Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
But my point is that omnimax gods run into the most issues. I am by no means a believer in any god so I obviously am not saying conception of god is truthful. Remember, I am an atheist and above that an anti-theist
-
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!
Are pagan gods more logical in a theological sense
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
But my point is that omnimax gods run into the most issues. I am by no means a believer in any god so I obviously am not saying conception of god is truthful. Remember, I am an atheist and above that an anti-theist
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
But my point is that omnimax gods run into the most issues. I am by no means a believer in any god so I obviously am not saying conception of god is truthful. Remember, I am an atheist and above that an anti-theist
Sure, I understand your point. I am just saying that in my opinion all of these god concepts are inconsistent with logic in some way or other - they are metaphysical, and thus outside of logic at least to some degree.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Well that is for you to decide, I am not the god expert
For some reason a lot of elements about religion are blown out and need a reduction. If only religions reduced their claims and purposes they would be tolerable.
For example Islam must be a religion, cult, political party, governance, legal systems, financial system, economy, philosophy, ethical system and science all in once.
70% of that baggage could be easily removed and make Islam look a LOT better.
A religion needs to be able to spread itself in as many elements that deal with human lives that they can, much like a virus needs to be powerful to spread through the body. For both viruses and religion, the ones that were weak didn't last as long as the stronger one.
When you make these god claims they better make sense buddy
Maybe, but that really depends on what God exactly is.
In your opinion... You're generalizations are just that, though, over simplification. I know many people who believe in a mono god and are not violent or abrasively preachy/convert-y.
I know many who are.
I know polytheist and atheists who are just the same. Your constant barrage of "logic" and vitriole towards monotheism borders on the edge of preachy as well. So it falls on both sides of the spectrum
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
1. I am not using logic in the philosophical sense so do not misuse it.
2. I am not preachy.
3. I am suppose to be general when addressing particular subjects. It does not make it self refuting.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
One who does not have (special) power is not a God/Goddess. The pagan Gods can escape all problems but of origin, where they arose from? The Only one concept which has no problems is that of Brahman (physical energy), but then it does not remain a God.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
The subject is rudimentary...
The Monotheist God was from a Pagan god...
Think of a pantheon like Greece's..
Zeus chose that only he would be worshiped over
the rest of his kingdom and the movement started
to only where Zeus was worshipped.
Although in Judaism is it awry, in Paganism/ Polytheistic beliefs
you have huge kingdoms of various gods. Like the Viking Gods,
the AEsir, being a huge kingdom. In that lore the Gods went into
a huge argument regarding who was a real God and who was not,
who was really Immortal and who was Mortal. The argument became
so maddening Odin left the kingdom of the AEsir, to kill himself, ultimately,
I think... The point being the "Gods" discovered they weren't really Gods
and Odin left. He hung himself in a self sacrifice to himself to discover
whether or not he was a God. He sacrificed himself to himself and there
his ultimate legend begins. Hanging, he has a vision of the "Runes" which are the
foundation of Germanic languages, including English.
He was dead by his loved ones Freyja
for 9 days and 9 nights dead. In the AEsir Kingdom his body lay rest and
on the 9th evening he was struck back to life and in a devestating rage exclaimed,
I AM GOD!!!
and his campaign and Kingship was settled.
Now there are various stories, closing the gap and solving this ********
conundrum is ultimately the Churches responsibility.
But moving back to polytheism, like I mentioned the AEsir.. This was
a huge kingdom and if you want to think of them as tangible as relating
those gods to those kingdoms over comparing various gods to other gods,
those gods were of that kingdom.
The Monotheist God was from a Pagan god...
Think of a pantheon like Greece's..
Zeus chose that only he would be worshiped over
the rest of his kingdom and the movement started
to only where Zeus was worshipped.
Although in Judaism is it awry, in Paganism/ Polytheistic beliefs
you have huge kingdoms of various gods. Like the Viking Gods,
the AEsir, being a huge kingdom. In that lore the Gods went into
a huge argument regarding who was a real God and who was not,
who was really Immortal and who was Mortal. The argument became
so maddening Odin left the kingdom of the AEsir, to kill himself, ultimately,
I think... The point being the "Gods" discovered they weren't really Gods
and Odin left. He hung himself in a self sacrifice to himself to discover
whether or not he was a God. He sacrificed himself to himself and there
his ultimate legend begins. Hanging, he has a vision of the "Runes" which are the
foundation of Germanic languages, including English.
He was dead by his loved ones Freyja
for 9 days and 9 nights dead. In the AEsir Kingdom his body lay rest and
on the 9th evening he was struck back to life and in a devestating rage exclaimed,
I AM GOD!!!
and his campaign and Kingship was settled.
Now there are various stories, closing the gap and solving this ********
conundrum is ultimately the Churches responsibility.
But moving back to polytheism, like I mentioned the AEsir.. This was
a huge kingdom and if you want to think of them as tangible as relating
those gods to those kingdoms over comparing various gods to other gods,
those gods were of that kingdom.
Last edited:
It didn't for some polytheists. "The church" branded one of the greatest politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals ever to be a Roman emperor "Julian the Apostate". Among his brilliant philosophical & political moves was an attempt to craft a coherent and monotheistic paganism with a theology to rival Christianity out of the disparate local cultic traditions, received myth, etc., that made up Roman/Hellenistic paganism. Unfortunately, his efforts were too late to take root without a successor which he did not have.
It is important to recognize the effect that numerous publications of collections Greek and/or Roman myths in the 19th century up to and including the 21st have had on our conception of polytheism. Early attempts to understand Greek and Roman religion (let alone those of Persia, Babylon, Egypt, etc.) were horrifically distorted by an equating of religion with a coherent belief system (orthodoxy). The idea that religion wasn't distinct from culture, politics, or family traditions and was a matter of practice (orthodoxy) rather than a belief system made no sense to early scholars of pagan "religions". So they created these by taking myths from sources like Homer and Ovid and making of them a sort of "canon" comparable to the Torah, Bible, or Koran.
No it isn't.
Much more plausible. While largely considered answered, non-apologist theologians/philosophers who address this question continue to argue that solutions to the problem of evil simply create more problems.
Before our conceptions of time were considerably more nuanced, and necessarily so (thanks to modern physics), already Christian apologists were arguing that their God doesn't exist in "time". Thus tense-aspect-modality (TAM) terms like "would" are either meaningless or require a different understanding. This is without invoking proposed solutions to the "problem of evil" question we are given by Christian apologists.
Who were petty, cruel, and so immoral in certain cases that pagan philosophers argued the traditional stories/myths that defined them should be banned and attempted to develop something akin to a monotheistic philosophy before Christianity existed (I refer especially to Plato here).
Why does it matter? What exists doesn't change because any of us would rather it to or not to.
This one doesn't apply to me (not a theist).
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
The earth is a "testing ground".
God is like a football coach who told us how to play and gave us free will to listen to him, and now he's sitting on the sidelines to watch how we do, he's not going to keep running on the pitch himself or the test would be worthless..
Another way to look at it is to regard him as operating under a kind of Star Fleet Prime Directive-"No interference with the development of a planet"
Then at the end of the tough game we find out if we've passed or flunked-
"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life.." (James 1:12)
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
fail. I am sorry but your thorough rebuttal is everything but thorough. Go back and try rebutting where I said an omniscience being lacks free will. You have seriously failed by all means I am not going to take you seriously until you answer that.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Coaches are appointed. Who appointed God as a coach? There are other problems as well.
He appointed himself like most politicians do, hahahaha.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Jesus is God's head trainer..
Ben Cross in Chariots of Fire sat sulking after being beaten in a race for the first time ever by a few feet.
Then up comes coach Ian Holm and says "I can give you another two yards"..
The rest is history, under Holms expert coaching, Cross goes on to win an Olympic gold.
Likewise Jesus is the personal trainer we all need to get us through the pearlies...
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize" (1 Cor 9:24)
Ben Cross in Chariots of Fire sat sulking after being beaten in a race for the first time ever by a few feet.
Then up comes coach Ian Holm and says "I can give you another two yards"..
The rest is history, under Holms expert coaching, Cross goes on to win an Olympic gold.
Likewise Jesus is the personal trainer we all need to get us through the pearlies...
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize" (1 Cor 9:24)
To me, the biggest problem with monotheism, especially of the Abrahamic variety, is that it is conformist and rude. It's rude to deny the existence of other deities that people have valid experiences with or to say they are demons fooling people. Who are they to say that only their god really exists and is alone worthy of worship.
But, yeah. I do think that polytheism is more logical from my viewpoint.
But, yeah. I do think that polytheism is more logical from my viewpoint.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
But no other religion has got a front man like Jesus!
All they've got are junk statues, no wonder God himself pokes fun at them..
God said- "Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good." (Jeremiah 10:5)
Last edited:
But no other religion has got a front man like Jesus..
Sure, they do. There's Buddha and Krishna, whose stories have similarities to Jesus. Prometheus and Lucifer also have similar persecuted savior motifs. Jesus really isn't special, in terms of his teachings and the stories about him.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
He left the lot of 'em trailing..
Jesus said -"I've beaten the world" (John 16:33)
And Christians are winners too-
"Who is it that beats the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1 John 5:5)
I'm not convinced and I'm not interested in your prattle.
Ignoring the baiting for a debate on the ramifications of God being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omni-whatever, or a combination of the above, which have already been debated millions of time without either side convincing the other over the course of millennia...
I think the whole "Who is not as powerful or great as you want Him to be" wouldn't have much to do with it. If God's purpose is still one of love and communion, of overcoming struggle and adversity, and all the things Christ preached of, I'd be fine worshipping Him regardless of how powerful He was, because He is worthy of all praise and worship. And if He was actually weak and in need of help on the part of His servants, I'd be glad to lend a hand.
Jesus is God's head trainer..
Ben Cross in Chariots of Fire sat sulking after being beaten in a race for the first time ever by a few feet.
I wonder if there aren't other scenes from that movie which better hammer home your point. In ascending order of poignancy and relevancy:
(Please excuse small errors and liberal use of punctuation as I'm operating off of memory)
The scene to which you refer:
S: "He was ahead. There was nothing you could have done. He won fair and square. There was nothing you could have done."
H: "Well that's that, Abrahams."
S: "If you can't take a beating, maybe it's for the better!"
H: "I don't run to take beatings! I run to win! If I can't win I won't run."
S: "If you don't run, you can't win. Give me a ring win when you've sorted that one out."
H: [grasps her arm] "Sybil, please! I just don't know what to do."
S: "Try growing up" [She walks away and then returns]
S: "Harold, you're a great man. You ran like a god! You made me proud, don't make me ashamed."
H: "It's not the loosing Sib- Eric Liddell's a fine man and a fine runner.- it's me! After all this work now God knows what do I am for?"
S: "Beating him the next time" [there kiss is interrupted by...]
Sam: Oh Mr. Abrahams! Mr. Abrahams! I can find you another two yards."
Earlier and bolded to emphasize the relevant part:
Eric Liddell: "You came to see a race- to see someone win (happened to be me). But I want you to do more than watch a race. I want you to take part in it. I want you to compare faith to running in a race. It's hard- it requires concentration of will, energy of soul. You experience elation- when the winner breaks the tape ('specially if you've got a bet on him). But how long does that last? You go home, maybe your dinner's burnt, maybe...maybe you haven't gotta job. So who am I to say 'Believe, have faith' in the face of life's realities? I would like to give you something more permanent, but I can only point the way. I've no formula for winning a race- everyone runs in her own way or his own way. So where does the power come from- to see the race to it's end? From within. Jesus said, "Behold! The kingdom of God is within you! If with all your hearts ye truly seek me, ye shall ever surely find me.' If you commit yourselves to the love of Christ, then that is how you run a straight race.
Cheers. Thanks for coming"
Finally, from the snippets quoted/paraphrased from "Isaiah, Chapter 40" by Liddell:
"Hast thou not known? Hast though not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the Earth, fainteth not? neither is weary? He giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no strength he increaseth might. But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength! They mount up, with wings, as eagles. They shall run, and not be weary. They shall walk- and not faint."
That's cinematography. Abrahams did win a gold, but also a silver or bronze the same year if memory serves. More importantly, he's Jewish. In the film, this is quite central. Unlike Liddell, who did think of Jesus as his guide and coach up to his death in a Chinese internment camp, Cross' character didn't believe in a religion but rather identified (and structured a worldview around) the Jewish people and the obstacles they faced: "But the old man forgot one thing. This England of his is Christian, and Anglo-Saxon, and so are her corridors of power. And those who stalk them guard them with jealousy and venom".
Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἐν σταδίῳ τρέχοντες πάντες μὲν τρέχουσιν, εἷς δὲ λαμβάνει τὸ βραβεῖον; οὕτως τρέχετε ἵνα καταλάβητε. [Know you all not [that] although the ones running in race-contest all run, only one takes the prize? Run thusly in order that you shall win.]
I've translated the parallelism the men...de particles construe with a more lexical contrast as English lacks anything remotely resembling the particles of ancient Greek (even Hellenistic, when the distinctions we know of from e.g. Attic Greek and in general from classical Greek were fading). There's no point in formulaic, simple translations like the traditional "one the one hand...on the other". But while attempts at "literal" translations are bound to fail, I do tend to attempt more faithfulness than some. For example, in your translation the word for "prize" in the first instance really does mean something like prize. In the it is a verb, namely a the verb used to mean "take/get [the prize]" in the first "sentence" with the prefix kata for emphasis. Thus it means "attain/obtain" and by extension "win".