Are pagan gods more logical in a theological sense

[Sha'irullah]

With all of these religions now a days claiming to have an omnimax god it just seems, stupid. When I say stupid I mean stupid as in suffering from mental deficiency.

To claim you have an omniscient god is to claim you have a god with no free will. To also do this you are claiming you god is malevolent because obviously suffering exists in great quantities int he world.
To say he is all power even makes this deity more evil and adding omnipresence does not help since it is saying that this god is watching everything destroy itself in the universe and being satisfied with this knowing it would happen.

The only logical conclusion would be to reduce this conception of god to the old pagan gods. Having a non omnimax being or beings because obviously none of these things apply to any conception of a god if such a thing existed.

How would you as a theists feel worshiping a god who is not as powerful or great as you want him/her to be?

 

[Brinne]

I would feel fine obviously . While I do like the Shinto conception of 'kami' and the Buddhist ideas of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas I do not think this is the 'right' way or the 'most logical' way. It's simply a way, not the way. If some people want to believe in an all powerful, all knowing single god then that's great, if it works for them awesome! I don't think any form of religion or theism is any better than the rest; they're just different paths for different people.

 

[Quintessence]

Although polytheism makes more sense to me (obviously, because I am one), I really don't see how classical monotheists are "stupid" for having a different map of the territory.

As for the question you asked, I really can't answer it because it's a leading question. It is being assumed by that question that theists have certain expectations of their gods, specifically, that they want them to be powerful and great. I have no such expectations to begin with, so I don't feel I have any way of answering that question. The gods are what they are, and each aspect of reality has its niche or role to play within the Weave. Whether or not I think that particular aspect is "great" or "powerful" doesn't matter; it has intrinsic value either way and is still sacred, divine, and worthy of worship.

 

[Glaurung]

Have you anything to say that isn't laden with your own bile?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

With all of these religions now a days claiming to have an omnimax god it just seems, stupid. When I say stupid I mean stupid as in suffering from mental deficiency.

To claim you have an omniscient god is to claim you have a god with no free will. To also do this you are claiming you god is malevolent because obviously suffering exists in great quantities int he world.
To say he is all power even makes this deity more evil and adding omnipresence does not help since it is saying that this god is watching everything destroy itself in the universe and being satisfied with this knowing it would happen.

The only logical conclusion would be to reduce this conception of god to the old pagan gods. Having a non omnimax being or beings because obviously none of these things apply to any conception of a god if such a thing existed.

How would you as a theists feel worshiping a god who is not as powerful or great as you want him/her to be?

Logic is a tool, not an end unto itself (as Kant so masterfully demonstrated).

Logic begins with the statement of assumptions, then proceeds through the testing for truth value of propositions based on those assumptions. Whether or not a particular belief or belief system is "more logical" than another is a value judgment, often made by individuals who are comparing their own belief system to some other belief system--which they may or may not understand as the followers of that belief system understand it. What is logical in one system may or may not be logical in another system. For the most part, those doing such an assessment seem to usually find that their own system is much more logical than whatever system they are comparing their beliefs to. Odd how that goes.

Values are outside of the logic of belief systems, although they underlie and affect the assumptions--that is, the beliefs--that individuals in differing belief systems accept or reject, and therefore their "logical" conclusions.

As to your question, it presupposes that someone who is not a pantheist/panentheist WANTS their deity/ies to be omni-everything; an assumption I believe is incorrect. It also seems to assume that all pantheists/panentheists regard only the highest level (the omni-everything part) as deity worthy or worship. If I am reading you correctly, I think this is also a mistaken assumption on your part.

As an animist, I do not want any "deity" (not that I really recognize such things in my practice) to be anything other than what they are--none are omni-anything, and I do not want them to be, because that wouldn't be their nature.

 

[Desert Snake]

With all of these religions now a days claiming to have an omnimax god it just seems, stupid. When I say stupid I mean stupid as in suffering from mental deficiency.

To claim you have an omniscient god is to claim you have a god with no free will. To also do this you are claiming you god is malevolent because obviously suffering exists in great quantities int he world.
To say he is all power even makes this deity more evil and adding omnipresence does not help since it is saying that this god is watching everything destroy itself in the universe and being satisfied with this knowing it would happen.

The only logical conclusion would be to reduce this conception of god to the old pagan gods. Having a non omnimax being or beings because obviously none of these things apply to any conception of a god if such a thing existed.

How would you as a theists feel worshiping a god who is not as powerful or great as you want him/her to be?

Nice word salad. I think it needs some croutons though.

 

[The Hammer]

With all of these religions now a days claiming to have an omnimax god it just seems, stupid. When I say stupid I mean stupid as in suffering from mental deficiency.

To claim you have an omniscient god is to claim you have a god with no free will. To also do this you are claiming you god is malevolent because obviously suffering exists in great quantities int he world.
To say he is all power even makes this deity more evil and adding omnipresence does not help since it is saying that this god is watching everything destroy itself in the universe and being satisfied with this knowing it would happen.

The only logical conclusion would be to reduce this conception of god to the old pagan gods. Having a non omnimax being or beings because obviously none of these things apply to any conception of a god if such a thing existed.

How would you as a theists feel worshiping a god who is not as powerful or great as you want him/her to be?

Well, I for one, don't see anything wrong with a person believing in an omni-god. I also don't see it as a mental deficiency either. I see it as one way of looking at the world. We all look at the world through our own set of lenses, what we believe/not believe in regards to deity is one part of that lens.

I personally don't want or need omni anything from my gods, I don't see it as necessary. They have their form and function, but they are not perfect. Nothing in the universe is perfect, including the universe itself, so why would I expect perfection from a deity?

They are just an intrinsic part of the natural world as air and water is. Therefore they fulfill their role through presence alone, perfect or not.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Have you anything to say that isn't laden with your own bile?

Very little, but when a person can't reconcile monotheism with issues like the Problem of Evil it gives me the impression people are being disingenuous.
I do not give anybody any favors or breaks so do not expect it from me. If I find something I detest I detest it, if I find something I love I love it.

If many religious people were more honest I would not have to treat them so harshly.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well, I for one, don't see anything wrong with a person believing in an omni-god. I also don't see it as a mental deficiency either. I see it as one way of looking at the world. We all look at the world through our own set of lenses, what we believe/not believe in regards to deity is one part of that lens.

I personally don't want or need omni anything from my gods, I don't see it as necessary. They have their form and function, but they are not perfect. Nothing in the universe is perfect, including the universe itself, so why would I expect perfection from a deity?

They are just an intrinsic part of the natural world as air and water is. Therefore they fulfill their role through presence alone, perfect or not.

It is only a mental deficiency when you try reconciling with matters that cannot be reconciled. You can hold a belief to something but when you justify it, then it enters the realm of scrutiny and harsh scrutiny at that.

Take for example the fact that many people who hold this opinion of an omnimax being are the most violent and usually spend more of their time trying to convert people to something they cannot even justify moderately.

If a person still holds to a notion despite it being unjustifiable then you are essentially just accepting that believing that the Earth is flat is a good idea and should not be criticized. Ideas are dangerous.

 

[Desert Snake]

Take for example the fact that many people who hold this opinion of an omnimax being are the most violent and usually spend more of their time trying to convert people to something they cannot even justify moderately.

If a person still holds to a notion despite it being unjustifiable then you are essentially just accepting that believing that the Earth is flat is a good idea and should not be criticized. Ideas are dangerous.

Those people would be the same without religion, they would just find some other ideal, like a political one.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Those people would be the same without religion, they would just find some other ideal, like a political one.

And....?

 

[Glaurung]

Very little, but when a person can't reconcile monotheism with issues like the Problem of Evil it gives me the impression people are being disingenuous.

But I can reconcile it. Just because you refuse to consider that reconciliation sufficient is no cause to be a conceited jerk.

I do not give anybody any favors or breaks so do not expect it from me. If I find something I detest I detest it, if I find something I love I love it.

You're really just talking to yourself here.

If many religious people were more honest I would not have to treat them so harshly.

Alternatively, you could try pulling your head out of your own backside. You're not interested in reaching out to anybody. All you want to do is run around berate those hateful monotheists. Nevermind the irony.

 

[Sha'irullah]

But I can reconcile it. Just because you refuse to consider that reconciliation sufficient is no cause to be a conceited jerk.

Ahhh, this is what I like. You are just being hypocritical at this point.

Has it never occurred to you that I am perhaps intelligent enough to not be able to find a single way to get around the Problem of Evil because it is unavoidable with the Christian god?

You said I "refuse to consider" the reconciliation of the Problem of Evil yet you seem to be refusing my assertion that it can't be reconciled.

You're really just talking to yourself here.



Alternatively, you could try pulling your head out of your own backside. You're not interested in reaching out to anybody. All you want to to is run around berate those hateful monotheists. Nevermind the irony.

Mhm, yeah sure. Just keep in mind that it is best to speak when grown folks are talking . That is a common Southern rule of etiquette.

 

[Glaurung]

Ahhh, this is what I like. You are just being hypocritical at this point.

Disagreement with you isn't hypocrisy.

Has it never occurred to you that I am perhaps intelligent enough to not be able to find a single way to get around the Problem of Evil because it is unavoidable with the Christian god?

Of course, it's arrogant of me to disagree with any philosophical assessment of yours because you're just way too intelligent to be disagreed with.

You said I "refuse to consider" the reconciliation of the Problem of Evil yet you seem to be refusing my assertion that it can't be reconciled.

I don't care if you believe the problem of evil to be the go-to killing blow for monotheism. You're entitled to think that. What you refuse to consider is that those who disagree with your opinion can actually do so without some vague "hypocrisy" or "disingenuousness" that you keep accusing us of.

The only hypocrisy here is coming from you.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

With all of these religions now a days claiming to have an omnimax god it just seems, stupid. When I say stupid I mean stupid as in suffering from mental deficiency.

To claim you have an omniscient god is to claim you have a god with no free will. To also do this you are claiming you god is malevolent because obviously suffering exists in great quantities int he world.
To say he is all power even makes this deity more evil and adding omnipresence does not help since it is saying that this god is watching everything destroy itself in the universe and being satisfied with this knowing it would happen.

The only logical conclusion would be to reduce this conception of god to the old pagan gods. Having a non omnimax being or beings because obviously none of these things apply to any conception of a god if such a thing existed.

How would you as a theists feel worshiping a god who is not as powerful or great as you want him/her to be?

My question then would be, what makes them gods?

In my opinion, if God is truly the most valuable thing, he must be all of existence. Because if he were separate, he would not be as valuable as both him and the universe together.

 

[Bunyip]

I would not think that the pagan gods are more logical, but I do think that we can relate to them better - they are more human.

 

[Shad]

I've always seen polytheism as figures of virtues and vices, and positive/negative social experiences of reality. I see monotheism as just the combination of virtues into one figure. With the 3 A's you see an embodiment of vices and negative social experiences in another form. A very rough form of Yin and Yan based on different values of different cultures. One does not make any more logical sense than another.

 

[Sha'irullah]

My question then would be, what makes them gods?

Well that is for you to decide, I am not the god expert . I am just the lonely traveler making an idea in the public square.

For some reason a lot of elements about religion are blown out and need a reduction. If only religions reduced their claims and purposes they would be tolerable.
For example Islam must be a religion, cult, political party, governance, legal systems, financial system, economy, philosophy, ethical system and science all in once.
70% of that baggage could be easily removed and make Islam look a LOT better.

In my opinion, if God is truly the most valuable thing, he must be all of existence. Because if he were separate, he would not be as valuable as both him and the universe together.

When you make these god claims they better make sense buddy . The minute you go omnimax you run into a slew of issues

 

[Sha'irullah]

I would not think that the pagan gods are more logical, but I do think that we can relate to them better - they are more human.

I guess the word would be "logically consistent" because omnimax gods run into numerous philosophical issues.

 

[Bunyip]

I guess the word would be "logically consistent" because omnimax gods run into numerous philosophical issues.

I think they all do.