Culture and god

[Valjean]

Sure. As in when Jesus says things like he is not of this world, the last will be first, happy are they who mourn. Jesus can turn cultural norms upside down.

Exactly!
He seems in, but not of the world, and expected his followers to reject the world, as well. Sometimes he seems anti-social:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple..."
"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law..."
"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it..."
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life..."

He also seems anti-capitalist. Perhaps he was a socialist:
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven..."
"Lay not up treasures on the Earth..."
"It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."
"No man can serve two masters..."
"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses..."
"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil..."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sure. As in when Jesus says things like he is not of this world, the last will be first, happy are they who mourn. Jesus can turn cultural norms upside down.

That would mean Jesus didn't have cultural values, religious practices, and wouldn't have based his teachings by OT cause all of it is culture dependent.

Culture as in language, history, lifestyle, tradition, and beliefs/values if a given society.

 

[sojourner]

That would mean Jesus didn't have cultural values, religious practices, and wouldn't have based his teachings by OT cause all of it is culture dependent.

Culture as in language, history, lifestyle, tradition, and beliefs/values if a given society.

Remember the other two facets: Christ of culture, and Christ within culture.

It’s a bit heavy, but you might check out Niebuhr’s book Christ and Culture.

 

[thomas t]

This is kinda my point. I asked believers is there other rebuttals for their arguments besides that of atheists' comparing god's existences to unicorns, leprechauns, and Cthulu.

I often say that unicorns and the likes are simply not relevant as I see it.
A flying tea pot orbiting the sun? Who cares?

My take here: maybe they do exist. I just don't care.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Remember the other two facets: Christ of culture, and Christ within culture.

It’s a bit heavy, but you might check out Niebuhr’s book Christ and Culture.

I'm not sure the difference. Jesus' culture was jewish culture.

What I'm asking, though, is about the creator of the universe-a spiritual being not jesus christ. The spirit jesus' worships outside himself.

Is this spirit being created by culture?
If it is not, can you explain why is that not so?

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure the difference. Jesus' culture was jewish culture.

What I'm asking, though, is about the creator of the universe-a spiritual being not jesus christ. The spirit jesus' worships outside himself.

Is this spirit being created by culture?
If it is not, can you explain why is that not so?

My point was that our perspectives of deity are always heavily influenced by and invested in culture. Religion is a cultural phenomenon.

But I don’t think that our awareness of the divine can be dismissed wholesale because this is so. Awareness of the divine is not limited to a single culture but appears to span nearly the entire corpus of humanity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My point was that our perspectives of deity are always heavily influenced by and invested in culture. Religion is a cultural phenomenon.

But I don’t think that our awareness of the divine can be dismissed wholesale because this is so. Awareness of the divine is not limited to a single culture but appears to span nearly the entire corpus of humanity.

I'm thinking instead of influenced by culture, divinity, god, or so have you were created by culture. Since culture is "of man" that would mean man made god rather than god existing and man creating interpretations about it.

For example, if you cut out a hole in a piece of paper, that hole would be god and the paper around it is culture. The hole cannot exist without the structure. Even if we try to make a circle, we can't do it without the tools (the paper) in which forms its illusory circle/product.

Even scripture can be seen as the paper; it outlines divinity to whereby physical scripture and traditions thereof, divinity exists. If there were no scripture (from a christian sense), divinity wouldn't exist.

Unless one can rebut it to show god exists outside of culture (the circle exist without need of the paper)?

 

[Valjean]

I often say that unicorns and the likes are simply not relevant as I see it.
A flying tea pot orbiting the sun? Who cares?

My take here: maybe they do exist. I just don't care.

Do you know what an analogy is?

 

[thomas t]

Do you know what an analogy is?

yes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I often say that unicorns and the likes are simply not relevant as I see it.
A flying tea pot orbiting the sun? Who cares?

My take here: maybe they do exist. I just don't care.

The idea behind the flying tea pots is that they are comparing one ridiculous claim (a flying tea pot) to another ridiculous claim (god's existence).

It's an analogy used to discredit a person's claim to god's existence; and, assumes that discrediting god's existence (by comparing it to a teapot) will automatically support why god does not exist.

I think that method is a silly support in why god does not exist.

Instead, I'll say that god is created by people of a said culture. It does not exist on its own but by the people who believe and make traditions, scriptures, and values pertaining to it.

Do you think god exists apart from culture?

If so how, without referring to anything of culture such as scripture?

 

[sojourner]

I'm thinking instead of influenced by culture, divinity, god, or so have you were created by culture. Since culture is "of man" that would mean man made god rather than god existing and man creating interpretations about it.

For example, if you cut out a hole in a piece of paper, that hole would be god and the paper around it is culture. The hole cannot exist without the structure. Even if we try to make a circle, we can't do it without the tools (the paper) in which forms its illusory circle/product.

Even scripture can be seen as the paper; it outlines divinity to whereby physical scripture and traditions thereof, divinity exists. If there were no scripture (from a christian sense), divinity wouldn't exist.

Unless one can rebut it to show god exists outside of culture (the circle exist without need of the paper)?

I’m not sure we can go so far as to say that divinity is completely created by culture, because of what I said before: the concept or awareness of divinity cuts across cultural lines to nearly all cultures. What I think we can say is that our metaphors of the divine are culturally-imbedded.

 

[sojourner]

Do you think god exists apart from culture?

Yes. But it takes God reflected within humanity for God to take shape in our consciousness.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Has there ever been a culture, anywhere in the world, that had no concept of divinity?

 

[thomas t]

The idea behind the flying tea pots is that they are comparing one ridiculous claim (a flying tea pot) to another ridiculous claim (god's existence).

It's an analogy used to discredit a person's claim to god's existence; and, assumes that discrediting god's existence (by comparing it to a teapot) will automatically support why god does not exist.

I think that method is a silly support in why god does not exist.

Instead, I'll say that god is created by people of a said culture. It does not exist on its own but by the people who believe and make traditions, scriptures, and values pertaining to it.

Do you think god exists apart from culture?

If so how, without referring to anything of culture such as scripture?

the teapot if existant is totally irrelevant,
and that's where I see the difference... I stop thinking at that point, since I don't want to waste my time there.

God does have evidence at his side.
Consider all the beauty in nature that testifies of a loving creator force, as I see it. A tea pot cannot make this:

 

[Unveiled Artist]

the teapot if existant is totally irrelevant,
and that's where I see the difference... I stop thinking at that point, since I don't want to waste my time there.

God does have evidence at his side.
Consider all the beauty in nature that testifies of a loving creator force, as I see it. A tea pot cannot make this:

Does he exist outside your perception of him, culture (scripture and tradition), and the like. Seeing beauty is from your perception. I can't be proof god because many people of different religions see the product, cause, or influence of the source(s) of their faith by how they interpret the outside world. Pagans are a huge example of this, so this "evidence" isn't unique.

Any others?

 

[alypius]

If I said god was created by culture and does not exist on its own accord, what rebuttal can you give for that that isn't cultural related (that doesn't prove my point)?

Isn't the burden on the one advancing a claim to provide reasons in support of it first?

 

[thomas t]

Does he exist outside your perception of him, culture (scripture and tradition), and the like. Seeing beauty is from your perception. I can't be proof god because many people of different religions see the product, cause, or influence of the source(s) of their faith by how they interpret the outside world. Pagans are a huge example of this, so this "evidence" isn't unique.

Any others?

it isn't limited to my perception though. Ask a hundred random people and I bet a majority would say "beautiful". So, this counts as evidence for a loving God, as I see it.

By the way this isn't proof, though. Proof is for alcohol and math.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

it isn't limited to my perception though. Ask a hundred random people and I bet a majority would say "beautiful". So, this counts as evidence for a loving God, as I see it.

By the way this isn't proof, though. Proof is for alcohol and math.

That's a fallacy: appeal by the majority. Everyone doesn't believe in the same god if they do believe in god at all.

Like I'm in awe of nature and love it to death. Yet, if nature is supposed to be proof of god (obvious proof), it shouldn't depend on what belief I hold. It should literally "speak for itself." If nature is proof of god, nonabrahamic religions would know the abrahamic god just by looking at the beauty.

It's based on the eye of the beholder.

Evidence argument aside, though:

But my question, though, is outside our perception (beauty in the eyes of the beholder), scripture and tradition (culture), does god exist apart from that and how do you know?

Instead of evidence for god, I'm asking if god is not created from culture, how do you define god apart from it? (What's the nature of god without culture that defines it into being?)

 

[thomas t]

That's a fallacy: appeal by the majority. Everyone doesn't believe in the same god if they do believe in god at all.

Let me tell you (as a musician who has a CV full of failures ) there is no fallacy. I try to make music for the masses. When nobody likes my music, I must have done something wrong.
There is no third way. Of course now you might think "but Van Gogh...". I know this example but this is one artist out of a thousand where this rule somehow did not apply, Ibut then it did appeal - after his death. People always cite this one to disprove the appeal to the likeability of something...
Music is there to appeal. This is at least my take on the matter. So are landscapes.

Nature as evidence, not proof. This is how I understand the concept at least. Proof is for alcohol and math.

But my question, though, is outside our perception (beauty in the eyes of the beholder), scripture and tradition (culture), does god exist apart from that and how do you know?

lets concider the perception the majority has concerning the beauty of nature and lets stay with this for a while. I think there is no reason to sweep this off the table, here.
The beauty of nature is perceived so in all cultures, for instance. So God, in my opinion, did use a hand writing apparent to both people from sophisticated cultures and simple men.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me tell you (as a musician who has a CV full of failures ) there is no fallacy. I try to make music for the masses. When nobody likes my music, I must have done something wrong.

There is no third way. Of course now you might think "but Van Gogh...". I know this example but this is one artist out of a thousand where this rule somehow did not apply, Ibut then it did appeal - after his death. People always cite this one to disprove the appeal to the likeability of something...
Music is there to appeal. This is at least my take on the matter. So are landscapes.

The fallacy is appeal to majority: if the majority says it is true, it must be true. When you referred to the majority to validate something true, it's a fallacy.

I'm not sure how music relates. But to try and compare, a song doesn't exist on its own accord. There are artists (community), sheet music, voice, and/or instruments (say scripture or ritual), and even the generation and local influence the nature or culture of what music is played and liked among the masses.

A song cannot exist without these things. They are the "culture" of the music.

So, if god is the same-he can only exist in the culture to whom/which created it. If it is not, how not?

Nature as evidence, not proof. This is how I understand the concept at least. Proof is for alcohol and math.

Putting proof/evidence semantics aside, if you see nature and say "that's god" there must have been some support that brought you to that conclusion. Since we all don't have the same criteria to confirm that nature is created by the christian god, how else can one know just by nature alone (if it's obvious)?

lets concider the perception the majority has concerning the beauty of nature and lets stay with this for a while. I think there is no reason to sweep this off the table, here.
The beauty of nature is perceived so in all cultures, for instance. So God, in my opinion, did use a hand writing apparent to both people from sophisticated cultures and simple men.

But if it is true, it shouldn't be from your perspective or opinion. Everyone should have the same understanding regardless how they interpret it.

The word and usage of god alone is not universal. It's created by culture or instruments that make up as song. But many say god is separate from culture and tradition. How so?