GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I was referring to his reference to the living God as a "mythological creature." Such a statement requires either arrogance, a stunted mentality, or at best, total blindness.
And you wonder why you're branded a troll? Telling people they are arrogant, 'stunted mentally', or totally blind is just plain nasty. However, it seems you don't consider ANYONES opinion as valid, unless they are 'true believers' like you. And incidentally, given how you behave and the exclusionary nature of your comments, I see NONE of the compassion, tolerance, or forgiveness a Christian should have.
And if you want to see a good example of someone who is 'stunted mentally', try this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
I have studied science some, and I believe I've studied enough
Quite typical...learn enough to cherry-pick some things that support what YOU want, and ignore/bash the rest, probably because it's too difficult. And from a very strict scientific standpoint, the description is accurate.
Well, mythical being, is that better?
Arrogance? No, I'm a very 'umble person, Mr Copperfield.
Stunted mentality? No. Not a genius, just slightly above average IQ.
Total blindness? No. Short-sighted, though.
Mythological being is no better (yes, I understand your sarcasm).
But you are right and I'm sorry I insulted you. I haven't any valid excuse but try to understand, any time somebody slights the living God--which you did--I take it as personally as if you were to slight my wife.
You see (and this is the perfect context), YHWH is a very personal God--unlike mythological "gods," where you quite intentionally classify the Judeo-Christian God.
That's the difference. The genuine Christian experience is not w an impersonal object, but w a very personal, living God. Bible and prayer is not a one-way wall but a two-way, life-giving relationship--and pardon me, but I cannot help but use every method I know, including haste, to try to compel others to see for themselves.
You see (and this is the perfect context), YHWH is a very personal God--unlike mythological "gods," where you quite intentionally classify the Judeo-Christian God.
That's the difference. The genuine Christian experience is not w an impersonal object, but w a very personal, living God. Bible and prayer is not a one-way wall but a two-way, life-giving relationship--and pardon me, but I cannot help but use every method I know, including haste, to try to compel others to see for themselves.
That is the same for the believers of most other religions. There is no difference between you and a Muslim or a Hindu.
But nonetheless is your god a mythological being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
Quote:
In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form
Quote:
Myths typically involve supernatural characters and are endorsed by rulers or priests.
Quote:
They are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach.
Quote:
Typical characteristics
The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans.[5][6][7] As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion or spirituality.[5] In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.[5][6][8][9] In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative, "true stories" or myths, and "false stories" or fables.[10] Creation myths generally take place in a primordial age, when the world had not yet achieved its current form,[5] and explain how the world gained its current form[2][11] and how customs, institutions and taboos were established.[5][11]
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
That is the same for the believers of most other religions. There is no difference between you and a Muslim or a Hindu.
But nonetheless is your god a mythological being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
TobiSGD, what you are calling "your god" maybe a mythological being to you but to others it isn't. The extreme combatative nature of this discussion stops all of you from going anywhere near the middle ground and this stops anything like a debate where people will acknowledge others thoughts. Both sides are playing the "my way is the only way" game.
Blue, I'm still waiting for an answer. I hope to see it before Christmas 2020.
TobiSGD, what you are calling "your god" maybe a mythological being to you but to others it isn't.
And to those others the other gods, which are in turn real for others, are also mythological beings. The point is that there is no difference between the Christian god, the gods of the Mayas or the gods of the Greeks. There is nothing special about the Christian god.
Quote:
The extreme combatative nature of this discussion stops all of you from going anywhere near the middle ground and this stops anything like a debate where people will acknowledge others thoughts. Both sides are playing the "my way is the only way" game.
Can there even be a middle ground between a believer of one religion and someone that does not believe in that specific god?
To at least start to get somewhere into the middle ground there must be a clear definition of the terms used in the discussion, which I delivered for the term mythological, together with my hypothesis that for all believers, regardless of the religion, gods are real, but they are from an objective standpoint (if that is even possible) mythological beings.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
And to those others the other gods, which are in turn real for others, are also mythological beings. The point is that there is no difference between the Christian god, the gods of the Mayas or the gods of the Greeks. There is nothing special about the Christian god.
Can there even be a middle ground between a believer of one religion and someone that does not believe in that specific god?
To at least start to get somewhere into the middle ground there must be a clear definition of the terms used in the discussion, which I delivered for the term mythological, together with my hypothesis that for all believers, regardless of the religion, gods are real, but they are from an objective standpoint (if that is even possible) mythological beings.
Continuously stating they are mythological is not allowing a middle ground. There is nothing objective about it. You are forcing your opinion on the other side by denying anyones right or ability to believe in something as if it was real because you, and others, keep plastering the word mythological on things you do not believe in. You do this because the word mythological means it isn't real.
You are forcing your opinion on the other side by denying anyones right or ability to believe in something as if it was real because you, and others, keep plastering the word mythological on things you do not believe in.
I explicitly stated that for the believer his specific god(s) is/are real:
Quote:
And to those others the other gods, which are in turn real for others
A believer will always think his god(s) is/are real, otherwise believing in that god wouldn't make much sense.
Quote:
You do this because the word mythological means it isn't real.
Did you even read the definition?
Quote:
In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative, "true stories" or myths, and "false stories" or fables.
Myths are not true stories they are invented stories and this is the problem with your argument. Just because you don't believe somethign does not mean it is not true.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
All believers of a religion believe their god(s) to be real. This is true for any religion and there is no difference in believing in the Christian god, the Greek god(s), the Hindu gods or the nordic gods. So we could assume that all gods are real, but sadly the default position for most religions is that only their god(s) are allowed to be real, all other must be false, non-existent gods (which by the way is especially funny for the judeo-christian god with his origins in a polytheistic religion). Since we can not assume all god(s) to be real for this exact reason the fair thing to do is to assume that no god is real.
So believers make the same assumption for other religions as I do for all religions, but you do not seem to find that offensive.
All believers of a religion believe their god(s) to be real. This is true for any religion and there is no difference in believing in the Christian god, the Greek god(s), the Hindu gods or the nordic gods. So we could assume that all gods are real, but sadly the default position for most religions is that only their god(s) are allowed to be real, all other must be false, non-existent gods (which by the way is especially funny for the judeo-christian god with his origins in a polytheistic religion).
I disagree with the bolded bit.
While the various different judeo-christian and islamic versions tend to take the 'only our god is real' position, its nowhere near as common in Hindu traditions (apart from the IMO slightly crazy twisted visions of Hinduism where its perceived as a monotheism). In many polytheistic and other similar systems, the assumption can actually be 'our gods are real, maybe those other gods are real as well'.
In many ways acceptance of other gods as at least possibly real is one of the ways that monotheisms have used to erode other belief systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Since we can not assume all god(s) to be real for this exact reason the fair thing to do is to assume that no god is real.
Since some groups of people are one-eyed bigots the whole is idea should be assumed to be unreal and/or imgainary? That is almost as crazy as blind belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB0ne
And you wonder why you're branded a troll? Telling people they are arrogant, 'stunted mentally', or totally blind is just plain nasty. However, it seems you don't consider ANYONES opinion as valid, unless they are 'true believers' like you. And incidentally, given how you behave and the exclusionary nature of your comments, I see NONE of the compassion, tolerance, or forgiveness a Christian should have.
Of course you dont see any compassion, tolerance, or forgiveness. Look at the positions that bluegospel is taking. Its a lawyers position, with the bible as the law, with no possibility that the bible is in any way incorrect.
Because of that and the way that bluegospel is using this thread as a soapbox for his message, IMO this should be closed or rolled into the religion thread. This is not a discussion, its a very poor attempt at proselytism.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
From the second link you posted:
All believers of a religion believe their god(s) to be real. This is true for any religion and there is no difference in believing in the Christian god, the Greek god(s), the Hindu gods or the nordic gods. So we could assume that all gods are real, but sadly the default position for most religions is that only their god(s) are allowed to be real, all other must be false, non-existent gods (which by the way is especially funny for the judeo-christian god with his origins in a polytheistic religion). Since we can not assume all god(s) to be real for this exact reason the fair thing to do is to assume that no god is real.
No it is not fair to assume anything of the sort. You have no proof no god is real just your belief that you, as Blue does, tries to force on everyone else.
As for the Judeo-Christian god having an origin in polytheistic religion methinks you need to prove that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
So believers make the same assumption for other religions as I do for all religions, but you do not seem to find that offensive.
Who said I don't find that offensive? I certainly have made no representations of the sort. What I find offensive is the pig headedness of ths conversation you and Blue are having. He wont answer simple questions and you try to squirm your way out of your hole by makng your own definitions that you expect everyone else to adhere to and accussing others of bias.
You have no proof no god is real just your belief that you, as Blue does, tries to force on everyone else.
Ever heard of the burden of proof? I never have said that a god does not exist, so I don't have to proof that. The proof has to come from the people that claim something to be true, for example the existence of the judeo-christian god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
As for the Judeo-Christian god having an origin in polytheistic religion methinks you need to prove that one.
The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite
The development of Israelite monotheism was a gradual process which began with the normal beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[71] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[72] and many other Ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on the cult of the ancestors and the worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[73] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74] By the early monarchy El and Yahweh had become unified and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[74] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[75] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan, and may have been brought north to Israel by the Kenites and Midianites at an early stage.[76] With the emergence of monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II the king promoted his own family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered, as it was also for other societies in the Ancient Near East.[77]
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
by makng your own definitions
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
I tend not to read definitions made up by people who are biased and have a point to prove.
I always post the links to the source for my quotes. If that is your definition of making up things then I don't know what to say anymore to you, since you won't accept any of my sources, without even having read them. Now call me biased again.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Ever heard of the burden of proof? I never have said that a god does not exist, so I don't have to proof that. The proof has to come from the people that claim something to be true, for example the existence of the judeo-christian god.
You infer by your posts that God is a mythological being/creature that he does not exist. The burden of proof is upon you when you infer that to prove it. So far you have not done this at all.
Wikipedia is hardly a reliable academic resource and I am surprised you resort to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
I always post the links to the source for my quotes. If that is your definition of making up things then I don't know what to say anymore to you, since you won't accept any of my sources, without even having read them.
Yes wikipeadia is such a brilliant resource that you use, thanks for sharing
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Now call me biased again.
Is that a dare? OK, I accept. Tobi it is obvious you are biased.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.