Explain this logically christians....

[1AOA1]

Point is, it'd be amazingly easy to convince an ancient person of you're being a god, when you aren't really. Consider the effect stage magic has, even when you know it's not real. And that's assuming that the ancient peoples' accounts have survived, unaltered and exaggerated until the present, which is a silly assumption to make.

Magic? Is something normal to them which happens in their own life magic or do we call it magic because we are unfamiliar?

 

[Copernicus]

It is most plausible for someone who doesnt believe in god that there were no gods there?

Actually, I think that most modern people, including theists, find it implausible that the "ancients" lived with gods. Only religious fundamentalists tend to take ancient writings literally, and they do not even make up the majority of Christians.

 

[Frank Merton]

I'm not finding your sense of the word in dictionaries so far.

What dictionaries? The sense that suffering is "evil" is so obvious I don't see what you can possibly be thinking. I was trying to be generous and grant you your view, but I see in this case it did no good. How will "evil" as a synonym for "bad" work? I'm sure you will be able to find that in your dictionaries.

But death is not suffering.

Excellent nit-pick there. I guess that taught me something. Death causes suffering. Will that do?

I wonder if animism is more widely misunderstood by ordinary folks or by those who tend to over-intellectualize it.

I think I would describe my situation as knowing something about it, not over-intellectualizing it. Man, I gotta tell you that this sort of patronizing response sure sours the milk.

Ordinary folks know next to nothing about animism. They get their notions about it from the misuse of the words "god" and "worship." As you go on to say (in a part of your message I haven't quoted), people naturally animate the world they live in.

This is sophisticated thinking. If I have emotions and desires and likes and dislikes and so on, isn't it a bit much for me to assume the things around me don't? Therefore, although the mountain or the tree or whatever may have different abilities and bodies, they probably are personalities too. And, of course, if I make enemies of them, they might have ways to get me.

Courtesy and respect are therefore wise when dealing with nature, as are little rituals not significantly different from those we engage in when dealing with other people. This is not really "religion" and the things of nature are not really "gods." The notion that it is religion is a nineteenth century holdover, where the word "worship" was wrongly used to describe these behaviors. (Needless to say I simplify -- animism is used to describe many cultural beliefs all over the world).

The Indo-Europeans were not so different from other cultural groups that existed in their time.

Of course; they participate in the general cultural of the area.

You live in Asia, and it is full of people who believe in gods that are little different from the Indo-European ones.

The differences between the Hindu pantheon (of Indo-European origin) and the deities of China could not be greater. In SE Asia the situation is almost entirely a deification of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (in the "folk" practices). These are very different from something like the Homeric pantheon.

I think you think of "paganism" in terms of the pagan religions you know about -- Hinduism, Greek and Roman ideas, Norse mythology, and don't realize that this is not typical of ideas of other groups but only typical of the Indo-European cultural area.

 

[Copernicus]

What dictionaries? The sense that suffering is "evil" is so obvious I don't see what you can possibly be thinking. I was trying to be generous and grant you your view, but I see in this case it did no good. How will "evil" as a synonym for "bad" work? I'm sure you will be able to find that in your dictionaries.

Not really. When we use the word "evil" as an adjective, we use it to describe people or their behavior, not emotional suffering. I already made this point in my previous post, but you didn't respond to it.

Excellent nit-pick there. I guess that taught me something. Death causes suffering. Will that do?

I suffered when my parents died, but I would not characterize their deaths or my emotional state as a type of evil.

This is sophisticated thinking. If I have emotions and desires and likes and dislikes and so on, isn't it a bit much for me to assume the things around me don't?

It seems quite the opposite to me--that it is natural to expect things around you that lack brains not to have mental states, which we know to be associated with activity in physical brains. I don't see why you call this "sophisticated thinking".

Therefore, although the mountain or the tree or whatever may have different abilities and bodies, they probably are personalities too. And, of course, if I make enemies of them, they might have ways to get me.

I think that animals evolved brains and personalities for perfectly good reasons that have to do with their need to survive. Trees do not need brains, because they do not move around. Mountains really don't do much of anything, because they are not even as alive as plants.

Courtesy and respect are therefore wise when dealing with nature, as are little rituals not significantly different from those we engage in when dealing with other people. This is not really "religion" and the things of nature are not really "gods." The notion that it is religion is a nineteenth century holdover, where the word "worship" was wrongly used to describe these behaviors. (Needless to say I simplify -- animism is used to describe many cultural beliefs all over the world).

Maybe so, but it strikes me as a very natural way to look at the world, if you do not have a very sophisticated model of reality and do not recognize the very clear dependency that mental states have on functioning brains.

The differences between the Hindu pantheon (of Indo-European origin) and the deities of China could not be greater...

You do realize that the Hindu pantheon is at least partially evolved out of the Indo-European pantheon, don't you? It is no accident that Kama and Cupidus, both gods of love, carried bows and arrows. Also, there was strong mutual influence between the Greek & Roman worlds and India. There were Hindu and Buddhist missionaries in the Roman Empire, and the philosophical schools of thought that the Greeks developed had many parallels in India.

In SE Asia the situation is almost entirely a deification of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (in the "folk" practices). These are very different from something like the Homeric pantheon.

True, but millions of Buddhists still worship Bodhisattvas as gods, even if lots of Buddhists don't like that fact.

I think you think of "paganism" in terms of the pagan religions you know about -- Hinduism, Greek and Roman ideas, Norse mythology, and don't realize that this is not typical of ideas of other groups but only typical of the Indo-European cultural area.

Well, I think that you have no idea what I think about so-called "pagan religions". You are jumping to conclusions based on a stereotype.

 

[That Dude]

A close friend informed me today that his cousin lost his wife and 2 kids to a drunk driver a few days ago.
Now the cousin is being asked to "lean on god" and "faith" to make it through it.
So explain that if it was god's "plan" to take his family away, then why lean on god for support? How does that logically make sense?

Why would it be 'Gods plan' to take away his family?

 

[Frank Merton]

It seems quite the opposite to me--that it is natural to expect things around you that lack brains not to have mental states, which we know to be associated with activity in physical brains. I don't see why you call this "sophisticated thinking".

That it is natural doesn't make it unsophisticated. I think the animist view is far more sophisticated than either the classical pagan view or the Christian view.

I think that animals evolved brains and personalities for perfectly good reasons that have to do with their need to survive. Trees do not need brains, because they do not move around. Mountains really don't do much of anything, because they are not even as alive as plants.

Well, yes, of course. You must have misread me there: I was not saying I personally think mountains are sentient; I was saying this is typical of animism.

You do realize that the Hindu pantheon is at least partially evolved out of the Indo-European pantheon, don't you? It is no accident that Kama and Cupidus, both gods of love, carried bows and arrows.

Pardon my exasperation, but Sheesh! That was my point. The Hindu pantheon came into India with the "Aryans" speaking an Indo-European language. All of these cultures (Greek, Norse, Latin, Celtic, Persian, and Aryan, and others) were "Indo-European" and had similar pantheons. This is the model most people have in mind when they talk about "paganism," and this is an error since it only represents a minority of "pagan" cultures.

True, but millions of Buddhists still worship Bodhisattvas as gods, even if lots of Buddhists don't like that fact.

That is what I said, and in fact I think it is a good thing to "worship" something as morally elevated and compassionate as a Bodhisattva, even if it is a myth.

 

[Wombat]

This is sophisticated thinking. If I have emotions and desires and likes and dislikes and so on, isn't it a bit much for me to assume the things around me don't? Therefore, although the mountain or the tree or whatever may have different abilities and bodies, they probably are personalities too. And, of course, if I make enemies of them, they might have ways to get me.

:bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny:

Oryctolagus cuniculus displays "emotions and desires and likes and dislikes" "if you make enemies of them, they might have ways to get you". "This is sophisticated thinking"

[youtube]XcxKIJTb3Hg[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

 

[PolyHedral]

[youtube]XcxKIJTb3Hg[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

What an eccentric performance.

This is sophisticated thinking. If I have emotions and desires and likes and dislikes and so on, isn't it a bit much for me to assume the things around me don't? Therefore, although the mountain or the tree or whatever may have different abilities and bodies, they probably are personalities too. And, of course, if I make enemies of them, they might have ways to get me.

Not at all, when those same things never move under their own power. It's only sensible to make that assumption for things that behave remotely like yourself.

 

[Frank Merton]

:bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny::bunny:

Oryctolagus cuniculus displays "emotions and desires and likes and dislikes" "if you make enemies of them, they might have ways to get you". "This is sophisticated thinking"

Thanks for providing such a model of sophistication in your own behavior.

I think you aren't able to see beyond your own nose here. They are sophisticated because they don't blame everything on supernatural powers; their view of sentient nature may be less metaphorical than ours, but it remains nature. All that is needed to change a modern informed world view into theirs is a move in the boundary of what is "sentient." Absent the knowledge we have of neurons, etc., putting it where they do is pretty smart.

Yes, I was being flip when I said "they might be able to get you," but the point was simple enough that I would think you could see it if you weren't so eager to find something to ridicule.

 

[Wombat]

What an eccentric performance.

Yes...In subsequent interviews the Rabbit said it was struggling to conceptualise his motivation in the role. Some 62 unsuccessful takes were conducted until the Director, a nearby tree, instructed the Rabbit to draw on the great inner wellspring of “emotions and desires and likes and dislikes”...and the Rabbit just flipped and they got it all in that take.

Indeed, a truely "eccentric performance".

 

[Koldo]

Why would it be 'Gods plan' to take away his family?

Because God did nothing to prevent their deaths, therefore it has to be a part of his plan.

 

[Copernicus]

That it is natural doesn't make it unsophisticated. I think the animist view is far more sophisticated than either the classical pagan view or the Christian view.

We have a strong disagreement on what counts as "sophisticated".

Well, yes, of course. You must have misread me there: I was not saying I personally think mountains are sentient; I was saying this is typical of animism.

And you were saying that animism was a sophisticated point of view. Or did I read that part wrong, too?

Pardon my exasperation, but Sheesh! That was my point. The Hindu pantheon came into India with the "Aryans" speaking an Indo-European language. All of these cultures (Greek, Norse, Latin, Celtic, Persian, and Aryan, and others) were "Indo-European" and had similar pantheons. This is the model most people have in mind when they talk about "paganism," and this is an error since it only represents a minority of "pagan" cultures.

Was I making a generalization about "pagan cultures" and "paganism"? This is something that appears to have come from you, not me.

That is what I said, and in fact I think it is a good thing to "worship" something as morally elevated and compassionate as a Bodhisattva, even if it is a myth.

Again, we have a strong disagreement. Bodhisattvas, like gods, can be anything that we imagine them to be. My position is against endorsing the worship of mythical beings, no matter how benevolent they are claimed to be.

 

[That Dude]

Because God did nothing to prevent their deaths, therefore it has to be a part of his plan.

I heard that one too.
It's also impossible for God to be loving because he lets bad things happen.
To bad we have no proof that the Garden of Eden existed.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

There is no evil in our actions if it was not intended.
You can never do something evil unless you wanted to.

You are considering bad things as evil.

Are they not? If someone intends to make money, but does not intend to do evil...then they are now open to do anything they want to get money, regardless of how bad it is? They are not evil? They are not intending to do evil, so they are not evil by your reasoning.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Because God did nothing to prevent their deaths, therefore it has to be a part of his plan.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Koldo]

Are they not? If someone intends to make money, but does not intend to do evil...then they are now open to do anything they want to get money, regardless of how bad it is? They are not evil? They are not intending to do evil, so they are not evil by your reasoning.

Bad may be used as a synonym to evil sometimes, but not always, that is what i am saying. You are considering a wide range of bad things as evil.

It is evil if there is intended harm, and so on. Nobody will ever do evil unless they wanted to.

In your example, what are those people going to do to get money?

You're putting the cart before the horse.

:sarcastic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are they not? If someone intends to make money, but does not intend to do evil...then they are now open to do anything they want to get money, regardless of how bad it is? They are not evil? They are not intending to do evil, so they are not evil by your reasoning.

How do you know that they're not intending to do evil? You just said they'd be willing to do anything to get money; they wouldn't be willing to do evil to get it?

Simply deciding to leave yourself open to any action without concern about whether it's good or bad isn't evil per se; it's amoral. Whether the person commits evil depends on what actions result from that "umbrella" decision.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God is our Heavenly Father. Father means life giver Not life taker.

God gave Adam the gift of life.
Adam knew disobedience meant his death.
So Adam, not God, passed down death to us.

Solomon wrote that time and chance or unforeseen occurrences befall all.
-Ecc 9v11.

If God were at fault then there would be no reason for Jesus wanting us to draw close to God. [James 4v8].

Because God sent Jesus we have the hope of being re-united with loved ones. And seeing the fulfillment of Hebrews 2v14 B that Jesus will destroy Satan, and our last enemy 'death' will be brought to nothing.
1st Cor 15v26; Isaiah 25v8; Acts 24v15.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

How do you know that they're not intending to do evil? You just said they'd be willing to do anything to get money; they wouldn't be willing to do evil to get it?

I put forth in the definition that they are not intending to do evil. But I think that it is possible to do evil without intending to, or even whilst intending to do good. Does that make the person evil? Their actions evil? Or both?

Simply deciding to leave yourself open to any action without concern about whether it's good or bad isn't evil per se; it's amoral. Whether the person commits evil depends on what actions result from that "umbrella" decision.

I agree with that.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Bad may be used as a synonym to evil sometimes, but not always, that is what i am saying. You are considering a wide range of bad things as evil.

You have made the distinction that evil is intended, I get that. Bad is...what then? Undesirable consequences?

It is evil if there is intended harm, and so on. Nobody will ever do evil unless they wanted to.

But circumstances sometimes do not allow us to do what want.