Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
I don't know, by his tone thusfar I would be willing to be he will say God guides his steps.
-
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!
There are no polytheists in the West.
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
Me Myself
Back to my username
In reality, he could only say that the bible or the commandment guides his steps.
He technically cannot say god guides his steps anymore anyone can say any god guides his/her steps.
I mean, he trusts the bible to be the word of God. So technically speaking, the bible guides his steps. But then again, he trusts his own trust on the bible, so undeniably, he must trust himself first to be able to trust in anything else.
So he´d be guiding himself to choose the bible as a guide because HE decided that that is what Gods wants. Because that is what HE thinks.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Well, I think that is an accurate assessment, but, it relates in a way to what I've said before about, watching what religion a person chooses so you can know what kind of person they really are. With the implication that most of the results are disquieting... but I digress...
In this case what I find inexplicable is why someone wants a deity to be guiding them. Why don't you want to do it yourself? What is offensive about self-reliance? What's better about being an automaton?
In this case what I find inexplicable is why someone wants a deity to be guiding them. Why don't you want to do it yourself? What is offensive about self-reliance? What's better about being an automaton?
Me Myself
Back to my username
I guess it depends on how you see it and the trust you put on the deity.
I definetely worship Ganesh and Shiva for guidance. I expect them to influence me enough to make the wise choices in my life in general.
This doesn´t stick out self reliance though. It is imposible to do so. Anyone who says s/he doesn´t trust himself first and foremost doesn´t know herself/himself enough to realise he can only trust in himself/herself
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Would that not mean, by HIS very own definition of the god, that the Bible is god or that he is god?
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
The Bible contains God's general guidelines for the life of all Christians but he also has an individual will for each of our lives. If God has called be to a certain profession I can't go to the Bible to find out what it specifically is. I need to wait on the Lord and listen for his guidance. If there's a specific woman out there for me that he's chosen to provide as spouse for me I can't go the Bible to find out who it is.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Perhaps I misspoke when I said what you call polytheism differs from what I was talking about in the OP
Last edited:
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
IMO, you ask this because you assume the claim that the Christian God's will is a perfect is false. You assume that he is not all loving and that his love for those who fear him is so large it's impossible to measure. If those claims are true, is there really any wondering as to why anyone would want him guiding their steps?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Well, I´d say for example that in this we are the same.
The silence and moment of comunion is where the personalised relationship comes into play and where the gods can better influence us.
The difference is that you put all your trust in those rules as if those were your gods. I do not.
I only place value to Jesus rules: Love God, love others.
That has all the rules for all the times.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
I think you're ignoring the relationship that exists between following God's rules and being in his good graces and pleasing him. Following some laws apart from having faith in the Christian God is nothing at all.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I think you are ignoring that you are trusting that this laws were put by your God, and given that this is another set of trust (one thing is to trust in your God, then another is to trust the laws by christian interpretation are the laws that most be followed) you are trusting
1- God
2-Your judgement regarding wheter or not those laws are God´s laws.
In the first one you are having a direct relationship and conection. In the second one, you are leaving it up to hopes in the RULES instead of the God.
You are HOPING God wants you to follow those rules in the same way people did millenia ago. This are 2 different forms of trusts.
nothing what do you mean? I thought you were saying following them was your super sacrifice or something.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
It can be difficult to follow your train of thought sometimes. I'll do the best I can to interpret what I think you're trying to say. I think what you're accusing me of is legalism. That is, just following a bunch of rules like being nice to my neighbor in hopes that I please God. From a Christian perspective, that what the Jews of Jesus day attempted to do and it's what Jews and Muslims do now. The Christian believes he finds forgiveness and pleasing God through having faith in the person of Jesus. Through believing he is indeed the Lord God who dies to pay the penalty for our sins and rose up on the third day. Believing in him means entrusting him with everything one has. This includes submission to his laws but also the plans God has for each individual in their life. Bottom line: being nice to each other apart form having any faith in the Christian God (i.e. Jesus) has no value in terms of pleasing him. Is someone believes their god/God has called to to behave in a certain way and some of those requirements are found in a book, it doesn't diminish the fact that their faith is in the God/god that has called them to behave in a certain way, whether that being is real or imaginary. If people just believe in following a set of laws apart from a relationship with a certain God/god, then their fath is not in a spiritual entity but in something else
Last edited:
I don't think that you really get it. Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or what. The christian holy book, and what ever "definition" of a god that lies therein DON'T APPLY to non-christian religions. It just doesn't apply.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I advice you to put this in your head´s recycle pin and re-read what I said.
Or well, let me try explaining it to you again:
a)You have a personal direct relationship with God, to whom you TRUST your life. I said this in the other post, I am not denying this relationship with God exists independiently of the laws. This relationship is one in which I would suppose you put God as you "guide" and trust in him
now the second step, read more than once and then read again the first, so you dont get lost. The key is to keep being aware of my statement above (a) while reading it. I´ll repeat, KEEP IN MIND statement (a) while you read the B) one:
B) you trust that the laws that what you believe is "christianity" are the laws of your God.You trust your life to this commandments, but you have no way of knowing if this are actually what the God you have a relationship with today wan´ts you to do. You have faith that the dogma not only accurately depicts which laws God commanded then, but also put trust on the fact that God wanted this commandments to be followed the same way even in a completely different world 2000 from then and more
My claim is that assesment of trust a) is not the same as assesment of trust b) (even though they are not mutualy exclusive, I am pointing at you the fact they are not the same one) . So my claim gos further to say that you do not ONLY have as God your God, but by your own defnition, you would have as God either the bible or the specific dogmas of the religion, given that BY YOUR DEFINITION that in which you put complete trust is God to you.
In other words, if you talked to God and you felt he told you you are in love and it is okay to express it with your body with a woman, or if he encouraged you to a good action that goes against the laws you trust in claim b), then you would disregard him.
Which in my view, is a shame, because you close yourself to being able to commune with God completely. God cannot explain you the commandments you are following are updated, because you really won´t hear it.
So your trust in claim b) is BIGGER than your trust in claim a) . So your relationship with God is irremediably limited.
Hopefully I explained myself better?
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Me Myself: I never created this thread with the intention of calling people's gods idols (i.e. false god's). I just wanted to talk about what people are truly relying on. That could be a concept of God/a god that's true or false, it could be oneself, it could be money, sex, or whatever else you can think of. Criticizing people for depending on false gods is a different discussion. I think what you're really trying to say is that the Christian concept of god is false and that everyone that depends on it depends on a lie.
It would seem that the polytheists in this thread are relying on their connection with Divinity and the Knowledge they gain from that connection- just like the monotheists.
(and I would venture to guess, any kinds of theists)
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
It would seem that the polytheists in this thread are relying on their connection with Divinity and the Knowledge they gain from that connection- just like the monotheists.
I've said it before in this thread but the "gods" of self described polytheists in this thread are best described as advisors rather than rulers. When their "god" say "jump", they don't ask "how high?". They say "let me think about it a bit so I can decide whether or not I agree or disagree with the wisdom of jumping". That's ultimately self reliance. The Christian is tasked with not relying on his own understanding. He's tasked with jumping whether he sees the sense in it or not and trusting it's the best thing. From what I gather from the self described polytheists in this thread, such a concept is laughable in their eyes.
Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
Last edited:
Can we drop "self-described" before mentioning polytheists? It's patronizing and insinuates illegitimacy. Cut it out, please.
It'd be an oversimplification to say the gods are advisors rather than rulers. They are both and neither. Some relationships with the gods are advisor-like. Just not all of them. If the gods are manifest in nature itself, clearly humans are ruled by nature's laws. The gods have brought the bread basket of America a drought, this year, for example. There's not a damned thing humans can do about it. We are always, eternally, at the whims of the gods. You can, however, choose how you respond to these events. There's a drought. What do you do about it with the power that you do have as a human being? In deciding that, then you might work with god-concepts more on the advisor level than the ruler level. It just depends. Overall, I don't think framing this into a dichotomy of advisor-ruler works very well from a polytheistic (or monotheistic, frankly) perspective. I think what determines whether or not the gods are advisors or rulers is how that particular human chooses to work with the gods and interpret them, not the nature of the gods themselves.
It'd be an oversimplification to say the gods are advisors rather than rulers. They are both and neither. Some relationships with the gods are advisor-like. Just not all of them. If the gods are manifest in nature itself, clearly humans are ruled by nature's laws. The gods have brought the bread basket of America a drought, this year, for example. There's not a damned thing humans can do about it. We are always, eternally, at the whims of the gods. You can, however, choose how you respond to these events. There's a drought. What do you do about it with the power that you do have as a human being? In deciding that, then you might work with god-concepts more on the advisor level than the ruler level. It just depends. Overall, I don't think framing this into a dichotomy of advisor-ruler works very well from a polytheistic (or monotheistic, frankly) perspective. I think what determines whether or not the gods are advisors or rulers is how that particular human chooses to work with the gods and interpret them, not the nature of the gods themselves.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Possibly, but I am not sure if so or why.. you could expand if you wanted...
No, I ask this because self-reliance is something to be proud of; I do not understand the desire to submit one's own will to another. I don't see how the submission is superior to self-capability, given choice of the two. Why would you not rather be able to pull yourself up from some disaster on your own, then display to God your capability? make him proud, so that his love for you is actually justified?
The assessment about the quality of his love or lack of it, isn't really relevant.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
So, their gods aren't valid because they aren't tyrannical?
If God won't smite you for eating a shrimp cocktail then he isn't really God?
Seems a very petty way to define a God.
wa:do