Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not consider what God is now calling upon is to look at a joke, but YMMV.Not into jokes, eh?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I do not consider what God is now calling upon is to look at a joke, but YMMV.Not into jokes, eh?
I think there's been some failure to communicate here, because I worship is an act. Feeling something is worthy of worship (aka, worth the title of "god" or some other equivalent term) is the feeling. Does that clarify?
Well, yes. Recognizing that words may not mean what we think they mean as a speaker to the listener is critical to communications, especially across cultures. Make assumptions with caution. There are some words in the English language that are especially polysemic, with "love" being a good example of that, and "god" being another. There's a reason why I often ask what sort of god-concept someone intends to mean when asking questions and such.
Simple - to represent very real cultural diversity instead of sweeping it under the rug like it doesn't exist. The "mainstream" is defined based on cultural majority groups at the expense of minority groups. I'm not going to roll over and just allow the dominant cultural group to define the be-all and end-all of what the word "god" means, or what "religion" means, or what "worship" means. They don't get that right. They don't get to pretend that the rest of us don't exist. They don't get to exclude us from the conversation. And when these very traditions that enjoy such cultural hegemony today historically engaged in deliberate oppression of other ideas? Yeah, I'm definitely not going to just sit down and shut up. Minority groups and cultures have voices too. They have culture too. Whether or not it is "mainstream" should be entirely irrelevant, especially on a forum that is intended to (at least in part) represent religious and theological diversity.
I don't really frame things like that, though, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Maybe some folks say stuff like this to try and undermine others; not really my deal. I like to go beyond labels to delve into the substance of what is different and what is similar in cultures. Ask questions. Think and reflect. Folks can call things what they like. I see Pagans who identify as non-theist who to me are basically worshiping gods, but to them they don't use those words. When I run into non-polytheists, some refuse to understand my gods are gods and I get called an atheist. Those kinds of responses reflects cultural differences. Those can be learned from and are nothing to get upset about, really, but people get upset about it anyway. Maybe that goes back to tribalism and the fearing of things different?
Sorry, I'm still unclear on what the act/behavior is that's involved in worship, in your view. It's more than highly valuing something, and it's more than a feeling. What would I be doing that you would look at and say, "LC is worshipping"?
There, you said you worship a deity called Storm Spirit, referred to them as a "who," and seemed to credit them with causing the storm to occur.
I'm telling you that if you're going to use words in non-standard ways, you should be clear about what you mean if you want to avoid confusion.
My reply to you came after you said, "which is what atheists in my mind do all the time: have your gods, and don't call them gods for whatever reason." When I challenged that this is a kind of equivocation, same as terms like faith or worship getting applied to atheists, you said again: "Well, they pretty much do [engage in those things], though."
I may just be pricklier than usual, but I took some offense at this, because it seems to invalidate the notion of atheists as a category of people at all.
Not into jokes, eh? Oh well.
I do not consider what God is now calling upon is to look at a joke, but YMMV.
No worries, God does not usually answer His phone anyway and if He does He usually puts you on Hold.
YMMV ? Not a joke?
Wasn't you who wrote...
Trailblazer
No worries, God does not usually answer His phone anyway and if He does He usually puts you on Hold.
... with a winky at the end?
Hmm.
When you die, nothing happens UNTIL you are resurrected into the great judgement...When I die... nothing happens.
Or not.When you die, nothing happens UNTIL you are resurrected into the great judgement...
NOT, definitely not.Or not.
Nothing? Some people say sleep, others say you go to Heaven immediately... but the end is the same in both cases i will KNOW!When you die, nothing happens UNTIL you are resurrected into the great judgement...
ive made up my mind on what "god" is and i think its a solid caseAs per the other thread about what it might take to believe in God, and presumably this might apply only to those who do have a belief in the one God, although it also might apply to others.
The behaviors vary a lot depending on the culture and tradition, so I didn't really list any. In the broadest sense, worship is behaviors that honor the things people call their gods.
What it looks like from there is really diverse. It could be doing some sort of formal ritual on a sacred day, it could be behaving in a way that embodies the virtues of that god, it could be a simple thank you... lots of things. On the whole, worship is about honoring and building a relationship with the things someone call gods. In many respects it's not really that different than building relationships with humans - spend time with them, do nice things, say thanks, celebrate special days together, etc.
Yeah, this is a very "mainstream" way of interpreting what I said, but it isn't accurate. While it is common to perceive some wedge between gods and reality in the "mainstream" theism of Western culture (aka, to assume gods are transcendent), this isn't how polytheists necessarily think about things. In Paganisms of antiquity, many gods were basically mythopoetic renditions of various aspects of our reality (aka, assume gods are immanent). Eos is the dawn, for example. Similarly, for me, Storm Spirit is the storm; it's an honorific way of referring to what you probably consider "just a storm" because to me, storms are worthy of worship.
It's a bit more complicated than that, but this is kind of a tangent, so I'm going to leave it there.
I already do this regularly, or when folks ask questions and are curious. That's kind of why we're even
having this conversation... haha. And I don't think it's that much of a demand to expect people to acknowledge cultural diversity is a thing and be careful about making assumptions.
It is important to keep in mind that equivocation is used for different reasons. I understand that at times it is used to undermine others, but when I make these sorts of equivocations, I'm interested in doing the opposite or to use equivocation to mediate conflict. For folks who don't appreciate cultural diversity for its own sake, deconstructing labels to show them how underneath people are doing similar things can help reduce "otherness" and fear. It doesn't always work, particularly for folks who are attached to their labels. They'll respond with things like this:
You strongly value the labels that you consider part of your identity, probably? A lot of us strongly value our maps of the territory. As much as we value our maps, when the map is discarded - and it is easy to invalidate or challenge all of these categories and constructs we build - the territory remains. We are still who we are, regardless of how the map is drawn by ourselves and others.
In any case, I make no secret of the fact that I find the supposed dichotomy of "atheist" and "theist" to be especially useless. That these things aren't on my default map isn't supposed to offend people, but, well... people will get offended by what they get offended by. People get offended by me not having "gender" on my map, too. Their negative reaction fail to represent my intent, but it is what it is. It's like they think I'm out to get them, but I'm not.
I don't know how I'd build a relationship with an inanimate object, say.
I say you go to heaven immediately, if you believed and followed then one true God.Some people say sleep, others say you go to Heaven immediately...
All are resurrected.... it’s the JUDGEMENT by Christ Jesus that determines whether you continue into everlasting life or you go to eternal destruction.Or not.
No.All are resurrected.... it’s the JUDGEMENT by Christ Jesus that determines whether you continue into everlasting life or you go to eternal destruction.
I agree...I say you go to heaven immediately, if you believed and followed then one true God.
“They that are the followers of the one true God shall, the moment they depart out of this life, experience such joy and gladness as would be impossible to describe…. “ Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171
But I don't call anything my god.
So is the "god" on the other end of this "worship" a person? I don't know how I'd build a relationship with an inanimate object, say.
...
Okay, so the language you're using is basically metaphorical. The storm, or what causes the storm, is not literally a conscious being or person of some kind.
So, I think it's clear that you're also attached to your labels here. Otherwise you wouldn't be insisting on using particular words, even though what you mean by them means something quite different from most people. Clearly, those labels have a value to you, and also form part of your identity. So we're both seeking language here that accurately represents us and our views.
The problem with using equivocation as a mediating tool is that it can gloss over critical differences that are precisely the crux of why a conflict exists. There is a qualitative difference between the faith of someone who thinks their faith demonstrates that what they have faith in is true, and the "faith" someone like me has which is predicated on probabilistic evaluation of evidence. They're just two different animals.
I don't think you're out to get me, not at all. My anxiety has been getting the better of me the last few days, but I'm slowly on the mend.
Well, I'm not like most Westerners whose worldview limits personhood to just humans. I'm an animist, so Storm is a person. So are the so-called "inanimate objects." These persons are not human persons, and should not be expected to be like a human persons (they are not). So it really isn't "metaphorical" though I guess non-animists would probably see it that way. As for conscious? It's a word that is more trouble than it is worth so I leave it alone. I don't use it except when referencing organisms with sleeping-waking cycles.
I like prefixes to resolve those issues. Faith, broadly, includes both of those types you talk about. Then you add prefixes to specify the type. These sorts of situations are kind of unavoidable. Like I said earlier, I think, a lot of words are polysemic, or have multiple meanings (often due to cultural differences). I guess the bottom line is it's always good to ask for clarification or practice active listening.
May that continue going well! There's a lot to be anxious about these days, right? I don't usually have issues with it, but I've been getting it too.
No one goes ‘to Heaven’ when they die: the SPIRIT of the person goes to rest with YHWH God, who made the spirit for them. For humanity, the spirit without the body is inactive... inert... dormant... passive (Hence claims of ‘Hauntings’ by disembodied spirits of dead people are unrealistic!)I agree...
2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
As I mentioned before, there are two positions - one of which you are stipulating... I'm with the other group. Either way... we will see Him.No one goes ‘to Heaven’ when they die: the SPIRIT of the person goes to rest with YHWH God, who made the spirit for them. For humanity, the spirit without the body is inactive... inert... dormant... passive (Hence claims of ‘Hauntings’ by disembodied spirits of dead people are unrealistic!)
((Note that ‘Resting with God’ does not mean ‘being in Heaven’))
The apostles speaking about being in Heaven when they die refers to their imminent positions as chosen ones ‘whose names were written in the book of life from before the creation’ (putting paid to the claim of trinity about Jesus being pre-existent: if Jesus was pre-existent because of the so-called claim in john 17:3, then the Apostles were ALSO PRE-Existent because God ‘chose them from before creation’!!)
No, the scriptures tells us that there are TWO RESURRECTION: the first will be for those who WILL BE HEIRS WITH CHRIST in heaven judging over creation... already judged and found innocent by the blood of Christ... and the second resurrection of those NOT YET JUDGED who will discover their fate as they are judged by Jesus Christ. Those given ETERNAL LIFE will possess the earth - Paradise... as the immortal words of YHWH GOD were spoken ‘I give you the earth as your possession. Dominate the animals and fill it with humanity’ (paraphrased Genesis 1?)