What's wrong with those people who deify a man?

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes. Do you see them praying to Muhammad as if he can respond to peoples prayers? No, Muslims does not want people fall into believing that Muhammad or any other human who walked this earth can respond to peoples prayers.

Ironically, many Muslims have taken not deifing Muhammad to heart so much that they don't even want others to draw Muhammad. Despite the fact that those people are not worshipping Muhammad at all.
Totes consistent, I'm sure. No cognitive dissonance at all. Nothing to see here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Huh? Since when?

Think about it. A tree, is a tree, is a tree. If no humans existed, a tree would still be a tree not a god nor have any attributes that would make it god-worthy.

Now that there are humans, some of us see trees as gods (or some spirits, or whatever). Yet, even though a tree is a tree, we project who we are and where we come from from this tree (from nature in general) because that is where we came from. Yet, a tree is still a tree even if they don't believe that tree to be worthy to be called a god.

Gods (however defined) are a reflection of ourselves, or wish to honor, our gratitude, basic psychological need for connection, for some people love, others ritual, and so on. Nothing wrong with that.

It's literally all in our head.

A tree is still a tree but has no deification status without humans to give it to it. Once the tree becomes a god (made worthy of worship), it's still a reflection of how the human wants to relate to the tree. If not, a tree would still be a tree.

It takes two. The object of reflection and the reflection itself.

Kinda like when people call the Eucharist symbolism. Same concept. What's wrong with reflection. It's still a god. Just we're adding humans to the equation of how we give a tree or anything and anyone a god status. Without us, a tree is a tree.

 

[Quintessence]

Think about it. A tree, is a tree, is a tree. If no humans existed, a tree would still be a tree not a god nor have any attributes that would make it god-worthy.

I don't agree. I can't be that anthropocentric. The value and worth of the universe and all things in it is not contingent on humans being around to appraise such values and worth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. Do you see them praying to Muhammad as if he can respond to peoples prayers? No, Muslims does not want people fall into believing that Muhammad or any other human who walked this earth can respond to peoples prayers.

If Muhmmad didn't have a high status, why read the Quran?

If Muhmmad didn't have a high status, why pray towards Mecca? and hopefully expect people to visit there when they are able to as one of the few tenants of the Muslim faith?

If Muhmmad was a regular Joe Smoe, why are people being killed in other countries for "breaking cultural rules" or sent to jail (aunt told me as a travel agent when over to a Muslim country. Women tourist had to be fully covered or they'd be arrested). While in America, christianity does not have that strictness. It's a personal choice. Also, if Christianity today was like Muslims in other countries, we'd be telling Muslims not to cover their head and bodies, we wouldn't have Mosques, and anything related to Muhammad we'd probably destroy (well, kinda like the Church here made someone loose their business because it went against their morals.)

If Muhammad wasn't put up high, there'd be no need for any prophets and him to have special respect of PBUH. As an everyday Joe Smoe, you'd just write or type his name just like every other person. However, like christians upper case Christ or call him Yeshewah for respect, so do Muslims have their way of honoring Muhammad at a high standard.

The only think that Christians and Muslims don't have in common when deifying Christ and Muhmmad is Muslims don't pray to Muhammad and they don't see him as a creator. However, you do deify him. No problem with that. You don't have to be an all mighty creator to be deified.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't agree. I can't be that anthropocentric. The value and worth of the universe and all things in it is not contingent on humans being around to appraise such values and worth.

Things can't have value or worth (no tree is talking to a roach and saying how worthy they are to be plants and insects-well, I don't think) without humans giving them that status.

Nothing wrong with humans, though. That's a christian mindset "that of man" type of talk. But it doesn't belittle that a tree is a tree, we are just acknowledging that we are not the center of the universe. So, like people come to terms with belief in god is a reflection of them, other gods are not exempt from this "rule." Just people like to focus on Christians.

I mean, I don't deify nature and that doesn't mean just because I see trees and rivers as trees and rivers I see them just as anything else. I'm just saying the world doesn't revolve around me. I appreciate what a tree, well, for me water, what a river and ocean is for what it is. That Zen-appreciation without attaching deified words to it makes me less concerned with bowing and worshiping and more concerned with living with and learning from. It's saying "hey, I'm not putting you above others because everyone is on the same level."

I'm not a worshiper and don't have the high reverence that I single out from everyday life. When I do, I loose my freedom of creativity and confined in a box. So, if I think of a tree as something more than what it is, I'm limiting it. If I think of it as what it is without my deifying it, I can take care of the tree however I want without needing to bow down and kiss it.

Kinda understand?

Take your time, lol.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can't be that anthropocentric.

Humans, in general, do have a tendency to be anthropocentric. And, yes, a tree is a tree. Without the animals it shades and feeds, without the tiny creatures who dwell in it, without other life forms to breathe in its oxygen, a tree doesn't have much value. They have such value because they are very important to us. The universe, on the other hand, couldn't care less about a tree. We may even be the only planet to have something like them.

The value and worth of the universe and all things in it is not contingent on humans being around to appraise such values and worth.

A puddle of water can either be nothing more than a puddle, or to a gazelle it can be salvation during a drought and have lots of importance. The sun keeps us warm, provides us with life, and helps to sustain life, but does it have any real importance or significance in other systems that can only see our sun as just one of the many billions and billions of other stars?

 

[Quintessence]

Kinda understand?

No. But it also sounds like you have some background assumptions going on about what it means to value or worship something that I do not share nor practice. Understanding that all things have intrinsic value that is independent from assessors doesn't mean one is putting something on a pedestal.

@Shadow Wolf - it sounds to me like you are talking about instrumental value. I am not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. But it also sounds like you have some background assumptions going on about what it means to value or worship something that I do not share nor practice. Understanding that all things have intrinsic value that is independent from assessors doesn't mean one is putting something on a pedestal.

If that be the case, we'd have no religion and no spiritual practice. Being on a pedestal and worship doesnt mean you bow down and kiss the object or person you may or may not worship. It just means by your classes, labeling yourself by a religious title, doing things in the name of your faith (or so called edit or so any other name you'd rather name it), and even saying "I do not wish to share" is, like a relationship I don't share the intimate stuff, we do separate what we value (with specific things) and those we value in another extent.

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying you are defining worship like abrahamic faiths. Just that's what we grown up around. Just saying that you do have a religion (however called), you do have practices, you do have gods, and you do withhold information that would probably go in our ears and out the other but because it is personal and it is your relationship (however defined) in your faith, you don't share it.

That's what I mean by "putting on a pedestol." All religions I know and read about have it. It's showing gratitude for life, living, learning, and appreciation.

But my point is, this all has to do with humans. A tree doesn't define its own morals and everything I mentioned above unless you believe there is actually a spirit that is or in the tree that does this. That's a different story. If you don't, then you are literally giving gods you believe in (as being called, well, gods) a value and making them worthy of worship (however you define it).

Nothing wrong with that. Just saying that if humans didn't exist, a tree would be a tree. Doesn't make it less special. Just calling it what it is without attaching anything to it that it doesn't know or attach about itself without us being here to make up the values and words to define worship in the general sense of the word.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Quintessence things, nature, and people have value because we assign value to it. We devalue something by cutting down trees to make cities to agreeing to the death penalty. However, if humans weren't here (so we'd have no words to use that sounds more respectful), in a blunt sense, @Shadow Wolf is right that the sun does give us heat, and trees oxygen, so (my words) we can call it value but what is that without the word value? It has a function, yes. We appreciate that function even enough for many to call them gods-but many are humans.

Unless you believe sun and moon et cetera are actual people (beings, spirits, whoever) that can assign value to is relationship to a given other thing or being, it is what it is. I know that sounds cold, but remember, it's human words. What I say may have less value to you because it sounds cold but to me, it's how I described in the first reply to you. Gives me freedom because its simple.

If it were not from humans, they would be just words. If humans didn't assign value, I should be free to share about my prayers and experiences just as anyone else. We have personal choices not to. Does the sun have this? The moon? Does it need to have personal choices of have values to be valuable to humans?

Ima say it:

Does a human need to be god in order to value the status or personhood of who that human is?

Does a sun need to be a god in order to value in the status of its personhood of what the sun is?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Shadow Wolf - it sounds to me like you are talking about instrumental value. I am not.

Just want to comment, the sun, for example, has both instrumental and instrinsic value (had to look it up).

For example, we need the sun to live. So sometimes we have ways to bring sun to light our homes, water plants, and so forth. It's valuable because of how we use it.

The sun is also an intrinsic value because in and of itself, it gives heat for us to live. We don't need to be here to know that heat brings life. So it is valuable in and of itself.

However, the word value is a nice term for something that is pretty blunt. The former, we assign value to it because of how we use to a said object; its benefit. The latter doesn't have to have a value (or importance) for it to function. The earth turns and the sun "rises and falls" on its own accord in relation to other things. So, the latter is more about relationship. The former is about benefits whether we see it as money giving us a sports car or giving offerings. The latter, it's alright to see value in and of itself (the sun). My point is, that thought and assignment comes from us. It's our definition of the word. Without language and ourselves here, what exactly is the sun?

 

[Quintessence]

I don't know what to say. You're free to your own perspectives on these issues, @Carlita, but I feel like I'm being lectured at rather than listened to. This discussion is way off-topic, and the assumption train has gotten so long that I don't know how to get it back on the track. If you want to bring this back around to the topic of autotheism, that's fine, but otherwise I don't know how to comment further.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not sure I want to play this game with you. You made the claim - it's on you to prove that all gods with NO exceptions were created by human men (no women allowed!) and are psychological projections. Which is tantamount to needing to prove that the entire universe and all of reality is a psychological projection of male minds. Good luck.

But this is off-topic. No need to play the game at all here.

"Man," is a general term often used to refer to all of humanity. This is how I was using it. As for examples of gods that don't fall into my definition, you're the one who said there were many obvious examples. If you don't want to supply them, that's fine, but I"m not aware of them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know what to say. You're free to your own perspectives on these issues, @Carlita, but I feel like I'm being lectured at rather than listened to. This discussion is way off-topic, and the assumption train has gotten so long that I don't know how to get it back on the track. If you want to bring this back around to the topic of autotheism, that's fine, but otherwise I don't know how to comment further.

I write long posts. The basic gist is we put value on the sun because the sun gives us heat. The sun has it's on "value" because it gives heat without us being there. When we deify something, it is called a god. When we have religions by giving honor to things of value, it's called worship. When we worship, it becomes something important to us. When it is important, we single it out as unique. Nothing wrong with that.

I just think the difference is I don't use words or acronyms in my sentences to denote respect. Capitalize proper nouns but that's about it.

The @Carlita doesn't work on my computer for some reason. Probably a bug. I get quotes faster but sometimes they don't go through either.

Also, what is autotheism?

What's wrong with deifying a man? Nothing. Nothing is wrong with deifying anything. Just wondering about how you approached your answers not your belief specifically.

 

[sovietchild]

By "Russian" I'm assuming you mean Russian Orthodoxy.

The point nonetheless is that your knowledge of Christianity is non-existent. Don't you think that as a result of your ignorance your picture of Christianity, yet alone Buddhism, may be somewhat distorted?

No of course not, you lack the self-awareness.


Mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is God become man, not the other way around. Jesus was never deified because Jesus was always God. John 1:1-2, John 1:14

Saints are not deities, they are individuals whom the Church sets before the faithful as exemplars of Christian virtue. The saints, believed to be directly before God in Heaven are venerated. Just as you can ask another human being to help you accomplish a task, you can ask the saints for their help in living a good Christian life. Death is no barrier to this, because it is God's will for them to intercede for us. You do not cease to exist at death, there is no "lying in the grave" in orthodox Christianity.


Depends on the Church and rite. And no one commits to celibacy simply to be unique.


And now you've become incoherent.

Jesus walked this earth and consumed energy. Does God need to walk the earth and consume energy?

 

[loveendures]

In Russian for example, they have pictures of Jesus, Mary and other high ranked saints in churches, so, people go to churches and pray to them. In Thailand, it’s very much similar practice, they have pictures or statues of Buddha and other high ranked individuals who walked this earth and passed away long time ago, people usually decorate those pictures with offerings. In Rome, just like in Russia and Thailand they have pictures of a man they deifying and other high ranked saints who served the club in churches.

So, what is wrong with those people who deify a man? I think the reason they deify a man is because they want to be defied also. They think that “if they can be worshiped, I can be worshiped”. And, so they join the club thinking they have a chance to be worshiped. A human who wants other humans to worship him. Classical. Is it not?

Another thing that is very similar about those religious clubs is that all of the high rankers has to be single and has to abstain from sexual activities, as if they are the unique ones. It looks like to me, they want to be the fashioners and promote the fashion around the world. They want to be the inspirers of faith, the sources of peace, the shapers of beauty, the unique and the single ones, the rich ones, the everlasting ones and the makers of order. They think that they can archive the level of “The Responder of Prayer”. It’s like imitating God. Right? Allah is The Responder of Prayer. Allah is The Unique, The Single. Allah is The Fashioner and the Maker of Order.

 

[loveendures]

Who are you to define others beliefs? They may see or experience God through images. You think your religion is all clean ?

 

[sovietchild]

Who are you to define others beliefs? They may see or experience God through images. You think your religion is all clean ?

My religion teaches me that the closest rank to God is knowledge.

What is wrong with those religions who tell others that one can reach the level of The Wise one - The One, The Indivisible?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Shadow Wolf - it sounds to me like you are talking about instrumental value. I am not.

Though I typically use the word extrinsic value, it is what I am talking about. In the overall grand scheme of things, we have an intrinsic link with all life and the Earth, but that doesn't mean our Earthly things have any value beyond life on Earth. The Earth could be blown up today, and beyond the inner solar circle the impact would probably be negligible. Sucks for us, but any hypothetical life on Saturn probably won't even notice.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Recognizing the gods through nature isn't it all being "in our head," though. This assumes that animals don't also know the gods, yet in many religions they do as well. It's far from a "human" thing.

 

[Glaurung]

Jesus walked this earth and consumed energy. Does God need to walk the earth and consume energy?

Can God not walk the very earth he created? Why is the idea that God would choose to incarnate into his very creation so frightening to you?

Oh, I know. Because of Islamic presuppositions which you're going to assume everyone else ought to take for granted simply because you happen to. It may be a revelation for you, but others do not share your religious presuppositions.