately, all this comes back to the idea that existence itself, through consciousness, is the self ability to define or limit the awareness of God (which again is existence itself).
Yeah... I'm still thinking about that. Frankly, I'm having trouble even parsing your last post... to say nothing of deciding whether I agree with it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Cool, I will.

As God is existence itself through your (and all) consciousness, then the perception of God's (or gods') inaction (in say the face of suffering) is really a statement about the reality of own self. Likewise, as God is existence itself through your (and all consciousness), then all perception of God's/gods' action (in the face of suffering) is (also) really a statement about the reality of own Self.

Could (easily) say more, but gotta have a starting point that is bound to be questioned/scrutinized before further points are allowed for (intellectual) understanding.
I really can't tell what you're arguing here. Are you saying that me talking about an inactive god is really talking about me being inactive?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
A "divine force" that's also capable of holding a hammer (and therefore has, at the very least, hands and arms)?

In the stories, sure. Thunder's weapon has also alternatively been a club or an axe (that former one probably being why he was equated to Hercules by Tacitus). The stories are certainly not literal. Sure, some of the original tellers and receivers of these stories may have thought so, but we are under no obligation to do likewise.

Do you feel the exact same emotion in a Thunderstorm as when you get zapped by static electricity?
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Let me speak about Nerthus for a second.

The Goddess Nerthus is only known from the book Germania, written by the Roman Tacitus. She was worshiped by the Ingwina(i.e., Tribes native to part of the North Sea Coast near Jutland; modern day Denmark), named in the book as the Ruedingi, Aviones, Anglii, Varini, Eudoses, Suarini, and Nuitones. To directly quote a translation of the book,

"There is nothing noteworthy about these people individually [IRONY!!!!! XD ...for those who don't know, the Ingwina are the cultural ancestors of modern Anglo-American culture], but they are distinguished by a common worship of Nerthus, or Mother Earth. They believe that she interests herself in human affairs and rides among their peoples. "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerthus#Germania
He then goes on to describe how a great Wain (an Anglic word for wagon) that carries her (presumably a statue) will travel among the people, and when she comes, there is much happiness and rejoicing, and all wars stop. She originates from a "sacred grove" that's in "an island in the Ocean", and when she's done, the Wain is taken back there. Then, the Wain, its coverings, and Nerthus herself are washed in a sacred spring by devotees who then drown. "Thus mystery begets terror and pious reluctance to ask what the sight can be that only those doomed to die may see," as Tacitus writes. (EDIT: In case anyone's wondering/worried, no, I would not be in favor of bringing that kind of practice back.)

This "Waining", if I may be allowed to invent a verb to describe this sort of thing, does have some modern descendents, such as some flotillas in American parades carrying people of "renown", such as political leaders, or Prom Kings and Queens. Furthermore, our culture, despite being Christianized for over a thousand years, never fully lost our deep reverence for Mother Earth. She is still named and invoked in such a way that a foreign culture looking in should be forgiven for calling our primary theistic zeitgeist to be duotheistic, with both the Christian God and Mother Nature being given near equal reverence. While the late 80s and 90s tended to paint her as a kind and caring Mother figure, nowadays we tend to regard her with more fearful reverence, since we know she should NOT be taken lightly, especially when in the Wilds.

However, there's another thing that I found interesting: Tacitus felt the need to specify that the Goddess these people collectively worshiped believed that "she interests herself in human affairs." Now, based on the OP's idea of what a God is, shouldn't that just be a given? Apparently, it's not, since he felt the need to say this. Now, that doesn't mean that he didn't believe that Gods in general would have such interests; maybe there's something different about the Roman equivalent. I honestly don't know. But it does speak to the fact that we need to approach other peoples' beliefs on the Divine on their own terms. After all, Tacitus himself didn't do this (he never even went among any of the Tribes; he was writing based on another work, now lost, that was written by someone who actually did), so who knows what mistakes he might have been making, misconceptions he might have been inventing or perpetuating, about what these people believed?
 
Last edited:

Marsh

Active Member
memory recall can be done by a computer....and to a greater extent than anything living

is there confusion between the living and the dead?

and the Carpenter said....
Let the dead bury the dead
What has this to do with the question? Looks like you may be avoiding giving an answer.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I really can't tell what you're arguing here. Are you saying that me talking about an inactive god is really talking about me being inactive?
without a god in the scheme of your existence.....what are you?
I venture to say....
a complex mud puddle on it's way to a box in the ground

oh....but we all do that much anyway!

hmmm......

well, this puddle has hope for more than that
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
Who's changing definitions?

When you said: "if we use the definitions of sacred meaning "entitled to reverence and respect" or "highly valued and important", then no connection to a deity is necessarily implied at all."

...that would be changing the definition to the secondary one. Even this is plausibly connected to a deity/divinity/gods. (And is where I'm going with this, on this tangent.)

A definition of god(s) equals influential person, or adored being, or a thing accorded supreme importance. Dictionary I'm using uses example of "don't make money your god" (in relation to the latter definition).

So, no actually changing of definitions, but just taking secondary definitions to fit the argument.

We'll see if you can parse this before I proceed further.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I really can't tell what you're arguing here. Are you saying that me talking about an inactive god is really talking about me being inactive?

Asserting that God equals existence. Arguing that consciousness is awareness of existence (ergo God). Further arguing that the idea of any lack of action with regards to suffering (or other perceived lack) is a reflection of the reality of that (individual) consciousness.

Compelled to pause here to see if you understand this or have additional inquiries for clarification.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Asserting that God equals existence. Arguing that consciousness is awareness of existence (ergo God). Further arguing that the idea of any lack of action with regards to suffering (or other perceived lack) is a reflection of the reality of that (individual) consciousness.

Compelled to pause here to see if you understand this or have additional inquiries for clarification.
I still don't know what you mean by this part:

"Further arguing that the idea of any lack of action with regards to suffering (or other perceived lack) is a reflection of the reality of that (individual) consciousness."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
When you said: "if we use the definitions of sacred meaning "entitled to reverence and respect" or "highly valued and important", then no connection to a deity is necessarily implied at all."

...that would be changing the definition to the secondary one. Even this is plausibly connected to a deity/divinity/gods. (And is where I'm going with this, on this tangent.)

A definition of god(s) equals influential person, or adored being, or a thing accorded supreme importance. Dictionary I'm using uses example of "don't make money your god" (in relation to the latter definition).

So, no actually changing of definitions, but just taking secondary definitions to fit the argument.

We'll see if you can parse this before I proceed further.
I think it's rather hypocritical of you to argue that we should take "god" to mean "influential being" and then complain that I'm using what you perceive to be a "secondary" definition.

What you're calling "secondary" is actually one of several valid definitions of the term "sacred".

The fact remains that people can use the term "sacred" without referring to gods.
 
Top