Following on from koan's http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... heist.html and not wanting to take it off topic, I'll do it here instead.
Monotheism is an odd notion. It has axioms. The axioms are statements which are beyond proof, they have to be assumed true and to say an axiom is false is to set up a new playing field which is outside of the subject. In this case, the subject is Monotheism and the axiom seems to be:
There is a Deity
That, I reckon, is that. Within monotheism perhaps there are sub-sections with their own axioms, for example:
The Deity is eternal
The Deity is the Creator of all things
The Deity is good
The Deity is all-powerful
That sub-section of monotheism might be called omnipotence monotheism but it has an inherent axiomatic contradiction. To be all-powerful but not to appear to invariably do good while actually being good seems contradictory. Within omnipotence monotheism there's a get-out axiom:
The ways of the Deity are unknowable
In other words, it might look like a bad thing but you're incapable of seeing the bigger picture and hence you can't judge. Unlike the Deity, who can and does.
Historically, there are four major monotheistic religions.
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Latter-Day Saints
Now, I may be getting out of my depth here but I reckon each of those four major monotheistic religions has two branches, the predominant omnipotence branch which accepts the omnipotence axioms and the minority branch which doesn't.
The predominant omnipotence branches of each make logical deductions from their axioms. They include:
The Deity, being good, can judge what's good and what isn't
The Deity, being good, rejects what's not good
The Deity, being omnipotent, is the sole judge
The Deity (admittedly for inscrutable reasons) is prepared to guide his Creation toward goodness through scriptural self-revelation
and, no doubt, others.
Monotheism itself doesn't make these logical associations, not necessarily accepting the axioms on which they're derived.
I assert that one can be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Latter-Day Saint in good standing without accepting the axioms of omnipotence, and that historically there are faithful adherents who have rejected them. I think it's about time those adherents became the majority branch.
I also note that, from my experience, each branch tends to regard adherents of the other as heretical unless they take the time to sit down and discuss matters. I'm being optimistic there, about the discussing bit. Mostly they just settle for heretic.
Monotheism
Monotheism
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
Can we qualify that a religion which has more than one deity but holds one of the deities to be the ultimate source of the others is monotheistic as well?
Monotheism
koan;1350690 wrote: Can we qualify that a religion which has more than one deity but holds one of the deities to be the ultimate source of the others is monotheistic as well?
Semantics counts for everything in getting to a meaningful agreement.
If there is one Deity then you have a monotheistic religion. If that one Deity interacts through a variety of aspects then those aspects are, historically, referred to as deities too, but I'm not sure what religion I could put forward as an example.
If Deity implies personality then Hinduism has an attractive strand with one Deity and many aspects or Devas, each of whom manifests occasional corporeal instances as an Avatar. If on the other hand you're discussing an impersonal world soul, Brahman, I don't think the word Deity applies at all. My Atman is not Brahman only when it refuses to accept that it is also your Atman. Neither of us benefit from a vocabulary in which either of us is divine.
So perhaps that has to be the revised monotheistic axiom:
There is a self-aware Deity
Semantics counts for everything in getting to a meaningful agreement.
If there is one Deity then you have a monotheistic religion. If that one Deity interacts through a variety of aspects then those aspects are, historically, referred to as deities too, but I'm not sure what religion I could put forward as an example.
If Deity implies personality then Hinduism has an attractive strand with one Deity and many aspects or Devas, each of whom manifests occasional corporeal instances as an Avatar. If on the other hand you're discussing an impersonal world soul, Brahman, I don't think the word Deity applies at all. My Atman is not Brahman only when it refuses to accept that it is also your Atman. Neither of us benefit from a vocabulary in which either of us is divine.
So perhaps that has to be the revised monotheistic axiom:
There is a self-aware Deity
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
I guess my question was: if you pray to something does that make it a deity?
Monotheism
koan;1350696 wrote: I guess my question was: if you pray to something does that make it a deity?
No. One prays to anything which has power. Voodoo is a perfect instance of that and again an attractive one, I rather like Voodoo. Just being powerful doesn't Deify whatever you're praying to, it's scary enough without.
Some religions demand that prayer should be carefully targeted just to avoid this division. Roman Catholicism, having encountered Voodoo over the centuries, demands that all prayer be made to the one Deity, though intercession may be asked on the part of any powerful intermediary one happens to know, be it Saint or Loa. And, in both cases, payment may be offered. Roman Catholicism insists that what you do with that intermediary is your own business but you're never under any circumstance to pray to it. They're fighting a losing battle with that one, humanity being fundamentally idolatrous.
No. One prays to anything which has power. Voodoo is a perfect instance of that and again an attractive one, I rather like Voodoo. Just being powerful doesn't Deify whatever you're praying to, it's scary enough without.
Some religions demand that prayer should be carefully targeted just to avoid this division. Roman Catholicism, having encountered Voodoo over the centuries, demands that all prayer be made to the one Deity, though intercession may be asked on the part of any powerful intermediary one happens to know, be it Saint or Loa. And, in both cases, payment may be offered. Roman Catholicism insists that what you do with that intermediary is your own business but you're never under any circumstance to pray to it. They're fighting a losing battle with that one, humanity being fundamentally idolatrous.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
I think you have to qualify your primary axiom with "There is a Supreme Deity"
Monotheism
koan;1350699 wrote: I think you have to qualify your primary axiom with "There is a Supreme Deity"
I'm trying to generalize. If "Supreme Deity" means there's an external stand-alone outside elsewhere entity involved then "Supreme Deity" is a meaningful description of what I'd insist, if it existed, could only be a definitively Satanic anti-life monster. Even in the unlikely event that it in any way approved of me.
To people like myself who think the entire subject is a mapping of human psychology in the context of the world as it truly is, "Supreme Deity" isn't a meaningful description of anything (there not being any thing for it to describe) though "Deity", "The One Deity" or "God" are useful synonyms of something which can be explored or experienced.
Supreme implies hierarchical. I do realize there are people whose belief system incorporates the hierarchical but I'd like inclusive language, common language, expressions which are meaningful to all parties, hierarchs as much as mystics. Supreme is an unfortunate word in that context. Supreme is a power word.
I'm trying to generalize. If "Supreme Deity" means there's an external stand-alone outside elsewhere entity involved then "Supreme Deity" is a meaningful description of what I'd insist, if it existed, could only be a definitively Satanic anti-life monster. Even in the unlikely event that it in any way approved of me.
To people like myself who think the entire subject is a mapping of human psychology in the context of the world as it truly is, "Supreme Deity" isn't a meaningful description of anything (there not being any thing for it to describe) though "Deity", "The One Deity" or "God" are useful synonyms of something which can be explored or experienced.
Supreme implies hierarchical. I do realize there are people whose belief system incorporates the hierarchical but I'd like inclusive language, common language, expressions which are meaningful to all parties, hierarchs as much as mystics. Supreme is an unfortunate word in that context. Supreme is a power word.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
I think I'm missing your discussion point.
I had thought it was to define monotheism.
I looked back and decided that maybe it was that "monotheism is an odd notion" because of the axioms.
Before I jumped at assumption again I kept going and realised it might be to focus on the possibility of two branches of each religion based on adherence to omnipotence or not.
Ultimately, I think I'll just ask: what part of what you are writing is meant for discussion?
I had thought it was to define monotheism.
I looked back and decided that maybe it was that "monotheism is an odd notion" because of the axioms.
Before I jumped at assumption again I kept going and realised it might be to focus on the possibility of two branches of each religion based on adherence to omnipotence or not.
Ultimately, I think I'll just ask: what part of what you are writing is meant for discussion?
Monotheism
koan;1350701 wrote: Ultimately, I think I'll just ask: what part of what you are writing is meant for discussion?
My OP advances a structure. It gives an axiom for Monotheism. It then shows that adding a specified set of extra axioms produces Omnipotence Monotheism. I then suggest that all four of the major monotheistic religions include both those who accept just the first axiom as well as those who accept the additional axioms.
Obviously anyone who wants to posit an alternative structure is welcome to do so - I'd be eager to read such a post.
Supreme doesn't, I grant you, imply Omnipotent. You want to use Supreme to mean "the Person behind the screen who creates the different manifestations we each see as God (or possibly Powers or Angels) in different circumstances" perhaps, a bit like Oz's Wizard. If that's so then I'd rather you went to Hinduism and borrowed a less power-implying word, like Ishvara, rather than Supreme. Supreme fits well with something out of the Third Reich, it carries unpleasant overtones. If you prefer a non-conscious Supreme Deity I already offered Brahman.
One can scarcely suggest that God is powerless and broken and at the same time use Supreme Deity as a label, can one. And yet within Christianity the "God is powerless and broken" theme is quite pervasive these days. Mistakenly so, in my experience, but it needs to be incorporated.
By all means help modify the approach I'm trying to post, either with the existing structure or with a new one. What can we both of us say, what language can we both of us use, which both of us can accept as descriptive of what we recognize from our experiences or (should we have any) from our beliefs? What part of my language jars with your own perspective?
My OP advances a structure. It gives an axiom for Monotheism. It then shows that adding a specified set of extra axioms produces Omnipotence Monotheism. I then suggest that all four of the major monotheistic religions include both those who accept just the first axiom as well as those who accept the additional axioms.
Obviously anyone who wants to posit an alternative structure is welcome to do so - I'd be eager to read such a post.
Supreme doesn't, I grant you, imply Omnipotent. You want to use Supreme to mean "the Person behind the screen who creates the different manifestations we each see as God (or possibly Powers or Angels) in different circumstances" perhaps, a bit like Oz's Wizard. If that's so then I'd rather you went to Hinduism and borrowed a less power-implying word, like Ishvara, rather than Supreme. Supreme fits well with something out of the Third Reich, it carries unpleasant overtones. If you prefer a non-conscious Supreme Deity I already offered Brahman.
One can scarcely suggest that God is powerless and broken and at the same time use Supreme Deity as a label, can one. And yet within Christianity the "God is powerless and broken" theme is quite pervasive these days. Mistakenly so, in my experience, but it needs to be incorporated.
By all means help modify the approach I'm trying to post, either with the existing structure or with a new one. What can we both of us say, what language can we both of us use, which both of us can accept as descriptive of what we recognize from our experiences or (should we have any) from our beliefs? What part of my language jars with your own perspective?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
I think my original queries were an attempt to decide if I, myself, am monotheistic or not. I believe in God: One supreme source for all of what we perceive of existence. I also believe that one source is unapproachable and non manifest. I also believe that prayers can be answered and deities (more than one) can be appealed to. Why I think it works is too complex to get into and rather irrelevant to the discussion.
So I believe in more than one disembodied entity which, when one aligns to them, can be made to influence physical reality or the way events unfold; making me a polytheist. But I believe that those deities are all part of the one source, of which I am also a part; making me a monotheist.
It doesn't help your thread that I'm explaining this. It just helps, hopefully, to explain my subsequent line of questioning.
So I believe in more than one disembodied entity which, when one aligns to them, can be made to influence physical reality or the way events unfold; making me a polytheist. But I believe that those deities are all part of the one source, of which I am also a part; making me a monotheist.
It doesn't help your thread that I'm explaining this. It just helps, hopefully, to explain my subsequent line of questioning.
Monotheism
We could, if you like, have an outer category of Theist, and another inner category of Polytheist, and then you'd not know which you'd like to be accommodated by. But I appreciate your polite interest and conversation. Don't stop or feel excluded.
For a broader description of religion we'd need a category alongside Theist, that being Atheist. There are, after all, atheist religions.
For a broader description of religion we'd need a category alongside Theist, that being Atheist. There are, after all, atheist religions.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Monotheism
if you believe in one Non-animate non-conscious power of both good and evil that is with in all who are in the universe to be used as what has that power sees fit, is that Polytheistic in more than one has that power or monotheistic in that there is only one. I have found this belief is held by some buddhist that i have met when I frequented the SGI meetings and buddhist get togethers they would go to, and one I happen to agree with.
Monotheism
I'd probably use monotheistic for that, but I do think the distinction between self-aware and unaware is a major one. It's significant so here's a further breakdown of additional religious axioms which go beyond the ground of this thread, and the group which holds them:
Atheist: The number of Gods is zero
Agnostic: The number of Gods is uninteresting
Theist: The number of Gods is more than zero
Preternatural: Miracles never happen
Supernatural: Miracles happen
Dualist: God is separate from the universe
Monist: Nothing is separate from the universe
Impersonal: God has no awareness
Transpersonal: God has awareness and no will
Personal: God has awareness and will
This thread's discussing monotheists. They're a category of Theist.
As far as I can tell, all four major monotheist religions recognize only a personal God: one with both awareness and will. Whether that's a sufficiently vital distinction that it should go into the monotheist axiom set I doubt, and I may just be plain wrong in the first place.
Christianity can have either a (traditionally) dualist or a monist outlook, and either a (traditionally) supernatural or a preternatural outlook.
Atheist: The number of Gods is zero
Agnostic: The number of Gods is uninteresting
Theist: The number of Gods is more than zero
Preternatural: Miracles never happen
Supernatural: Miracles happen
Dualist: God is separate from the universe
Monist: Nothing is separate from the universe
Impersonal: God has no awareness
Transpersonal: God has awareness and no will
Personal: God has awareness and will
This thread's discussing monotheists. They're a category of Theist.
As far as I can tell, all four major monotheist religions recognize only a personal God: one with both awareness and will. Whether that's a sufficiently vital distinction that it should go into the monotheist axiom set I doubt, and I may just be plain wrong in the first place.
Christianity can have either a (traditionally) dualist or a monist outlook, and either a (traditionally) supernatural or a preternatural outlook.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
The four major monotheistic religions are all scriptural. Omnipotence monotheists regard their particular holy book as the inerrant word of God. Those who reject the omnipotence axioms naturally enough can't and don't regard scripture in that light.
The Christian Bible and the Muslim Qur'an each claim within their pages to be God's permanent and final written revelation. It follows that these two religions, viewed from an omnipotence perspective, each inevitably believes itself to hold the true, complete and final revelation from God. Consequently any claim that a subsequent holy book is genuine revelation must be fraudulent. This in turn makes omnipotence Christianity in particular intolerant of Islam. Omnipotence Islam, were its practitioners aware of the admittedly obscure Latter Day Saints, would in turn be incensed and outraged by Joseph Smith's apparent imitation of the Prophet. I'm surprised omnipotence monotheists within Judaism tolerate anyone at all, they having the oldest texts.
Without the omnipotence axioms, the inerrancy problems evaporate. The Judaic and Christian scriptures then become a record of the overlaid belief and cultural viewpoint of various authors and editors at various stages during the work's composition and eventual translation, inspired to a greater or lesser degree by revelation. Due to the mode of composition, this is a great deal more difficult to accept within the Latter Day Saints and Islam than it is in Christianity, though in Judaism (which seems to a large extent to have turned its back on omnipotence) it seems to be a commonplace point of view. I would also humbly note that, though I've never met an omnipotence monotheist who agreed with me about this, scriptural inerrancy isn't actually implied by omnipotence, it's merely assumed.
The Christian Bible and the Muslim Qur'an each claim within their pages to be God's permanent and final written revelation. It follows that these two religions, viewed from an omnipotence perspective, each inevitably believes itself to hold the true, complete and final revelation from God. Consequently any claim that a subsequent holy book is genuine revelation must be fraudulent. This in turn makes omnipotence Christianity in particular intolerant of Islam. Omnipotence Islam, were its practitioners aware of the admittedly obscure Latter Day Saints, would in turn be incensed and outraged by Joseph Smith's apparent imitation of the Prophet. I'm surprised omnipotence monotheists within Judaism tolerate anyone at all, they having the oldest texts.
Without the omnipotence axioms, the inerrancy problems evaporate. The Judaic and Christian scriptures then become a record of the overlaid belief and cultural viewpoint of various authors and editors at various stages during the work's composition and eventual translation, inspired to a greater or lesser degree by revelation. Due to the mode of composition, this is a great deal more difficult to accept within the Latter Day Saints and Islam than it is in Christianity, though in Judaism (which seems to a large extent to have turned its back on omnipotence) it seems to be a commonplace point of view. I would also humbly note that, though I've never met an omnipotence monotheist who agreed with me about this, scriptural inerrancy isn't actually implied by omnipotence, it's merely assumed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
koan;1350704 wrote: I believe in God: One supreme source for all of what we perceive of existence. I also believe that one source is unapproachable and non manifest.
That's a pretty good statement of dualism. I reckon omnipotence relies entirely on dualism (that there's a spiritual Infinite overlaying our finite nature and it's unconstrained by physics). I also reckon "non-dualism" is used as a codeword by theologians to mean an internal psychological God with no external existence. In Christianity in particular these theologians use "non-dualism" because if they come right out and say omnipotence is a construct of religion rather than a genuine aspect of God then they'll be out on their ear, unfrocked and excommunicate.
So, my next suggestion as far as axioms go: the monist axiom cannot co-exist with any of the omnipotence axioms. "The Deity is eternal" is dualist. "The Deity is the Creator of all things" is dualist. "The Deity is all-powerful" is dualist.
That leaves "The Deity is good" from my original list of omnipotence attributes. If that attribute really has to be dualist as well then a monist Christianity needs a vocabulary in which "good" is an aesthetic preference rather than an imperative. Perhaps God isn't intrinsically good because good is a meaningless concept. Good implies choice and there are no choices, there is merely an appreciation. That makes sense to me.
That's a pretty good statement of dualism. I reckon omnipotence relies entirely on dualism (that there's a spiritual Infinite overlaying our finite nature and it's unconstrained by physics). I also reckon "non-dualism" is used as a codeword by theologians to mean an internal psychological God with no external existence. In Christianity in particular these theologians use "non-dualism" because if they come right out and say omnipotence is a construct of religion rather than a genuine aspect of God then they'll be out on their ear, unfrocked and excommunicate.
So, my next suggestion as far as axioms go: the monist axiom cannot co-exist with any of the omnipotence axioms. "The Deity is eternal" is dualist. "The Deity is the Creator of all things" is dualist. "The Deity is all-powerful" is dualist.
That leaves "The Deity is good" from my original list of omnipotence attributes. If that attribute really has to be dualist as well then a monist Christianity needs a vocabulary in which "good" is an aesthetic preference rather than an imperative. Perhaps God isn't intrinsically good because good is a meaningless concept. Good implies choice and there are no choices, there is merely an appreciation. That makes sense to me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
I don't see how an omnipotent being can be good. That means it isn't something else. Good is an entirely subjective term relative to bad and projecting something limiting like that on an omnipotent source is almost blasphemy.
Monotheism
Christianity has had two thousand laborious years of trying to reconcile that impossibility while retaining omnipotence. It always seemed important within the organized denominations that it be retained, though it could make Christian mysticism an arid unpleasant process. Letting it go opens up many more avenues than it closes. It also allows fewer excuses for feeling smug and superior about unbelievers. Abandoning omnipotence as a monotheist axiom lets practitioners of different faiths compare notes on an equal footing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
It would be just as reasonable to abandon the idea that God is "good"... probably more reasonable. What the heck does that mean anyway?
It might be really "good" for me if my boss dies and I get her job. Not so good for her.
It might be really "good" for me if my boss dies and I get her job. Not so good for her.
Monotheism
Good's an impossible axiom anyway. It got shoehorned in alongside the other impossibles like omnipotent and omniscient and ineffable. You're quite right, it's just as meaningless.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
I suppose, in my "non manifest" belief, omnipotent is just as meaningless. If it isn't manifest it doesn't have power in the way most people think of it.
Monotheism
I keep finding myself relating all these terms into what they mean metaphysically. I am stuck with approaching such definitions from the belief that all of reality is akin to an illusion. The closest analogy to consciousness and physical life being the way sugar would crystallize in a glass of hot water when the water starts to cool and that what some call God is the source of the heat, the water and the sugar. Then take away the glass.
Don't let me sidetrack anything. I'm just not sure if the axioms make sense to me yet.
Don't let me sidetrack anything. I'm just not sure if the axioms make sense to me yet.
Monotheism
koan;1350777 wrote: Don't let me sidetrack anything. I'm just not sure if the axioms make sense to me yet.They make sense within the traditions of the four specific religions I highlighted, but only to the extent that they're used within those theologies. Obviously those who reject the axioms regard them as meaningless even within the context of those religions, but at least they're familiar with the use the words have been put to over the centuries. They're the power-enforcing words for the priesthood.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Monotheism
spot;1350708 wrote:
Atheist: The number of Gods is zero
Agnostic: The number of Gods is uninteresting
Theist: The number of Gods is more than zero
Preternatural: Miracles never happen
Supernatural: Miracles happen
Dualist: God is separate from the universe
Monist: Nothing is separate from the universe
Impersonal: God has no awareness
Transpersonal: God has awareness and no will
Personal: God has awareness and will
That's a really good list.
I'm still thinking things over but wanted to pause to appreciate the definition of terms.
Atheist: The number of Gods is zero
Agnostic: The number of Gods is uninteresting
Theist: The number of Gods is more than zero
Preternatural: Miracles never happen
Supernatural: Miracles happen
Dualist: God is separate from the universe
Monist: Nothing is separate from the universe
Impersonal: God has no awareness
Transpersonal: God has awareness and no will
Personal: God has awareness and will
That's a really good list.
I'm still thinking things over but wanted to pause to appreciate the definition of terms.