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!
That is the impression I get from a great course about a related culture the Etruscans. I don't know for sure that I agree, but it seems like Freya is one of the original invisibles who has no form though is later represented with a form. The invisibility and lack of form suggests to me something like you are talking about, though I make great leaps having not read much about it.If Freya is a personification of abstract concepts like love, then, in a sense, Freya refers to real things.
If Freya is a psychological archetype associated with processes of the mind, such as those involved with infatuation, then, again, Freya refers to real things in a sense.
If Freya is a narrative archetype from cultural folklore, stories of which teach about man's existential purpose in the universe and demonstrate cultural mores, then, in a sense, the spirit of Freya is felt by all who believe in her.
That is the impression I get from a great course about a related culture the Etruscans. I don't know for sure that I agree, but it seems like Freya is one of the original invisibles who has no form though is later represented with a form. The invisibility and lack of form suggests to me something like you are talking about, though I make great leaps having not read much about it.
Each generation of people has to learn over again not to take things literally all the time, because literal understandings are inaccurate but easy. They are easy but poorly convey the human experience and do not transform to keep up with a growing generation. A statement to a child sounds different to an adult, to a man, to a woman. The culture that succeeds in teaching this wins enormous advantages. How for example do we get people to stop believing in Science instead of understanding its practice? Its like a mystery religion already starting to form.Lucifer used to be merely a poetic personification of the morning star, with Cicero balking at the absurdity of worshiping him as a genuine god.
Of course, cults of Lucifer exist to this day who regard him as just that.
I often wonder how much of religion comes from taking mystics and poets too literally.
How for example do we get people to stop believing in Science instead of understanding its practice? Its like a mystery religion already starting to form.
Now and then a scientist is treated (by the public) like a priest and takes advantage of it like a priest can.
Each generation of humans has to learn not to assume information given is reliable, literal, explained as if to a child. We have to, each cycle of humans, learn to derive knowledge not merely process it. If we don't then anything can be treated like the mystics or like the poets and become rote, religious information. Any information is powerful, and if you don't know how to derive it for yourself then you rely upon those who can. They supply and you pay. This is what happens with the mystics and the poets to which you refer. The people want the knowledge handed to them without having to make the efforts to grasp it, and so they become users of a drug.What are you talking about? What does it mean to "believe in science?"
Aristotle is an ancient example. People stopped reasoning and simply accepted being told. This happened various ways, but the point is that people eventually accepted just being told. People tend to. We tend to. There are modern examples of scientists treated like priests, too; treated like priests by those who don't want to learn how the knowledge is derived. Knowledge appears as if by magic on a plate to be consumed, and they accept it as such.Could you give me an example?
I like that proofYes. You mentioned her name. You probably got her attention as well.
There should be a thread asking people to define exist/existence, without relying on a dictionary of course.I like that proof
It was tried on RF
Claiming "God exists"
Definitely without relying on a dictionary. And also not relying on Scriptures, if I could chooseThere should be a thread asking people to define exist/existence, without relying on a dictionary of course.
Freya exists just as much as Ra, Odin, the Abrahamic God, or any of the thousands of others exist.
No. That’s a “there is no evidence for any of them. However, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”So that's a Yes.
No. That’s a “there is no evidence for any of them. However, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
I don’t default either way. There may be a God or gods, but none of us know. Yet.I guess.
I just default to they All exist. Instead of they All don't exist.