'Free Will' Is Inherently Polytheistic

[Sleeppy]

Let me see. If the dictionary of Free Will is correct, "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion," than god(s) have nothing to do with it. Many polytheist do not believe their gods (and in my case the Spirits-so whatever) have any control over our actions. We have free will. The Free Will of monotheism doesn't apply to polytheist (that I know of) and in a general umbrella term of polytheism, it doesn't apply to me and probably many Hindu as well.

Free Will creates worship of self to make our intentions god?
(I had to do with @Deeje did, read it a couple of times)

Sleepy-I second this notion. Can you rephrase what you're saying?

No. Will is an action based on choice. The will/choice of a person to do X. It ha nothing to do with intent. As a result, free will is the freedom to choose on one's own or another person's behalf rather than someone doing it for us. God(s) and intentions have nothing to do with it.




Since Free Will is a simple concept of having the choice to choose one's own actions, how does this choice/action elevate oneself over god? And when one person elevates themselves over one god as you claim, how is that polytheism since there needs to be more than one person to elevate oneself over more than one god?

Free Will just means "We can choose (or have a will) our actions". It has nothing to do with theism, polytheism, etc. It talks about choice and action nothing more. On that note:



I don't mean to be rude, but what you're saying @sleepy does not make sense.


@Deeje Where did you get that "scratching the head" icon?

Being a polytheist doesn't give you absolute authority to say what is and isn't polytheism; it's definition retains that authority. Polytheism describes the worship of more than one god. What designates a god? In every case I can think of, aside from power, worship designates a god. "The power of acting without constraint of necessity or fate," i.e. according to ones own discretion, illustrates theologically, power pertaining to a god. In Monotheism's case, God is becomes a malleable, subvertable force, rather than a solely supreme one. In Polytheism's case, you have to admit that your gods are occasionally subverted by the 'Free Will' of other beings. In either case, I am arguing that the subversion of a god necessarily designates the subverting force as a god as well. The subverting force, i.e. 'Free Will' ≥ God, or the gods.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm asking YOU.

Really??? How very odd.

Nice to know how it's used in these religions I guess, but we still don't know what you think it is; as in a definition of free will? The above is like asking to define gasoline and told it's the means by which engines run.
.

Then, you're asking the wrong person. I'm a fatalist. Free will is an illusion; the result of limited perception, causing belief in some degree of self-determination, ex nihilo.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is odd

Being a polytheist doesn't give you absolute authority to say what is and isn't polytheism; it's definition retains that authority.

That's like telling a Christian, just because you are a Christian doesn't give you the authority to talk about your own faith. That doesn't make sense.

Who owns the definition of polytheism? and how can it be owned anyway. Polytheists as well as monotheists have different ways of expressing how they define god(s). Some of us don't even agree with each other, unfortunately; yet, we who we are is who we are. Who has the authority to tell us we are wrong about our own theological outlook? That doesn't make sense.

What designates a god? In every case I can think of, aside from power, worship designates a god. "The power of acting without constraint of necessity or fate," i.e. according to ones own discretion, illustrates theologically, power pertaining to a god. In Monotheism's case, God is becomes a malleable, subvertable force, rather than a solely supreme one.

God just means object and/or person of worship. It has no characteristics. We make things into our god(s). Whether it's an idea of a all-powerful person who created the universe or god being a manifestation of all things and beings combined. Once you give worship to whatever physical and/or abstract concept of an object, idea, and/or person, you have made whatever that OIP god(s).

Monotheism focuses on making one object/person of worship. Polytheism is making more than one object/person an object of worship. Once these things are objects or persons of worships, they become god(s).

In Polytheism's case, you have to admit that your gods are occasionally subverted by the 'Free Will' of other beings. In either case, I am arguing that the subversion of a god necessarily designates the subverting force as a god as well. The subverting force, i.e. 'Free Will' ≥ God, or the gods.

What is another word for subverted? You're confusing the heck out of me.

Free Will (not being forced to make decisions) have nothing to do with polytheism and monotheism.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't see what makes it polytheistic. It can't be *monism*, but it can be *monotheism*.

Power to act of one's own volition = subversion of God, or gods = worship of oneself (and other agents of free will) = Polytheism

 

[Sleeppy]

This is odd


That's like telling a Christian, just because you are a Christian doesn't give you the authority to talk about your own faith. That doesn't make sense.

Who owns the definition of polytheism? and how can it be owned anyway. Polytheists as well as monotheists have different ways of expressing how they define god(s). Some of us don't even agree with each other, unfortunately; yet, we who we are is who we are. Who has the authority to tell us we are wrong about our own theological outlook? That doesn't make sense.



God just means object and/or person of worship. It has no characteristics. We make things into our god(s). Whether it's an idea of a all-powerful person who created the universe or god being a manifestation of all things and beings combined. Once you give worship to whatever physical and/or abstract concept of an object, idea, and/or person, you have made whatever that OIP god(s).

Monotheism focuses on making one object/person of worship. Polytheism is making more than one object/person an object of worship. Once these things are objects or persons of worships, they become god(s).



What is another word for subverted? You're confusing the heck out of me.

Free Will (not being forced to make decisions) have nothing to do with polytheism and monotheism.

No. Being Christian doesn't give me the absolute authority to determine who is, and who isn't Christian. Is that odd?

To subvert something means to be put before something, or over something, in contest. Ex. The loud thunder subverted the quiet.

Right. Define 'worship'.

 

[1137]

Power to act of one's own volition = subversion of God, or gods = worship of oneself (and other agents of free will) = Polytheism

What? Why?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. Being Christian doesn't give me the absolute authority to determine who is, and who isn't Christian. Is that odd?

I think you misunderstood what I said grammatically. Probably me.

Being Christian gives oneself the right to speak on behalf of his or her faith.

My being a polytheist gives me the right to speak on behalf of my theological outlook as a polytheist.

Some of us do not agree with each other, unfortunately, but we are who we are (sorry, spelling error last post).

To subvert something means to be put before something, or over something, in contest. Ex. The loud thunder subverted the quiet.

Thank you. Can you repost your points about god and subversion? You used the word a lot; so, I can only guess you mean god is subverted over polytheism or something? Or polytheism makes itself a subvert over god (and making us gods in the process?)

Right. Define 'worship'.

Reverence for someone or something by means of personal or community rituals, traditions, and not limited to. The reverence in worship puts the object or person of worship over everything. The reverence that people have respects not subverts (if that's right?) their god over other people. The former is a heirachy term. The latter is not. One is submission good or bad. The other is mutual respect good or bad.

Both can involve traditions, rituals, prayer, etc.

 

[Skwim]

Then, you're asking the wrong person. I'm a fatalist. Free will is an illusion; the result of limited perception, causing belief in some degree of self-determination, ex nihilo.

So you make a statement, " 'Free Will' Is Inherently Polytheistic" and don't even know what you're talking about. Gotcha.

.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Power to act of one's own volition = subversion of God, or gods = worship of oneself (and other agents of free will) = Polytheism

I get what you're saying finally; and, it doesn't make sense.

1. The power to act on one's own volition does not equal to subversion. It's the opposite. If it is subversion to god(s), we'd have no free will.

2. When you subvert yourself to god(s), you are not worshiping yourself, you are worshiping or submitting yourself to god(s). That sentence doesn't make sense logically. You are saying to opposites are the same in one sentence.

3. Polytheism is the belief that more than one god exist. Monotheism is the belief that only one god exist. It has nothing to do with the act of one's on volition. It also has nothing to do with worship. It just talks about how many god(s) exist based on a person's belief. I don't worship the spirits (or gods-persons of reverence). Yet, I'm a polytheist because I know more than one spirit exist. It has nothing to do with worship. It has nothing to do with free will.


I can kinda see how you combined them but the logistics behind the combination doesn't make sense. Kind of like a baby. I understand why a baby would put the letters C T A beside each other and say "Cat" because he recognize them as all letters. However, logically, that's now how cat is spelled.

Same with your point. I understand the relation but not the point.

 

[Quintessence]

Being a polytheist doesn't give you absolute authority to say what is and isn't polytheism; it's definition retains that authority.

Yes, well... you redefining what you consider to be "self-proclaiming" monotheists as polytheists is, at best, misleading. That you call individuals who are monotheistic and believe in free will "self-proclaiming" monotheists suggests to me that your goal is to undermine and besmirch monotheistic theology that you disagree with. That's the only reason I can think of as to why one might use a disrespectful term like "self-proclaiming." And yeah, I get that many monotheists think polytheism is some icky, dirty, nasty thing, but redefining monotheists you don't like to be "polytheists" is really not the best way to go about making your point. Particularly since I'm quite sure that these monotheists aren't exactly lighting up the candles and incense every Wednesday evening and chanting "oh mighty Jane Doe, on great John Smith, I honor and respect your gody power and give you this offering of wine in token of my respect."

"The power of acting without constraint of necessity or fate," i.e. according to ones own discretion, illustrates theologically, power pertaining to a god. In Monotheism's case, God is becomes a malleable, subvertable force, rather than a solely supreme one.

So... given monotheism does not require that the singular god be supreme (it only requires that it be singular), where is the issue here, exactly?

In Polytheism's case, you have to admit that your gods are occasionally subverted by the 'Free Will' of other beings.

LOL... non-polytheist assumptions projected onto polytheistic theologies at it's finest! Pardon, that's not how it necessarily works.

In either case, I am arguing that the subversion of a god necessarily designates the subverting force as a god as well.

Generously granting that "subversion" is what is happening (something that is impossible to prove one way or another), the existence of such subversion in no way necessitates that person call that force one of their gods. You don't get to decide what other people call their gods. They do. I highly doubt that someone who calls themselves a monotheist also calls themselves and all other humans "gods." Redefining them as something they do not see themselves as is disrespectful on multiple levels. I get that it can be hard to respect other people's labels sometimes, but this case just doesn't hold.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje Where did you get that "scratching the head" icon?

http://www.pic4ever.com/

There are 15 pages of them!

That little guy is on page 7. Slick huh?

Just click on "copy image location" and then right click and paste it into the "image" icon on the task bar above.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

http://www.pic4ever.com/

There are 15 pages of them!

That little guy is on page 7. Slick huh?

Just click on "copy image location" and then right click and paste it into the "image" icon on the task bar above.

Haha

Cool! Thanks!

 

[Sleeppy]

So you make a statement, " 'Free Will' Is Inherently Polytheistic" and [ I ] don't even know what you're talking about. Gotcha.

.

Good argument.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, well... you redefining what you consider to be "self-proclaiming" monotheists as polytheists is, at best, misleading. That you call individuals who are monotheistic and believe in free will "self-proclaiming" monotheists suggests to me that your goal is to undermine and besmirch monotheistic theology that you disagree with. That's the only reason I can think of as to why one might use a disrespectful term like "self-proclaiming." And yeah, I get that many monotheists think polytheism is some icky, dirty, nasty thing, but redefining monotheists you don't like to be "polytheists" is really not the best way to go about making your point. Particularly since I'm quite sure that these monotheists aren't exactly lighting up the candles and incense every Wednesday evening and chanting "oh mighty Jane Doe, on great John Smith, I honor and respect your gody power and give you this offering of wine in token of my respect."



So... given monotheism does not require that the singular god be supreme (it only requires that it be singular), where is the issue here, exactly?



LOL... non-polytheist assumptions projected onto polytheistic theologies at it's finest! Pardon, that's not how it necessarily works.



Generously granting that "subversion" is what is happening (something that is impossible to prove one way or another), the existence of such subversion in no way necessitates that person call that force one of their gods. You don't get to decide what other people call their gods. They do. I highly doubt that someone who calls themselves a monotheist also calls themselves and all other humans "gods." Redefining them as something they do not see themselves as is disrespectful on multiple levels. I get that it can be hard to respect other people's labels sometimes, but this case just doesn't hold.

This is a debate forum. I'm not sure exactly why you think everything is intended to be disrespectful, but it's amusing.

"Self-proclaimed" is not intended as some dirty word, nor is polytheism. They mean exactly what they mean. I'm a self-proclaimed Christian, Monotheist.


As for your last point in the first paragraph: Define worship. It can't exclude everything not involving candles, incense, and chanting.

You're not generously granting that "subversion" happens, you're admitting it. Admitting that free will exists, necessarily also admits that the will of God, or gods, is occasionally subverted. Whether or not a person designates a force elevated above their respective God, or gods, as a god, is irrelevant. The force functions above that of each respective God, or gods, and therefore is being argued as such.

 

[Sleeppy]

I get what you're saying finally; and, it doesn't make sense.

I can kinda see how you combined them but the logistics behind the combination doesn't make sense. Kind of like a baby. I understand why a baby would put the letters C T A beside each other and say "Cat" because he recognize them as all letters. However, logically, that's now how cat is spelled.

Same with your point. I understand the relation but not the point.

You don't get what I'm saying, which is why it doesn't make sense.

I'm not talking about subversion to God, or gods, but subversion of God, or gods, in favor of individual or 'Free Will'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't get what I'm saying, which is why it doesn't make sense.

I'm not talking about subversion to God, or gods, but subversion of God, or gods, in favor of individual or 'Free Will'.

Yeah. You got me here on the prepositions. It's going to take a bit to get it. Just long as you know free will or acting on one's own volition have nothing to do with the belief that one or more than one god's exist. We act on our own volition regardless of our religious views. Free Will has nothing to do with religion and theology. But, heh, to each his own understanding?

 

[Sleeppy]

Just long as you know free will or acting on one's own volition have nothing to do with the belief that one or more than one god's exist.

I don't know that. That's what we're debating here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't get what I'm saying, which is why it doesn't make sense.

I'm not talking about subversion to God, or gods, but subversion of God, or gods, in favor of individual or 'Free Will'.

I don't know that. That's what we're debating here.

Yeah. I know. But that word subversion is throwing me off. I'm looking it up and trying to put it in context.

Individuals abandon god in favor of free will?

 

[interminable]

'Free Will', as it pertains to any self-proclaimed monotheistic religion, describes a counter-intuitive worship of self, to the extent that individual desires become gods themselves, occasionally subverting each respective monotheistic God's intent.

Free will in Islam was originated from lack of ability to segregate between god's will and our will
They thought if we aren't free in our choice then god is our partner so when we commit a sin god is subject to be punished and this definitely is impossible and false idea!!!!!!

They couldn't understand that God has given us the ability to do good or bad but he hasn't forced us to do none of them
In this case we can attribute good and bad to ourselves and to god too
Simply because God has given us the power to do them and at the same time we are responsible for our deeds because we had ability of choice and Noone has forced us to do so

 

[Quintessence]

This is a debate forum. I'm not sure exactly why you think everything is intended to be disrespectful, but it's amusing.

I don't think "everything" is intended to be disrespectful. I don't know what you intend, only what it seems like from what's been said. And regardless of what you intend or not, yeah, it's disrespectful to people to relabel them as something they don't identify as.

"Self-proclaimed" is not intended as some dirty word, nor is polytheism. They mean exactly what they mean. I'm a self-proclaimed Christian, Monotheist.

Thank you for clarifying that. Still a confused by your choice of words, though, as I see no reason not to simply call them "monotheists" without the commonly pejorative "self-proclaimed" in front of it.

As for your last point in the first paragraph: Define worship. It can't exclude everything not involving candles, incense, and chanting.

Okay, let me reframe this since I think the point was lost. If you want to characterize theisms by activities (something I agree with), we need to look for activities that demonstrate a monotheist who believes in free will is meaningfully practicing religious-style ritualistic worship of multiple human persons. Yes, the example I gave was a bit flippant, but there was some seriousness there. Show me one of these people who calls humans their gods, and worships them like us polytheists worship our gods. In other words, go beyond a superficial comparison and make one that is practically meaningful. If these free will believing monotheists don't actually practice like polytheists - that is, they don't call human persons their gods and don't conduct rituals in their honor - it really isn't appropriate to call them "polytheistic."

You're not generously granting that "subversion" happens, you're admitting it.

I did what now?

Admitting that free will exists, necessarily also admits that the will of God, or gods, is occasionally subverted.

No, it doesn't. I'm getting the impression you don't really understand much about polytheistic theology.

Whether or not a person designates a force elevated above their respective God, or gods, as a god, is irrelevant.

Given deification is ultimately a decision that lies within human individuals and cultures, I don't see how such human attributions could possibly be irrelevant. Something is a god because some human calls it such. If a particular monotheist isn't calling humans their gods, humans are not their gods regardless of how you want to twist around their perspective. As I've said, it's disrespectful to people to relabel them as something they don't identify as.