Tuesday, July 31, 2007
imelnychenko wrote today at 2:03 PM"actually, it is my wife who betrayed meBetrayed you how? I understand extramarital relationship is a key to keep our marriage, it's paradoxical though, please don't expect anything when she is out of your sight.beating my kid when angry with my wifeIt's absurd. Please don't beat your beloved kids." -it's not about me, I dont have my family, it's how I was tought to diagnose the psychiatric disorders in my med school.
paji2 wrote today at 2:00 AM
mercedo saidapparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc. Yes, that is an argument many times put forth by men, but it is refuted by Apostle Paul (among others) who clearly states, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression." (1 Tim 2:14 NKJ). Further, in Romans 5:12, he unequivocally proclaims, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world and, death through sin .." For some reason, these scriptures seem to escape those wanting to keep the blame for man's downfall on the woman! :)
mercedo saidapparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc. Yes, that is an argument many times put forth by men, but it is refuted by Apostle Paul (among others) who clearly states, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression." (1 Tim 2:14 NKJ). Further, in Romans 5:12, he unequivocally proclaims, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world and, death through sin .." For some reason, these scriptures seem to escape those wanting to keep the blame for man's downfall on the woman! :)
paji2 wrote today at 2:07 AM
mercedo saidI want to think those images are an appearance of their hidden repentance. You are too soft-hearted :)In the South (of the US) - especially in Arkansas - and even throughout the other states, you will find, what I fondly call "Bathtub Madonnas" - a statue of Mary, sometimes with sometimes without Jesus, set inside a half-buried old bathtub.In most cases it is not an expression of loving belief, rather a "show-and-tell" to prove how good a Christian the house owner is .. lol
Re:Ahura Mazda(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.31 1:27 (#20044081) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:56)
Ra the god of sun, Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, Brahman in Hinduism are all precedent to Moses monotheism.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.31 1:27 (#20044081) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:56)
Ra the god of sun, Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, Brahman in Hinduism are all precedent to Moses monotheism.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Ahura Mazda(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.31 1:22 (#20043999) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:56)
Is Tetragrammaton used in Catholic tradition? This is not used in Greek Scriptures.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.31 1:22 (#20043999) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:56)
Is Tetragrammaton used in Catholic tradition? This is not used in Greek Scriptures.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:If you understand their form of Islam(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.31 1:14 (#20043869) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:56)
Antiochus Epiphanes forced Jews to worship statue of Zeus in Jewish temple in his reign -175 -163 BC. The name of highest God Zeus was later adopted by Romans as the name of Christian God, and phonetically changed form Deus has been used traditionally in Roman Catholic Church. I should have written Deus to avoid misunderstanding.
there is no God but Allah
Allah means simply one God, al=one, lah=God.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.31 1:14 (#20043869) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:56)
Antiochus Epiphanes forced Jews to worship statue of Zeus in Jewish temple in his reign -175 -163 BC. The name of highest God Zeus was later adopted by Romans as the name of Christian God, and phonetically changed form Deus has been used traditionally in Roman Catholic Church. I should have written Deus to avoid misunderstanding.
there is no God but Allah
Allah means simply one God, al=one, lah=God.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
mercedo wrote today at 12:53 AMThanks for your profound comment, but I seemed to understand it or not to..not sure.
mercedo wrote today at 12:46 AMThe answer is: no.
I guess his disorder subsided slowly and he felt a kind of guilt and a need to protect his ego
actually, it is my wife who betrayed me
Betrayed you how? I understand extramarital relationship is a key to keep our marriage, it's paradoxical though, please don't expect anything when she is out of your sight.
beating my kid when angry with my wife
It's absurd. Please don't beat your beloved kids.
I guess his disorder subsided slowly and he felt a kind of guilt and a need to protect his ego
actually, it is my wife who betrayed me
Betrayed you how? I understand extramarital relationship is a key to keep our marriage, it's paradoxical though, please don't expect anything when she is out of your sight.
beating my kid when angry with my wife
It's absurd. Please don't beat your beloved kids.
mercedo wrote today at 12:30 AM
ullangoo saidI think it's more likely that he put the statue there in order to convince other people that he was a good Christian. This is most likely. If so, he was a wicked person. And the second likely case is a work of art and a good investment. If so, he was just a cold-blooded person.
ullangoo saidI think it's more likely that he put the statue there in order to convince other people that he was a good Christian. This is most likely. If so, he was a wicked person. And the second likely case is a work of art and a good investment. If so, he was just a cold-blooded person.
mercedo wrote today at 12:23 AMBut this statue was Maria with an infant Christ..
Many statues, images or dolls are made in memory of the dead. The image of Cherubim probably shows a baby's sleeping face who was stillborn for some reason. Kokeshi dolls, that imitate the image of a girl's face, are used to eliminate a baby just before it appears from vagina. I want to think those images are an appearance of their hidden repentance.
Many statues, images or dolls are made in memory of the dead. The image of Cherubim probably shows a baby's sleeping face who was stillborn for some reason. Kokeshi dolls, that imitate the image of a girl's face, are used to eliminate a baby just before it appears from vagina. I want to think those images are an appearance of their hidden repentance.
Polytheistic reality in Monotheism
Jul 28, '07 12:57 PMfor everyone
There are many Monotheistic faiths which hold only one God. Those feature is similar. He is absolute and omnipotent being. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. Are they all the same God whose names only differ or are they all different Gods who claim to be only one God?
Tags: monotheism
Prev: Repent, the end is nigh
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28First, are any of these REALLY monotheistic to begin with? Just about all of these recognize angels and saints. What Christians call an angel another (polytheistic) religion might refer to as a "lesser" god, a saint would be called a demi-god. It's just a matter of semantics.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer, Azazel, Seraphim, Cherubim...
I meant many monotheistic Gods in the title 'polytheistic reality' , but in fact there are many supernatural beings in a description of Bible and their relationship to only one God is very obscure. Some are called God in Bible.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidSome are called God in Bible. I believe you will find that Satan for example, is called "god" - Only the Father - at least in the Bibles I have, is called "God", with a capital "G". :)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's not important as to whether we use capital G or not in God. God in Bible is a proper noun, though 'god' might be an ordinary noun.
So could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? Basically I use NIV and in there for example Genesis 32:22-31, it says Jacob struggles with God. this God is not YHWH, but some supernatural being like an Angel.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
mercedo saidSo could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? New King James, Jerusalem, Goodspeed, New World, King James - Czech translation, King James - Romanian translation.In the account you give, true, it was an angel - some believe it was Jesus in his heavenly form but that is beside the point.There are many instances where there is a representative of God - but is spoken of as "God", since he fully stands in for him.The G-g is an important difference, not merely grammatically but it gives the sense of whether this particular one is a "true" or "false" god.Therefore, Satan is "a god of this world", not "God of this world".Forgot Moffatt's translation :)
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It largely depends on your particular interpretation of what angels and saints are and what their relationship is to us and to God.Some Catholics or other Christians would certainly pray to saints or even angels (or invoke them in some way), and you would have a point. However, many others would be horrified at the idea because of the injunction of the commandment to not have any other gods before God, and would also vehemently deny that saints or angels are divine themselves. So praying to a saint or invoking them would be blasphemous or heretical -- or at the very least theologically iffy.This is, for example, one bone of contention between most Christians and Roman Catholics -- the Marian cult, where the Virgin Mary is in effect treated as virtually godlike in her own right (from our non-Roman Catholic point of view). From the point of view of most Christians, she was a mere human being -- a particularly blessed and chosen human being, but still a human being more or less like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has elevated her to near-divine status, such as claiming she was born without sin, etc.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I wonder how the interpretation is very similar however vary the denominations the Protestant has. You used to make a comment that Nietzsche's criticism was done in Protestant's understanding of Bible. If he knew Roman Catholicism, did he stop criticising Christianity in general?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28I don't know if Nietzsche would have stopped criticizing Christianity had be been more familiar with Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican thinking, but certainly the basis for the criticism he leveled at it wouldn't have been there or wouldn't have been anywhere as strong. Whether he would have had other things to criticize is open to speculation.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28During the Mughal Empire in India, Emperor Akbar (who was of course a Muslim) held Hinduism to be basically monotheistic, because all divinities and all creatures were held to exist within one ultimate reality. And as the Sufi Muslims say, "It's not that there is no God but Allah; it's that there is nothing except Allah".How could Akbar be wrong?
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's interesting to see he thought one ultimate reality is monotheistic God as if everything depends on interpretation.
reply
controlgroup wrote on Jul 28I like the sufi muslim saying. If you're gonna be religious, that's the way to go. It's kinda zen like.But I'm an atheist, so I'd ask a different question. I'd ask how mankind constructs these images and what the similarities say about that construction. Do we always choose certain concepts? Or is it that we plagiarise? The bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts, and christianity is stolen from mithraism. All the judeo-Xtian religions are the same, but they don't look at all like (say) the hindu gods. But the Hindu gods do look somewhat similar to the Ancient Thai and Chinese gods, and China happens to be only a thousand miles or so away.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
controlgroup saidThe bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts This is very correct, you knew that? Basically today many Hebrew Scriptures were thought to be edited around the period of Babylonian captivity. I'm not sure as to the latter part of your comment. I am not well versed in those beliefs, but I think Chinese gods are directly adopted from Hinduism.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28OK, I am a bit puzzled by the "Zeus in Catholicism" - last I knew, Zeus was a Greek god and Jesus was venerated by the Catholics almost over His Father ..??
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Traditionally the name of monotheistic God in Judaism was YHWH, but since Jewsish states were ruled under both Ptlemaic 323 -198 and Selucid 198 - 166, they started calling their only one God as Zeus, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid king 175 -163 forced Jewish people to worship Greek God Zeus in Jewish temple. 63 BC, Jewish states were finally annexed by Romans. Roman Catholicism adopted the name of Greek highest God as Jewish monotheistic God. Zeus was changed phonetically in Deus, and later it came to the origin of Theos, God in Greek, and Deitas, God in Latin. Theism and deity are from Zeus etymologically.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidTheism and deity are from Zeus etymologically. May it ever be so - you just try to go into a Catholic church and start praying and worshiping Zeus! That - to me - is comparable to call your friends "Monkey" or "Chimp" - because a theory has it we evolved from them.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 8:18 AMIndeed I haven't got a friend who are called monkey, etc..anyway..aside from the joke..You see God is an absolute being, but when it comes to his name it's not absolute.We usually think Yahweh is the name of God in Judaism, Lord is the name of God in Christianity, Allah is the name of God in Islam, Zeus is the name of God in Greek mythology and all are true.
Allah means only one God so in Islamic countries there's no only one God other than Allah, probably therefore Christians in Islamic countries call their God Allah, did you know that? Allah is the name of God for Muslims and for Christians in Islamic countries. Likewise the case of the use of Zeus is similar to it.
Francisco Xavier along with Ignatius Loyola formed Jesuit Order in 1534 and started a missionary worldwide. Xavier came to Japan in 1549 and started preaching work there. He is Roman Catholic and the name of God called among Japanese Catholic those days is Deus, phonetically changed but apparently derived from the word Zeus. In 1614, the preaching work of Catholic in Japan was totally banned but till that time the number of Catholic believers are 650,000, more than today's Catholic believers in Japan that is 450,000.
The name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though.
reply
paji2 wrote today at 9:28 AM
mercedo saidThe name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though. I do not know why you would hesitate. Not too long ago - some 40 years - Latin was used exclusively in Roman Catholic churches world wide. We had to learn many phrases to be able to respond to the priest. And, since "deus" is Latin word meaning "god" - it would be quite proper to use it.I think that we - that is people, Christians, believers etc - are getting too hung up on the name. If (a biggie!) we accept the Bible as the "Word of God", then by far more important is doing what it says - and "Lord" (the Hebrews used "Adonoi") should be permitted.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Zeus comes from *diwos pitar = father of gods (in Latin it became Jupiter). Theos and deus are related to *diwos, which is Sanskrit (Hindi devi/deva). Deus is NOT derived from Zeus, and neither is theos or deity or theism or anything. Theos and deus both mean (a) god. Linguistically speaking - and this has nothing to do with the age of the texts - deus is the older form. You got it totally wrong.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Thanks, Ullangoo....Here I accept a linguist's commentary.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28You're welcome.Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This three-in-one God is the only non-created being and therefore the only one worshipped. Whatever you call angels and blah-blah, they are parts of creation and essentially different from God.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I see. There is an optimal interpretation in understanding the description of Bible. your understanding seems to be so, so I embrace this most acceptable one. God refers to only one monotheistic absolute being, and 'god' includes many other spirits.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28At least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots.As for other religions, arguably yes, they do worship the same Godhead in differing ways. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in the Catholic tradition essentially argue as much in between the lines (though you have to pick apart the teachings to get the meaning, but it is definitely there in Dominus Iesus -- other belief systems are described as "defective", but they are also clearly described as being possible ways to salvation, i.e. they "point" to the same Godhead, if you will).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Ok, I value your idea. But many believers think very differently. They hardly imagined all Gods are the same. How can you persuade them? Are you going to say, ' If we've got only one God, it must be the same.' ?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It just depends on the believer. Some people are going to be bigoted pinheads no matter what you do.But actually many are quite happy with the idea. Indeed it is the basis of a lot of the dialog between religions, such as that with the Pope and Anglican Church or other interfaith dialog. And Islam, for example, explicitly recognizes monotheistic faiths as being more legitimate than others, particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, so they don't need much convincing, either (though they get annoyed by the concept of the Holy Trinity, which they view as contradicting their strict interpretation of monotheism).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. While I understand each of these religions proclaims to worship the God of Abraham, as an outside observer looking in it's no so clear to me that is actually the case :P
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28You could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidYou could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred Indeed. What is up with those Mormons? ;-P
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. I prefers to say it not because they evolved from the same roots. But as a consequences of monotheism it self.If we say there only one God, -- one and only one -- and others people say it too. Then there is a consequences that, It is the same God.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think we can rest assured that Chinese religion evolved independently of Hinduism. For one thing, the former is considerably older. There is, I think, some fairly late influence via Buddhism.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:14 AMAs far as I know, there are three streams in Chinese religions. Taoism and Confucianism are very Chinese proper but Chinese Buddhism is of course from India. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Laozi, Confucious, Gautama had lived almost the same period circa 5 BC. The history of Hinduism is much older than them.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Ethelred, your thoughts are interesting.I think we have three possibilities. 1) we believe that there's only one God and that people who haven't received the true revelation nevertheless seek Him, hence worship Him as well as they can; 2) people without the revelation worship demons; 3) there may or may not be one God, but all religions are made by humans, and which you follow makes no difference. I opt for 3) - being fairly sure there is a God.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28In ancient times, polytheism was the overwhelming way of understanding of the heavens, only rarely and sometimes very briefly did true monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, perhaps around the 10th century BC. Vast portions of the world's population today, on the order of 1/3 of them, still adhere to polytheistic traditions - Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Daoism, Animism, the folk religions of Asia (especially China), etc. Billions of people still follow polytheistic religions, they never ever went away.Given that the vast majority of the human experience, historically, is polytheism, and a significant portion of the human experience today remains so, why should we believe monotheism to be correct? The only basis for it is that nations that adopted monotheism conquered, crushed and vanquished polytheistic religions - might made right. Was their ability to conquer aided by divine grace, a sort of White Man's Burden? Then how to explain the collapse and retreat of these same conquering nations? What happened to Britain and France to cause them to lose their Empire, if God gave it to them in the first place? Casting might makes right in the light of religion leads to all sorts of ugly questions...To say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call.Personally I have to go with either the polytheistic world view, or the view that there are no gods at all and it's all a big hoax.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28Actually, a number of apparently "polythestic" religions are actually arguably ultimately monotheistic. Hinduism, for example, has one Godhead, and all its gods proceed from that one Godhead. It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. So while Hinduism is technically "polytheistic", it is also just as well monotheistic because all its gods ultimately had one origin. Other religions have a similar framework.The mere fact that they now have multiple gods doesn't mean much. You have to look at their background stories to understand them and see the commonalities.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:37 AM
infinitemonkey said It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. I hadn't noticed the similarity to Catholic Trinity.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidTo say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call. This is right on. We are just hypocrites when we say both that people should realize they can't know the ultimate, and at the same time we insist they believe certain concepts about the ultimate. Actually only one of these statements is true -- that we don't know. My fellow Muslims should get this: Belief that God is beyond anything we can comprehend means we do not know. So, we cannot presume to to have "the right" ideas about God, or dictate "God's will" to anybody. It's just our own will, and we are just pretending that we are the voice of the ultimate. What could be more sacrilegious than that?
reply
mercedo wrote today at 10:16 AM
eglamkowski saidtrue monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, Ra the God of Sun, Ahura Mazda were the first attempt to monotheism probably prior to Moses. It might be easier to believe one God in the sun, because there's only sun in the sky. It might be harder to conceptualise the notion of God in Ahura Mazda type, which characterise goodness in more ideological way.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Personally, I see all the different gods as different aspects of Someone greater than my understanding. I've no quarrel with those who see them as actually different "persons". Just a matter of opinion. It's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:30 AM
ullangoo saidIt's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off. Agreed.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Do you think it went that way historically speaking? I'd say they started with several gods (totemism, animism) and that the unity or origin is religious philosophy. Of course, if we're talking about how they think NOW, it doesn't make any difference how they got there.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Hey, we're all only part way to realizing how all of life is interrelated, that our acts have consequences for every creature, that we all have a common origen and destiny, etc. We're just a little ways toward waking up.
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28Mer...Do god and God have deferent meaning to you? If we believe just in One GOD then it could be just matter of language. In my native language god mean 'dewa-dewi' -- it's include Zeus, Apollo, Venus, Vishnu (Wisnu), Shiva (Shiwa) and Brahma (Brahmana), etc, etc. It vary by culture and language.By my understanding, there is only one God. Allah is my only God.I should presume YHWH, Lord God, as the same person, if we may personalize Him. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him.Trinity is an absurd concept for me. I thinks it's too agnostics. It is Hard to understand, just too hard.Salaam,
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:19 AM
rzks said. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him. So you think if there's only one God, it must be one. Correct? How do you think about this -if there's only one truth, it must be one?
Jul 28, '07 12:57 PMfor everyone
There are many Monotheistic faiths which hold only one God. Those feature is similar. He is absolute and omnipotent being. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. Are they all the same God whose names only differ or are they all different Gods who claim to be only one God?
Tags: monotheism
Prev: Repent, the end is nigh
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28First, are any of these REALLY monotheistic to begin with? Just about all of these recognize angels and saints. What Christians call an angel another (polytheistic) religion might refer to as a "lesser" god, a saint would be called a demi-god. It's just a matter of semantics.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer, Azazel, Seraphim, Cherubim...
I meant many monotheistic Gods in the title 'polytheistic reality' , but in fact there are many supernatural beings in a description of Bible and their relationship to only one God is very obscure. Some are called God in Bible.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidSome are called God in Bible. I believe you will find that Satan for example, is called "god" - Only the Father - at least in the Bibles I have, is called "God", with a capital "G". :)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's not important as to whether we use capital G or not in God. God in Bible is a proper noun, though 'god' might be an ordinary noun.
So could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? Basically I use NIV and in there for example Genesis 32:22-31, it says Jacob struggles with God. this God is not YHWH, but some supernatural being like an Angel.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
mercedo saidSo could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? New King James, Jerusalem, Goodspeed, New World, King James - Czech translation, King James - Romanian translation.In the account you give, true, it was an angel - some believe it was Jesus in his heavenly form but that is beside the point.There are many instances where there is a representative of God - but is spoken of as "God", since he fully stands in for him.The G-g is an important difference, not merely grammatically but it gives the sense of whether this particular one is a "true" or "false" god.Therefore, Satan is "a god of this world", not "God of this world".Forgot Moffatt's translation :)
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It largely depends on your particular interpretation of what angels and saints are and what their relationship is to us and to God.Some Catholics or other Christians would certainly pray to saints or even angels (or invoke them in some way), and you would have a point. However, many others would be horrified at the idea because of the injunction of the commandment to not have any other gods before God, and would also vehemently deny that saints or angels are divine themselves. So praying to a saint or invoking them would be blasphemous or heretical -- or at the very least theologically iffy.This is, for example, one bone of contention between most Christians and Roman Catholics -- the Marian cult, where the Virgin Mary is in effect treated as virtually godlike in her own right (from our non-Roman Catholic point of view). From the point of view of most Christians, she was a mere human being -- a particularly blessed and chosen human being, but still a human being more or less like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has elevated her to near-divine status, such as claiming she was born without sin, etc.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I wonder how the interpretation is very similar however vary the denominations the Protestant has. You used to make a comment that Nietzsche's criticism was done in Protestant's understanding of Bible. If he knew Roman Catholicism, did he stop criticising Christianity in general?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28I don't know if Nietzsche would have stopped criticizing Christianity had be been more familiar with Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican thinking, but certainly the basis for the criticism he leveled at it wouldn't have been there or wouldn't have been anywhere as strong. Whether he would have had other things to criticize is open to speculation.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28During the Mughal Empire in India, Emperor Akbar (who was of course a Muslim) held Hinduism to be basically monotheistic, because all divinities and all creatures were held to exist within one ultimate reality. And as the Sufi Muslims say, "It's not that there is no God but Allah; it's that there is nothing except Allah".How could Akbar be wrong?
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's interesting to see he thought one ultimate reality is monotheistic God as if everything depends on interpretation.
reply
controlgroup wrote on Jul 28I like the sufi muslim saying. If you're gonna be religious, that's the way to go. It's kinda zen like.But I'm an atheist, so I'd ask a different question. I'd ask how mankind constructs these images and what the similarities say about that construction. Do we always choose certain concepts? Or is it that we plagiarise? The bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts, and christianity is stolen from mithraism. All the judeo-Xtian religions are the same, but they don't look at all like (say) the hindu gods. But the Hindu gods do look somewhat similar to the Ancient Thai and Chinese gods, and China happens to be only a thousand miles or so away.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
controlgroup saidThe bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts This is very correct, you knew that? Basically today many Hebrew Scriptures were thought to be edited around the period of Babylonian captivity. I'm not sure as to the latter part of your comment. I am not well versed in those beliefs, but I think Chinese gods are directly adopted from Hinduism.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28OK, I am a bit puzzled by the "Zeus in Catholicism" - last I knew, Zeus was a Greek god and Jesus was venerated by the Catholics almost over His Father ..??
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Traditionally the name of monotheistic God in Judaism was YHWH, but since Jewsish states were ruled under both Ptlemaic 323 -198 and Selucid 198 - 166, they started calling their only one God as Zeus, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid king 175 -163 forced Jewish people to worship Greek God Zeus in Jewish temple. 63 BC, Jewish states were finally annexed by Romans. Roman Catholicism adopted the name of Greek highest God as Jewish monotheistic God. Zeus was changed phonetically in Deus, and later it came to the origin of Theos, God in Greek, and Deitas, God in Latin. Theism and deity are from Zeus etymologically.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidTheism and deity are from Zeus etymologically. May it ever be so - you just try to go into a Catholic church and start praying and worshiping Zeus! That - to me - is comparable to call your friends "Monkey" or "Chimp" - because a theory has it we evolved from them.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 8:18 AMIndeed I haven't got a friend who are called monkey, etc..anyway..aside from the joke..You see God is an absolute being, but when it comes to his name it's not absolute.We usually think Yahweh is the name of God in Judaism, Lord is the name of God in Christianity, Allah is the name of God in Islam, Zeus is the name of God in Greek mythology and all are true.
Allah means only one God so in Islamic countries there's no only one God other than Allah, probably therefore Christians in Islamic countries call their God Allah, did you know that? Allah is the name of God for Muslims and for Christians in Islamic countries. Likewise the case of the use of Zeus is similar to it.
Francisco Xavier along with Ignatius Loyola formed Jesuit Order in 1534 and started a missionary worldwide. Xavier came to Japan in 1549 and started preaching work there. He is Roman Catholic and the name of God called among Japanese Catholic those days is Deus, phonetically changed but apparently derived from the word Zeus. In 1614, the preaching work of Catholic in Japan was totally banned but till that time the number of Catholic believers are 650,000, more than today's Catholic believers in Japan that is 450,000.
The name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though.
reply
paji2 wrote today at 9:28 AM
mercedo saidThe name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though. I do not know why you would hesitate. Not too long ago - some 40 years - Latin was used exclusively in Roman Catholic churches world wide. We had to learn many phrases to be able to respond to the priest. And, since "deus" is Latin word meaning "god" - it would be quite proper to use it.I think that we - that is people, Christians, believers etc - are getting too hung up on the name. If (a biggie!) we accept the Bible as the "Word of God", then by far more important is doing what it says - and "Lord" (the Hebrews used "Adonoi") should be permitted.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Zeus comes from *diwos pitar = father of gods (in Latin it became Jupiter). Theos and deus are related to *diwos, which is Sanskrit (Hindi devi/deva). Deus is NOT derived from Zeus, and neither is theos or deity or theism or anything. Theos and deus both mean (a) god. Linguistically speaking - and this has nothing to do with the age of the texts - deus is the older form. You got it totally wrong.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Thanks, Ullangoo....Here I accept a linguist's commentary.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28You're welcome.Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This three-in-one God is the only non-created being and therefore the only one worshipped. Whatever you call angels and blah-blah, they are parts of creation and essentially different from God.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I see. There is an optimal interpretation in understanding the description of Bible. your understanding seems to be so, so I embrace this most acceptable one. God refers to only one monotheistic absolute being, and 'god' includes many other spirits.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28At least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots.As for other religions, arguably yes, they do worship the same Godhead in differing ways. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in the Catholic tradition essentially argue as much in between the lines (though you have to pick apart the teachings to get the meaning, but it is definitely there in Dominus Iesus -- other belief systems are described as "defective", but they are also clearly described as being possible ways to salvation, i.e. they "point" to the same Godhead, if you will).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Ok, I value your idea. But many believers think very differently. They hardly imagined all Gods are the same. How can you persuade them? Are you going to say, ' If we've got only one God, it must be the same.' ?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It just depends on the believer. Some people are going to be bigoted pinheads no matter what you do.But actually many are quite happy with the idea. Indeed it is the basis of a lot of the dialog between religions, such as that with the Pope and Anglican Church or other interfaith dialog. And Islam, for example, explicitly recognizes monotheistic faiths as being more legitimate than others, particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, so they don't need much convincing, either (though they get annoyed by the concept of the Holy Trinity, which they view as contradicting their strict interpretation of monotheism).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. While I understand each of these religions proclaims to worship the God of Abraham, as an outside observer looking in it's no so clear to me that is actually the case :P
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28You could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidYou could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred Indeed. What is up with those Mormons? ;-P
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. I prefers to say it not because they evolved from the same roots. But as a consequences of monotheism it self.If we say there only one God, -- one and only one -- and others people say it too. Then there is a consequences that, It is the same God.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think we can rest assured that Chinese religion evolved independently of Hinduism. For one thing, the former is considerably older. There is, I think, some fairly late influence via Buddhism.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:14 AMAs far as I know, there are three streams in Chinese religions. Taoism and Confucianism are very Chinese proper but Chinese Buddhism is of course from India. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Laozi, Confucious, Gautama had lived almost the same period circa 5 BC. The history of Hinduism is much older than them.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Ethelred, your thoughts are interesting.I think we have three possibilities. 1) we believe that there's only one God and that people who haven't received the true revelation nevertheless seek Him, hence worship Him as well as they can; 2) people without the revelation worship demons; 3) there may or may not be one God, but all religions are made by humans, and which you follow makes no difference. I opt for 3) - being fairly sure there is a God.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28In ancient times, polytheism was the overwhelming way of understanding of the heavens, only rarely and sometimes very briefly did true monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, perhaps around the 10th century BC. Vast portions of the world's population today, on the order of 1/3 of them, still adhere to polytheistic traditions - Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Daoism, Animism, the folk religions of Asia (especially China), etc. Billions of people still follow polytheistic religions, they never ever went away.Given that the vast majority of the human experience, historically, is polytheism, and a significant portion of the human experience today remains so, why should we believe monotheism to be correct? The only basis for it is that nations that adopted monotheism conquered, crushed and vanquished polytheistic religions - might made right. Was their ability to conquer aided by divine grace, a sort of White Man's Burden? Then how to explain the collapse and retreat of these same conquering nations? What happened to Britain and France to cause them to lose their Empire, if God gave it to them in the first place? Casting might makes right in the light of religion leads to all sorts of ugly questions...To say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call.Personally I have to go with either the polytheistic world view, or the view that there are no gods at all and it's all a big hoax.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28Actually, a number of apparently "polythestic" religions are actually arguably ultimately monotheistic. Hinduism, for example, has one Godhead, and all its gods proceed from that one Godhead. It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. So while Hinduism is technically "polytheistic", it is also just as well monotheistic because all its gods ultimately had one origin. Other religions have a similar framework.The mere fact that they now have multiple gods doesn't mean much. You have to look at their background stories to understand them and see the commonalities.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:37 AM
infinitemonkey said It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. I hadn't noticed the similarity to Catholic Trinity.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidTo say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call. This is right on. We are just hypocrites when we say both that people should realize they can't know the ultimate, and at the same time we insist they believe certain concepts about the ultimate. Actually only one of these statements is true -- that we don't know. My fellow Muslims should get this: Belief that God is beyond anything we can comprehend means we do not know. So, we cannot presume to to have "the right" ideas about God, or dictate "God's will" to anybody. It's just our own will, and we are just pretending that we are the voice of the ultimate. What could be more sacrilegious than that?
reply
mercedo wrote today at 10:16 AM
eglamkowski saidtrue monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, Ra the God of Sun, Ahura Mazda were the first attempt to monotheism probably prior to Moses. It might be easier to believe one God in the sun, because there's only sun in the sky. It might be harder to conceptualise the notion of God in Ahura Mazda type, which characterise goodness in more ideological way.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Personally, I see all the different gods as different aspects of Someone greater than my understanding. I've no quarrel with those who see them as actually different "persons". Just a matter of opinion. It's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:30 AM
ullangoo saidIt's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off. Agreed.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Do you think it went that way historically speaking? I'd say they started with several gods (totemism, animism) and that the unity or origin is religious philosophy. Of course, if we're talking about how they think NOW, it doesn't make any difference how they got there.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Hey, we're all only part way to realizing how all of life is interrelated, that our acts have consequences for every creature, that we all have a common origen and destiny, etc. We're just a little ways toward waking up.
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28Mer...Do god and God have deferent meaning to you? If we believe just in One GOD then it could be just matter of language. In my native language god mean 'dewa-dewi' -- it's include Zeus, Apollo, Venus, Vishnu (Wisnu), Shiva (Shiwa) and Brahma (Brahmana), etc, etc. It vary by culture and language.By my understanding, there is only one God. Allah is my only God.I should presume YHWH, Lord God, as the same person, if we may personalize Him. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him.Trinity is an absurd concept for me. I thinks it's too agnostics. It is Hard to understand, just too hard.Salaam,
reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:19 AM
rzks said. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him. So you think if there's only one God, it must be one. Correct? How do you think about this -if there's only one truth, it must be one?
Korean Hostages
Jul 27, '07 12:16 PMfor everyone
Out of 23 Korean hostages held by Taliban, one was killed. He was a pastor. I understand Taliban are a group of religious teachers. Do teaches kill a pastor? It's hard to understand.
Tags: hostage, taliban, pastor
Prev: Marriage of InconvenienceNext: Heat Wave
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 27The Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects. Violence and death is all they know and they need to be exterminated like the vermin they are.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 27
eglamkowski saidThe Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects Oh, I see. The Taliban took hostages who came to Afghanistan to help people. Majorities are female.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 27
eglamkowski saidThe Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects. Violence and death is all they know and they need to be exterminated like the vermin they are. I agree, sadly.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27Yes, it's hard to understand. Is it possible that when they threatened to kill one, the pastor volunteered?
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 27If so, he must be a very courageous person. He must be the one who really understood the word of Bible. This is a state of emergency for them and our neighbours. I recall Poseidon adventure.There also a pastor victimised himself.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27
mercedo saidIf so, he must be a very courageous person. He must be the one who really understood the word of Bible. Yes, he must. Such people exist - thank God.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 27
ullangoo saidYes, it's hard to understand. Is it possible that when they threatened to kill one, the pastor volunteered? That is plausible considering that he could have felt a sense of duty. It's almost probable. And that makes him a both a hero and a siant. I think these talibans need to read The Secret and learn to love themselves FIRST so that they would give value to other human lives.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27
bugsey saidlearn to love themselves FIRST so that they would give value to other human lives. Definitely - couldn't agree more.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27I don't think we can end violence by "exterminating" any group.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 27You can't end ALL violence by doing it, but clearly if all members of a group are dead, that specific source of violence will no longer be around to continue perpetrating its violence.Besides, it's not just this, the Taliban has been at it for a long time. Not to mention their destroying the Bamyan statues. These people represent nothing good or decent or respectable. Nothing good can come to the entire rest of the world from the continued existance. Well, except perhaps the ability to recognize evil and thus have some way to identify good...
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 27Sadly, the greatest atrocities have been committed over the ages in the name of religion - think of the conquests described in the Old Testament, the Holy Crusades, Inquisition, Hitler's war against the Jews - even Vietnam and Korea were - at least partially - inflamed by religion; perhaps of a different kind - Democracy vs Communism - at least that is what we were told. Iraq's religion is oil .. lol
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidIraq's religion is oil Yes, and it's more than that. Iraq's real interest lies in oil.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27If you kill people off like "vermin", you'll beget hatred and create martyrs. You'll also prove to the rest of the population in that poor tortured country that their "liberators" know no alternative to Taliban's methods. Congratulations.Catch them, give them a fair trial, let everyone hear the charges and the proofs. Then see whom people want to support and emulate.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I recall one historical event of hostage taking that ended up complete failure. In 1600, one general tried to take a wife of his enemy as hostages but she replied to it killing herself. She is known to famous Hosakawa Garacia or Madam Butterfly by Puccini's play. His forces were devastated in only one day.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
ullangoo saidIf you kill people off like "vermin", you'll beget hatred and create martyrs. You'll also prove to the rest of the population in that poor tortured country that their "liberators" know no alternative to Taliban's methods. Congratulations. Yes, and then you'll have given "the enemy" MORE "reason" to continue the violence. I once did a research on Ninoy Aquino who said this 'violence is like a whirpool, when one starts it.. it really never ends". I do NOT like these terrorists, I feel for their victims and i hate their acts because it is evil BUT would it not be likewise evil to do the same? just asking.. also, maybe IF we give them some sense of sincerity and IMPORTANCE, maybe they'd have something to live for. maybe they simply can learn to love themselves.. the fact that they can blow themselves up shows they do have something like desperate "self-esteem problems". We can't get them to LOVE anyone and STOP violence if they do not even have the heart to care for their own individual lives:) WE can all all kill them fine. They can all try and kill us. Fine. But then what sort of people would we be? The "same sort"?
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidIF we give them some sense of sincerity and IMPORTANCE, maybe they'd have something to live for. Perhaps a good beginning might be for some of the western powers to at least take time to learn to understand the various religious teachings BEFORE setting out to destroy them.I fear that the acts of self-destruction are motivated more out of misdirected love for their god - after all, those who die in this way go directly to heavens - very similar to the Japanese Kamikazi. It is a mental attitude that westerners find hard - if not impossible - to understand. So, the answer: Let's not try at all.I am not condoning those acts. Violence, indeed, breeds more violence. And violence against innocent population breeds thirst for revenge. A vicious circle.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidYes, and then you'll have given "the enemy" MORE "reason" to continue the violence. I think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidI think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.But isn't that saying that ALL such and such are evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth .. "Enemies" by whose definition? I mean, who makes the call, "These people are evil, they are enemies, country, go exterminate them!"
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidI think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.This leads us to Bush's new world law to replace the UN Charter: If you hate and fear other people, attack and kill them. Now we are already hearing the refrain: We could have crushed those bastards with a little more force.Oh yeah, and the great Roman solution to the cycle of violence? Basically there would be peace in the world when one strongman held a club over all others. But soon the competion resumed over which strong man could reach the top over his rivals' dead bodies.Do you find my defense of other means of living cynical? Or is it those who say "Somebody has to be on top" (who are cynical?)
reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 27if you want to judge any group of people,just any particular group ,irregardless of creed or religion - see how this group treats their women.from there,you can deduce how reasonably civilize they are. so,do you all know how the Talibans treat their women ?
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
ahfeiko said,do you all know how the Talibans treat their women ? The same as all Islam fanatics, they do not exist. Except when the men want them to perform services.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Many religions advocates male supremacy over a woman.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidMany religions advocates male supremacy over a woman. Then we should all give the women a copy of The Secret so that they will learn their true worth and love themselves ENUF to NOT allow their dignity to be trampled upon. Maybe we can give the men the same too? waddya think?
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28Most religions are men-dominated; could be that's why there are so many abuse scandals in them. It is - in Christian circles - based on Paul's writings. If you examine Jesus' words and John's writings, a different picture emerges.Even so, this domination is largely over the power structure (e.g. I desire women to be silent in the congregation, Paul) (Not this Paul - the apostle!! lol) At home, even Paul counseled love and caring. Not abuse such as some religions provide (e.g. Islam)
reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:04 AMI simply stated the fact and I am opposed to that idea.
Some of words left by Apostle Paul concerning women were already out of date from today's egalitarian viewpoint. But considering the fact that he uttered those words in the early first century, those are rather revolutionary democratic. Congregations were where people meet, especially young people who were seeking for their partners too, so he needed to draw the very basic outlines for them.
Male supremacy is an obsolete idea and it's not a good idea too. Many religions were made in very old times and still they drag such traditions.
In Ecclesiasticus or a Book of Jesus, the son of Sirah-this book is different from famous Ecclesiastes, apparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc.
This book was excluded as Apocrypha, so thanks to such sober transactions, Bible has been kept in truly egalitarian viewpoint.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Who funds the Taliban-- in the past and in the present? It used to be both the Saudi's and the USA, when they were fighting the Russians. They were trained in religion in fundamentalistic madrasa schools funded and staffed partly by Wahhabi fanatics from Saudi Arabia. I wonder what the links are now.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28This is not only true in Taliban but in Hussein's case too. US supported Taliban and Hussein in the past for fear Russia or Iran might take power over the region. Some might think it contradict itself. US doesn't think so. Because they are a realist.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidBecause they are a realist. US foreign policy is anything but realistic. It is mercenary - is there gain for us? Let's do it.They - at one time or another - supported Ho Chi Minh, Khamer Rouge, Baptista, Castro ... Why? At that time there was gain in it - now if that is "realistic" I guess they are.
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidUS foreign policy is anything but realistic. It is mercenary - is there gain for us? Let's do it.They - at one time or another - supported Ho Chi Minh, Khamer Rouge, Baptista, Castro ... Why? At that time there was gain in it - now if that is "realistic" I guess they are. This is true, to an extent. The interesting thing is that - if you take the time to examine it dispassionately - Bush is acting more like a Wilsonian Idealist than anyone else. The Iraq war would be over and done with, the troops would be home, and we'd be enjoying free flowing Iraqi oil if Bush had simply installed a pro-American dictator.Bush, to his credit, is trying to win this one for the long haul. He understood the lessons of Vietnam, Iran, and the American involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet period. He is working hard to build an inclusive, civil, popular government that will serve all the people of Iraq and be an example to others.It is easy to criticize the mistakes made during implementation, and one might justly criticize going to war in the first place, but a reasonable person cannot complain that Bush did not have lofty and worthwhile goals, and that he has stuck to those goals. He is not supporting the Iraqi equivalent of the Mujahadeen, Pinochet, the Shah, Noriega, or any of the other despots that other administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have seen fit to support.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
iamrevmike saidBush is acting more like a Wilsonian Idealist than anyone else. I recognize that at times leaders of nations felt they needed "something" a key event to get the reluctant nation into a war. Roosevelt had his Pearl Harbor.Bush had his "weapons of mass destruction" - which somehow evaporated and were never found. He lied to the nation, and he knew he was lying. The intelligence reports were falsified.I am not sure but 9/11 - which gave him the powers he so wanted - in his war on terrorism. He seems to be waging it very well at home with some of the new executive orders he had put into effect.I would not call him an idealist in the accepted form of the word. Idealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power".
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidIdealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power". In fairness to Bush I think he's just a little lacking in brains :) LOL! But dang! is he sooo lucky!
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidI am not sure but 9/11 - which gave him the powers he so wanted - in his war on terrorism. He seems to be waging it very well at home with some of the new executive orders he had put into effect.I would not call him an idealist in the accepted form of the word. Idealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power". What are you not sure about in re 9/11?And what "power" has he achieved? Every domestic power that was a little bit questionable has been blocked. Everyone hates him and is just biding their time till 2008. He couldn't even get his immigration bill through a Democratic congress.Nevertheless, he has done more to try to build democracy abroad than Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton combined.I know it is the trendy thing now to think of him as Hitler reincarnated, but it simply doesn't fit. LBJ would have installed a pro-American despot by now and been done with it.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
iamrevmike saidNevertheless, he has done more to try to build democracy abroad than Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton combined. Not really, that's overrating the guy too much.I men, c'mon Reagan left a legacy of great foreign policy which Bush is direly lacking. LBJ.. wasn't he the guy who somehow started the vietnam war and had enough guts to end it when it was obvious that there was just too much collateral damage? Dunno about Clinton, but he did ACT when it was needed to protect Kuwait afterwhich he had enough sense not to get drawn into a longer war after the "invasion" of Kuwait. Who was responsible for 9/11? Al Quida but they weren't "buddies" of Saddam Hussein. They were chums of the Saudis. It would have been more plausible IF he ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia. The truth is that no one could CONTROL Iraq better than Saddam. I am not saying he is NOT an EVIL person but he did bring some semblence of governance then. Also, what I fail to understand is why didn't Bush make war with ALL the nasty and evil dictators in the world IF the whole point is democracy?
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidWho was responsible for 9/11? Al Quida but they weren't "buddies" of Saddam Hussein. They were chums of the Saudis. It would hav ebeen more plausible IF he ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia. This is more like how to think in cutting off support for the Taliban. And this is the point Michael Moore made in his 9/11 film. The Taliban are exported Wahhabi fanatics, taught by Saudi missionaries and funded by rich Saudis. Yet not only does the USA avoid challenging Saudi Arabia on this, it is preparing to make a massive arms deal with the Saudis in order to get "security" in the region.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
briangriffith saidet not only does the USA avoid challenging Saudi Arabia on this, it is preparing to make a massive arms deal with the Saudis in order to get "security" in the region. Brian, I think that just today I heard something in the news about some "conflict" or undercurrent between the US and Saudi Arabia, but I doubt too that the USA would take a combative stance against that "nation". It has ARAMCO and other.. business interests!
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidBrian, I think that just today I heard something in the news about some "conflict" or undercurrent between the US and Saudi Arabia, but I doubt too that the USA would take a combative stance against that "nation". It has ARAMCO and other.. business interests! Wonder what's the matter... oil lobby in charge of the USA?
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28Okay, If you think arming the Taliban while thinking you control what they do with the weapons is realistic ....
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Go to it Bugsey!
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
briangriffith saidGo to it Bugsey! Maybe all this people really need is some oprah lectures on self-esteem and self-love .. yah never knows!!!! Have Oprah start a peace process!!!!
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Let them come to Oprah
reply
michigangal wrote on Jul 28Oprah is more respected than George Bush
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28I agree, I love Oprah MORE than George Bush and she exudes more sincerity. She seems to be a woman with the capability of 'giving hope" and what they most need is HOPE. With hope, maybe they will be SEE that their lives are not hopeless or desperate enough for them to go on killing! They should all read an arabic or whatever copy of The Secret! (oops.. sorry to my angry born-again evangelical friends but I read that book and I now love everyone!)
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28Oprah preaches spirituality not religion. Religion causes wars!
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidReligion causes wars! Amen!
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28I agree because no one really has a MONOPOLY on evil or goodness. :)
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28I think so because I heard it over fox news and fox news means.. yah know.. Fox news is like Bush's mouthpiece!
reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 29time have passed & many'd(includes me) have concludes that Saddam was infact, the best candidates for Iraq. less damage would had happened if he's still at the helm.
Jul 27, '07 12:16 PMfor everyone
Out of 23 Korean hostages held by Taliban, one was killed. He was a pastor. I understand Taliban are a group of religious teachers. Do teaches kill a pastor? It's hard to understand.
Tags: hostage, taliban, pastor
Prev: Marriage of InconvenienceNext: Heat Wave
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 27The Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects. Violence and death is all they know and they need to be exterminated like the vermin they are.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 27
eglamkowski saidThe Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects Oh, I see. The Taliban took hostages who came to Afghanistan to help people. Majorities are female.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 27
eglamkowski saidThe Taliban are a bunch of 7th century rejects. Violence and death is all they know and they need to be exterminated like the vermin they are. I agree, sadly.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27Yes, it's hard to understand. Is it possible that when they threatened to kill one, the pastor volunteered?
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 27If so, he must be a very courageous person. He must be the one who really understood the word of Bible. This is a state of emergency for them and our neighbours. I recall Poseidon adventure.There also a pastor victimised himself.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27
mercedo saidIf so, he must be a very courageous person. He must be the one who really understood the word of Bible. Yes, he must. Such people exist - thank God.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 27
ullangoo saidYes, it's hard to understand. Is it possible that when they threatened to kill one, the pastor volunteered? That is plausible considering that he could have felt a sense of duty. It's almost probable. And that makes him a both a hero and a siant. I think these talibans need to read The Secret and learn to love themselves FIRST so that they would give value to other human lives.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27
bugsey saidlearn to love themselves FIRST so that they would give value to other human lives. Definitely - couldn't agree more.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27I don't think we can end violence by "exterminating" any group.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 27You can't end ALL violence by doing it, but clearly if all members of a group are dead, that specific source of violence will no longer be around to continue perpetrating its violence.Besides, it's not just this, the Taliban has been at it for a long time. Not to mention their destroying the Bamyan statues. These people represent nothing good or decent or respectable. Nothing good can come to the entire rest of the world from the continued existance. Well, except perhaps the ability to recognize evil and thus have some way to identify good...
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 27Sadly, the greatest atrocities have been committed over the ages in the name of religion - think of the conquests described in the Old Testament, the Holy Crusades, Inquisition, Hitler's war against the Jews - even Vietnam and Korea were - at least partially - inflamed by religion; perhaps of a different kind - Democracy vs Communism - at least that is what we were told. Iraq's religion is oil .. lol
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidIraq's religion is oil Yes, and it's more than that. Iraq's real interest lies in oil.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 27If you kill people off like "vermin", you'll beget hatred and create martyrs. You'll also prove to the rest of the population in that poor tortured country that their "liberators" know no alternative to Taliban's methods. Congratulations.Catch them, give them a fair trial, let everyone hear the charges and the proofs. Then see whom people want to support and emulate.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I recall one historical event of hostage taking that ended up complete failure. In 1600, one general tried to take a wife of his enemy as hostages but she replied to it killing herself. She is known to famous Hosakawa Garacia or Madam Butterfly by Puccini's play. His forces were devastated in only one day.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
ullangoo saidIf you kill people off like "vermin", you'll beget hatred and create martyrs. You'll also prove to the rest of the population in that poor tortured country that their "liberators" know no alternative to Taliban's methods. Congratulations. Yes, and then you'll have given "the enemy" MORE "reason" to continue the violence. I once did a research on Ninoy Aquino who said this 'violence is like a whirpool, when one starts it.. it really never ends". I do NOT like these terrorists, I feel for their victims and i hate their acts because it is evil BUT would it not be likewise evil to do the same? just asking.. also, maybe IF we give them some sense of sincerity and IMPORTANCE, maybe they'd have something to live for. maybe they simply can learn to love themselves.. the fact that they can blow themselves up shows they do have something like desperate "self-esteem problems". We can't get them to LOVE anyone and STOP violence if they do not even have the heart to care for their own individual lives:) WE can all all kill them fine. They can all try and kill us. Fine. But then what sort of people would we be? The "same sort"?
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidIF we give them some sense of sincerity and IMPORTANCE, maybe they'd have something to live for. Perhaps a good beginning might be for some of the western powers to at least take time to learn to understand the various religious teachings BEFORE setting out to destroy them.I fear that the acts of self-destruction are motivated more out of misdirected love for their god - after all, those who die in this way go directly to heavens - very similar to the Japanese Kamikazi. It is a mental attitude that westerners find hard - if not impossible - to understand. So, the answer: Let's not try at all.I am not condoning those acts. Violence, indeed, breeds more violence. And violence against innocent population breeds thirst for revenge. A vicious circle.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidYes, and then you'll have given "the enemy" MORE "reason" to continue the violence. I think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidI think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.But isn't that saying that ALL such and such are evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth .. "Enemies" by whose definition? I mean, who makes the call, "These people are evil, they are enemies, country, go exterminate them!"
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidI think the Romans would have a different view. They managed to end the cycle of violence vis-a-vis the Carthoginians quite effectively.This leads us to Bush's new world law to replace the UN Charter: If you hate and fear other people, attack and kill them. Now we are already hearing the refrain: We could have crushed those bastards with a little more force.Oh yeah, and the great Roman solution to the cycle of violence? Basically there would be peace in the world when one strongman held a club over all others. But soon the competion resumed over which strong man could reach the top over his rivals' dead bodies.Do you find my defense of other means of living cynical? Or is it those who say "Somebody has to be on top" (who are cynical?)
reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 27if you want to judge any group of people,just any particular group ,irregardless of creed or religion - see how this group treats their women.from there,you can deduce how reasonably civilize they are. so,do you all know how the Talibans treat their women ?
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
ahfeiko said,do you all know how the Talibans treat their women ? The same as all Islam fanatics, they do not exist. Except when the men want them to perform services.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Many religions advocates male supremacy over a woman.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidMany religions advocates male supremacy over a woman. Then we should all give the women a copy of The Secret so that they will learn their true worth and love themselves ENUF to NOT allow their dignity to be trampled upon. Maybe we can give the men the same too? waddya think?
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28Most religions are men-dominated; could be that's why there are so many abuse scandals in them. It is - in Christian circles - based on Paul's writings. If you examine Jesus' words and John's writings, a different picture emerges.Even so, this domination is largely over the power structure (e.g. I desire women to be silent in the congregation, Paul) (Not this Paul - the apostle!! lol) At home, even Paul counseled love and caring. Not abuse such as some religions provide (e.g. Islam)
reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:04 AMI simply stated the fact and I am opposed to that idea.
Some of words left by Apostle Paul concerning women were already out of date from today's egalitarian viewpoint. But considering the fact that he uttered those words in the early first century, those are rather revolutionary democratic. Congregations were where people meet, especially young people who were seeking for their partners too, so he needed to draw the very basic outlines for them.
Male supremacy is an obsolete idea and it's not a good idea too. Many religions were made in very old times and still they drag such traditions.
In Ecclesiasticus or a Book of Jesus, the son of Sirah-this book is different from famous Ecclesiastes, apparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc.
This book was excluded as Apocrypha, so thanks to such sober transactions, Bible has been kept in truly egalitarian viewpoint.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Who funds the Taliban-- in the past and in the present? It used to be both the Saudi's and the USA, when they were fighting the Russians. They were trained in religion in fundamentalistic madrasa schools funded and staffed partly by Wahhabi fanatics from Saudi Arabia. I wonder what the links are now.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28This is not only true in Taliban but in Hussein's case too. US supported Taliban and Hussein in the past for fear Russia or Iran might take power over the region. Some might think it contradict itself. US doesn't think so. Because they are a realist.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidBecause they are a realist. US foreign policy is anything but realistic. It is mercenary - is there gain for us? Let's do it.They - at one time or another - supported Ho Chi Minh, Khamer Rouge, Baptista, Castro ... Why? At that time there was gain in it - now if that is "realistic" I guess they are.
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidUS foreign policy is anything but realistic. It is mercenary - is there gain for us? Let's do it.They - at one time or another - supported Ho Chi Minh, Khamer Rouge, Baptista, Castro ... Why? At that time there was gain in it - now if that is "realistic" I guess they are. This is true, to an extent. The interesting thing is that - if you take the time to examine it dispassionately - Bush is acting more like a Wilsonian Idealist than anyone else. The Iraq war would be over and done with, the troops would be home, and we'd be enjoying free flowing Iraqi oil if Bush had simply installed a pro-American dictator.Bush, to his credit, is trying to win this one for the long haul. He understood the lessons of Vietnam, Iran, and the American involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet period. He is working hard to build an inclusive, civil, popular government that will serve all the people of Iraq and be an example to others.It is easy to criticize the mistakes made during implementation, and one might justly criticize going to war in the first place, but a reasonable person cannot complain that Bush did not have lofty and worthwhile goals, and that he has stuck to those goals. He is not supporting the Iraqi equivalent of the Mujahadeen, Pinochet, the Shah, Noriega, or any of the other despots that other administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have seen fit to support.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
iamrevmike saidBush is acting more like a Wilsonian Idealist than anyone else. I recognize that at times leaders of nations felt they needed "something" a key event to get the reluctant nation into a war. Roosevelt had his Pearl Harbor.Bush had his "weapons of mass destruction" - which somehow evaporated and were never found. He lied to the nation, and he knew he was lying. The intelligence reports were falsified.I am not sure but 9/11 - which gave him the powers he so wanted - in his war on terrorism. He seems to be waging it very well at home with some of the new executive orders he had put into effect.I would not call him an idealist in the accepted form of the word. Idealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power".
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidIdealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power". In fairness to Bush I think he's just a little lacking in brains :) LOL! But dang! is he sooo lucky!
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Jul 28
paji2 saidI am not sure but 9/11 - which gave him the powers he so wanted - in his war on terrorism. He seems to be waging it very well at home with some of the new executive orders he had put into effect.I would not call him an idealist in the accepted form of the word. Idealist in the sense that his ideal is called "power". What are you not sure about in re 9/11?And what "power" has he achieved? Every domestic power that was a little bit questionable has been blocked. Everyone hates him and is just biding their time till 2008. He couldn't even get his immigration bill through a Democratic congress.Nevertheless, he has done more to try to build democracy abroad than Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton combined.I know it is the trendy thing now to think of him as Hitler reincarnated, but it simply doesn't fit. LBJ would have installed a pro-American despot by now and been done with it.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
iamrevmike saidNevertheless, he has done more to try to build democracy abroad than Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton combined. Not really, that's overrating the guy too much.I men, c'mon Reagan left a legacy of great foreign policy which Bush is direly lacking. LBJ.. wasn't he the guy who somehow started the vietnam war and had enough guts to end it when it was obvious that there was just too much collateral damage? Dunno about Clinton, but he did ACT when it was needed to protect Kuwait afterwhich he had enough sense not to get drawn into a longer war after the "invasion" of Kuwait. Who was responsible for 9/11? Al Quida but they weren't "buddies" of Saddam Hussein. They were chums of the Saudis. It would have been more plausible IF he ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia. The truth is that no one could CONTROL Iraq better than Saddam. I am not saying he is NOT an EVIL person but he did bring some semblence of governance then. Also, what I fail to understand is why didn't Bush make war with ALL the nasty and evil dictators in the world IF the whole point is democracy?
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidWho was responsible for 9/11? Al Quida but they weren't "buddies" of Saddam Hussein. They were chums of the Saudis. It would hav ebeen more plausible IF he ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia. This is more like how to think in cutting off support for the Taliban. And this is the point Michael Moore made in his 9/11 film. The Taliban are exported Wahhabi fanatics, taught by Saudi missionaries and funded by rich Saudis. Yet not only does the USA avoid challenging Saudi Arabia on this, it is preparing to make a massive arms deal with the Saudis in order to get "security" in the region.
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
briangriffith saidet not only does the USA avoid challenging Saudi Arabia on this, it is preparing to make a massive arms deal with the Saudis in order to get "security" in the region. Brian, I think that just today I heard something in the news about some "conflict" or undercurrent between the US and Saudi Arabia, but I doubt too that the USA would take a combative stance against that "nation". It has ARAMCO and other.. business interests!
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidBrian, I think that just today I heard something in the news about some "conflict" or undercurrent between the US and Saudi Arabia, but I doubt too that the USA would take a combative stance against that "nation". It has ARAMCO and other.. business interests! Wonder what's the matter... oil lobby in charge of the USA?
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28Okay, If you think arming the Taliban while thinking you control what they do with the weapons is realistic ....
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Go to it Bugsey!
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28
briangriffith saidGo to it Bugsey! Maybe all this people really need is some oprah lectures on self-esteem and self-love .. yah never knows!!!! Have Oprah start a peace process!!!!
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Let them come to Oprah
reply
michigangal wrote on Jul 28Oprah is more respected than George Bush
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28I agree, I love Oprah MORE than George Bush and she exudes more sincerity. She seems to be a woman with the capability of 'giving hope" and what they most need is HOPE. With hope, maybe they will be SEE that their lives are not hopeless or desperate enough for them to go on killing! They should all read an arabic or whatever copy of The Secret! (oops.. sorry to my angry born-again evangelical friends but I read that book and I now love everyone!)
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28Oprah preaches spirituality not religion. Religion causes wars!
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
bugsey saidReligion causes wars! Amen!
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28I agree because no one really has a MONOPOLY on evil or goodness. :)
reply
bugsey wrote on Jul 28I think so because I heard it over fox news and fox news means.. yah know.. Fox news is like Bush's mouthpiece!
reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 29time have passed & many'd(includes me) have concludes that Saddam was infact, the best candidates for Iraq. less damage would had happened if he's still at the helm.
mercedo wrote today at 12:04 AMI simply stated the fact and I am opposed to that idea.
Some of words left by Apostle Paul concerning women were already out of date from today's egalitarian viewpoint. But considering the fact that he uttered those words in the early first century, those are rather revolutionary democratic. Congregations were where people meet, especially young people who were seeking for their partners too, so he needed to draw the very basic outlines for them.
Male supremacy is an obsolete idea and it's not a good idea too. Many religions were made in very old times and still they drag such traditions.
In Ecclesiasticus or a Book of Jesus, the son of Sirah-this book is different from famous Ecclesiastes, apparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc.
This book was excluded as Apocrypha, so thanks to such sober transactions, Bible has been kept in truly egalitarian viewpoint.
Some of words left by Apostle Paul concerning women were already out of date from today's egalitarian viewpoint. But considering the fact that he uttered those words in the early first century, those are rather revolutionary democratic. Congregations were where people meet, especially young people who were seeking for their partners too, so he needed to draw the very basic outlines for them.
Male supremacy is an obsolete idea and it's not a good idea too. Many religions were made in very old times and still they drag such traditions.
In Ecclesiasticus or a Book of Jesus, the son of Sirah-this book is different from famous Ecclesiastes, apparently sexist views were written in chapter 25 that says all sins are derived from a woman and because of her all die, the writer hates nothing but the wickedness of woman, etc.
This book was excluded as Apocrypha, so thanks to such sober transactions, Bible has been kept in truly egalitarian viewpoint.
Monday, July 30, 2007
mercedo wrote today at 11:16 PM
eglamkowski saidtrue monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, Ra the God of Sun, Ahura Mazda were the first attempt to monotheism probably prior to Moses. It might be easier to believe one God in the sun, because there's only sun in the sky. It might be harder to conceptualise the notion of God in Ahura Mazda type, which characterise goodness in more ideological way.
eglamkowski saidtrue monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, Ra the God of Sun, Ahura Mazda were the first attempt to monotheism probably prior to Moses. It might be easier to believe one God in the sun, because there's only sun in the sky. It might be harder to conceptualise the notion of God in Ahura Mazda type, which characterise goodness in more ideological way.
mercedo wrote today at 10:37 PM
infinitemonkey said It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. I hadn't noticed the similarity to Catholic Trinity.
infinitemonkey said It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. I hadn't noticed the similarity to Catholic Trinity.
mercedo wrote today at 10:14 PMAs far as I know, there are three streams in Chinese religions. Taoism and Confucianism are very Chinese proper but Chinese Buddhism is of course from India. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Laozi, Confucious, Gautama had lived almost the same period circa 5 BC. The history of Hinduism is much older than them.
Indeed I haven't got a friend who are called monkey, etc..anyway..aside from the joke..You see God is an absolute being, but when it comes to his name it's not absolute.We usually think Yahweh is the name of God in Judaism, Lord is the name of God in Christianity, Allah is the name of God in Islam, Zeus is the name of God in Greek mythology and all are true.
Allah means only one God so in Islamic countries there's no only one God other than Allah, probably therefore Chistians in Islamic countries call their God Allah, did you know that? Allah is the name of God for Muslims and for Christians in Islamic countries. Likewise the case of the use of Zeus is similar to it.
Francisco Xavier along with Ignatius Loyola formed Jesuit Order in 1534 and started a missionary. Xavier came to Japan in 1549 and started preaching work there. He is Roman Catholic and the name of God called among Japanese Catholic those days is Deus, phonetically changed but aparently derived from the word Zeus. In 1614, the preaching work of Catholic in Japan was tottally banned but till that time the number of Catholic believers are 650,000, more than today's Catholic believers in Japan that is 450,000.
The name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28Some people have no repentance within them; they enjoyed the killing .. may even boast of it. Perhaps the statue was a boastful sign - I did this, but you will not get me to say I am sorry, I'll just laugh at you and laugh at the statue too.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think it's more likely that he put the statue there in order to convince other people that he was a good Christian. Show-case religion. Or maybe it's a work of art and a good investment. Or both.I kind of like the above laugh-theory too, though.
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28Actually, it is an example of anisocial behavior disorder: killing somebody for money (somebody, be it my own son, must die anyway, but why not to get rich because of his death?). The question is now: does the person with the antisocial behavior disorder can feel guilty? The answer is: no. This is the way they are antisocial (these disorders are classified as egosyntonic, the ego is not troubled, no regret, no repentance). But why did he put the St Mary in his garden? There can be many explanations for a statue standing in a garden. I guess his disorder subsided slowly and he felt a kind of guilt and a need to protect his ego (feeling more comfortably). So you've seen the statue of St Mary in his garden.And the protection of our ego is an essencial property of our egos. As long as the ego exists there is a protection. Modern psychiatry classifies the ego-protective reactions to mature and immature. The first ones are: humorisation, altruism, suppression (consciously not thinking about what you've done) and sublimation. They all are "good" towards the other egos, to the rest of the world. Compare these to some of immature reactions: intellectualization, splitting (absolutely good/evil), projection (actually, it is my wife who betrayed me), displacement (beating my kid when angry with my wife)... To add: all these reactions are unconscious. So, whom you gonna blame;)
paji2 wrote on Jul 28Some people have no repentance within them; they enjoyed the killing .. may even boast of it. Perhaps the statue was a boastful sign - I did this, but you will not get me to say I am sorry, I'll just laugh at you and laugh at the statue too.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think it's more likely that he put the statue there in order to convince other people that he was a good Christian. Show-case religion. Or maybe it's a work of art and a good investment. Or both.I kind of like the above laugh-theory too, though.
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28Actually, it is an example of anisocial behavior disorder: killing somebody for money (somebody, be it my own son, must die anyway, but why not to get rich because of his death?). The question is now: does the person with the antisocial behavior disorder can feel guilty? The answer is: no. This is the way they are antisocial (these disorders are classified as egosyntonic, the ego is not troubled, no regret, no repentance). But why did he put the St Mary in his garden? There can be many explanations for a statue standing in a garden. I guess his disorder subsided slowly and he felt a kind of guilt and a need to protect his ego (feeling more comfortably). So you've seen the statue of St Mary in his garden.And the protection of our ego is an essencial property of our egos. As long as the ego exists there is a protection. Modern psychiatry classifies the ego-protective reactions to mature and immature. The first ones are: humorisation, altruism, suppression (consciously not thinking about what you've done) and sublimation. They all are "good" towards the other egos, to the rest of the world. Compare these to some of immature reactions: intellectualization, splitting (absolutely good/evil), projection (actually, it is my wife who betrayed me), displacement (beating my kid when angry with my wife)... To add: all these reactions are unconscious. So, whom you gonna blame;)
Polytheistic reality in Monotheism
Jul 28, '07 12:57 PMfor everyone
There are many Monotheistic faiths which hold only one God. Those feature is similar. He is absolute and omnipotent being. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. Are they all the same God whose names only differ or are they all different Gods who claim to be only one God?
Tags: monotheism
Prev: Repent, the end is nigh
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28First, are any of these REALLY monotheistic to begin with? Just about all of these recognize angels and saints. What Christians call an angel another (polytheistic) religion might refer to as a "lesser" god, a saint would be called a demi-god. It's just a matter of semantics.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer, Azazel, Seraphim, Cherubim...
I meant many monotheistic Gods in the title 'polytheistic reality' , but in fact there are many supernatural beings in a description of Bible and their relationship to only one God is very obscure. Some are called God in Bible.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidSome are called God in Bible. I believe you will find that Satan for example, is called "god" - Only the Father - at least in the Bibles I have, is called "God", with a capital "G". :)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's not important as to whether we use capital G or not in God. God in Bible is a proper noun, though 'god' might be an ordinary noun.
So could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? Basically I use NIV and in there for example Genesis 32:22-31, it says Jacob struggles with God. this God is not YHWH, but some supernatural being like an Angel.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
mercedo saidSo could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? New King James, Jerusalem, Goodspeed, New World, King James - Czech translation, King James - Romanian translation.In the account you give, true, it was an angel - some believe it was Jesus in his heavenly form but that is beside the point.There are many instances where there is a representative of God - but is spoken of as "God", since he fully stands in for him.The G-g is an important difference, not merely grammatically but it gives the sense of whether this particular one is a "true" or "false" god.Therefore, Satan is "a god of this world", not "God of this world".Forgot Moffatt's translation :)
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It largely depends on your particular interpretation of what angels and saints are and what their relationship is to us and to God.Some Catholics or other Christians would certainly pray to saints or even angels (or invoke them in some way), and you would have a point. However, many others would be horrified at the idea because of the injunction of the commandment to not have any other gods before God, and would also vehemently deny that saints or angels are divine themselves. So praying to a saint or invoking them would be blasphemous or heretical -- or at the very least theologically iffy.This is, for example, one bone of contention between most Christians and Roman Catholics -- the Marian cult, where the Virgin Mary is in effect treated as virtually godlike in her own right (from our non-Roman Catholic point of view). From the point of view of most Christians, she was a mere human being -- a particularly blessed and chosen human being, but still a human being more or less like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has elevated her to near-divine status, such as claiming she was born without sin, etc.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I wonder how the interpretation is very similar however vary the denominations the Protestant has. You used to make a comment that Nietzsche's criticism was done in Protestant's understanding of Bible. If he knew Roman Catholicism, did he stop criticising Christianity in general?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28I don't know if Nietzsche would have stopped criticizing Christianity had be been more familiar with Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican thinking, but certainly the basis for the criticism he leveled at it wouldn't have been there or wouldn't have been anywhere as strong. Whether he would have had other things to criticize is open to speculation.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28During the Mughal Empire in India, Emperor Akbar (who was of course a Muslim) held Hinduism to be basically monotheistic, because all divinities and all creatures were held to exist within one ultimate reality. And as the Sufi Muslims say, "It's not that there is no God but Allah; it's that there is nothing except Allah".How could Akbar be wrong?
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's interesting to see he thought one ultimate reality is monotheistic God as if everything depends on interpretation.
reply
controlgroup wrote on Jul 28I like the sufi muslim saying. If you're gonna be religious, that's the way to go. It's kinda zen like.But I'm an atheist, so I'd ask a different question. I'd ask how mankind constructs these images and what the similarities say about that construction. Do we always choose certain concepts? Or is it that we plagiarise? The bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts, and christianity is stolen from mithraism. All the judeo-Xtian religions are the same, but they don't look at all like (say) the hindu gods. But the Hindu gods do look somewhat similar to the Ancient Thai and Chinese gods, and China happens to be only a thousand miles or so away.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
controlgroup saidThe bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts This is very correct, you knew that? Basically today many Hebrew Scriptures were thought to be edited around the period of Babylonian captivity. I'm not sure as to the latter part of your comment. I am not well versed in those beliefs, but I think Chinese gods are directly adopted from Hinduism.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28OK, I am a bit puzzled by the "Zeus in Catholicism" - last I knew, Zeus was a Greek god and Jesus was venerated by the Catholics almost over His Father ..??
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Traditionally the name of monotheistic God in Judaism was YHWH, but since Jewsish states were ruled under both Ptlemaic 323 -198 and Selucid 198 - 166, they started calling their only one God as Zeus, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid king 175 -163 forced Jewish people to worship Greek God Zeus in Jewish temple. 63 BC, Jewish states were finally annexed by Romans. Roman Catholicism adopted the name of Greek highest God as Jewish monotheistic God. Zeus was changed phonetically in Deus, and later it came to the origin of Theos, God in Greek, and Deitas, God in Latin. Theism and deity are from Zeus etymologically.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidTheism and deity are from Zeus etymologically. May it ever be so - you just try to go into a Catholic church and start praying and worshiping Zeus! That - to me - is comparable to call your friends "Monkey" or "Chimp" - because a theory has it we evolved from them.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Zeus comes from *diwos pitar = father of gods (in Latin it became Jupiter). Theos and deus are related to *diwos, which is Sanskrit (Hindi devi/deva). Deus is NOT derived from Zeus, and neither is theos or deity or theism or anything. Theos and deus both mean (a) god. Linguistically speaking - and this has nothing to do with the age of the texts - deus is the older form. You got it totally wrong.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Thanks, Ullangoo....Here I accept a linguist's commentary.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28You're welcome.Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This three-in-one God is the only non-created being and therefore the only one worshipped. Whatever you call angels and blah-blah, they are parts of creation and essentially different from God.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I see. There is an optimal interpretation in understanding the description of Bible. your understanding seems to be so, so I embrace this most acceptable one. God refers to only one monotheistic absolute being, and 'god' includes many other spirits.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28At least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots.As for other religions, arguably yes, they do worship the same Godhead in differing ways. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in the Catholic tradition essentially argue as much in between the lines (though you have to pick apart the teachings to get the meaning, but it is definitely there in Dominus Iesus -- other belief systems are described as "defective", but they are also clearly described as being possible ways to salvation, i.e. they "point" to the same Godhead, if you will).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Ok, I value your idea. But many believers think very differently. They hardly imagined all Gods are the same. How can you persuade them? Are you going to say, ' If we've got only one God, it must be the same.' ?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It just depends on the believer. Some people are going to be bigoted pinheads no matter what you do.But actually many are quite happy with the idea. Indeed it is the basis of a lot of the dialog between religions, such as that with the Pope and Anglican Church or other interfaith dialog. And Islam, for example, explicitly recognizes monotheistic faiths as being more legitimate than others, particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, so they don't need much convincing, either (though they get annoyed by the concept of the Holy Trinity, which they view as contradicting their strict interpretation of monotheism).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. While I understand each of these religions proclaims to worship the God of Abraham, as an outside observer looking in it's no so clear to me that is actually the case :P
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28You could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidYou could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred Indeed. What is up with those Mormons? ;-P
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. I prefers to say it not because they evolved from the same roots. But as a consequences of monotheism it self.If we say there only one God, -- one and only one -- and others people say it too. Then there is a consequences that, It is the same God.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think we can rest assured that Chinese religion evolved independently of Hinduism. For one thing, the former is considerably older. There is, I think, some fairly late influence via Buddhism.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Ethelred, your thoughts are interesting.I think we have three possibilities. 1) we believe that there's only one God and that people who haven't received the true revelation nevertheless seek Him, hence worship Him as well as they can; 2) people without the revelation worship demons; 3) there may or may not be one God, but all religions are made by humans, and which you follow makes no difference. I opt for 3) - being fairly sure there is a God.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28In ancient times, polytheism was the overwhelming way of understanding of the heavens, only rarely and sometimes very briefly did true monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, perhaps around the 10th century BC. Vast portions of the world's population today, on the order of 1/3 of them, still adhere to polytheistic traditions - Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Daoism, Animism, the folk religions of Asia (especially China), etc. Billions of people still follow polytheistic religions, they never ever went away.Given that the vast majority of the human experience, historically, is polytheism, and a significant portion of the human experience today remains so, why should we believe monotheism to be correct? The only basis for it is that nations that adopted monotheism conquered, crushed and vanquished polytheistic religions - might made right. Was their ability to conquer aided by divine grace, a sort of White Man's Burden? Then how to explain the collapse and retreat of these same conquering nations? What happened to Britain and France to cause them to lose their Empire, if God gave it to them in the first place? Casting might makes right in the light of religion leads to all sorts of ugly questions...To say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call.Personally I have to go with either the polytheistic world view, or the view that there are no gods at all and it's all a big hoax.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28Actually, a number of apparently "polythestic" religions are actually arguably ultimately monotheistic. Hinduism, for example, has one Godhead, and all its gods proceed from that one Godhead. It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. So while Hinduism is technically "polytheistic", it is also just as well monotheistic because all its gods ultimately had one origin. Other religions have a similar framework.The mere fact that they now have multiple gods doesn't mean much. You have to look at their background stories to understand them and see the commonalities.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidTo say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call. This is right on. We are just hypocrites when we say both that people should realize they can't know the ultimate, and at the same time we insist they believe certain concepts about the ultimate. Actually only one of these statements is true -- that we don't know. My fellow Muslims should get this: Belief that God is beyond anything we can comprehend means we do not know. So, we cannot presume to to have "the right" ideas about God, or dictate "God's will" to anybody. It's just our own will, and we are just pretending that we are the voice of the ultimate. What could be more sacrilegious than that?
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Personally, I see all the different gods as different aspects of Someone greater than my understanding. I've no quarrel with those who see them as actually different "persons". Just a matter of opinion. It's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Do you think it went that way historically speaking? I'd say they started with several gods (totemism, animism) and that the unity or origin is religious philosophy. Of course, if we're talking about how they think NOW, it doesn't make any difference how they got there.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Hey, we're all only part way to realizing how all of life is interrelated, that our acts have consequences for every creature, that we all have a common origen and destiny, etc. We're just a little ways toward waking up.
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28Mer...Do god and God have deferent meaning to you? If we believe just in One GOD then it could be just matter of language. In my native language god mean 'dewa-dewi' -- it's include Zeus, Apollo, Venus, Vishnu (Wisnu), Shiva (Shiwa) and Brahma (Brahmana), etc, etc. It vary by culture and language.By my understanding, there is only one God. Allah is my only God.I should presume YHWH, Lord God, as the same person, if we may personalize Him. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him.Trinity is an absurd concept for me. I thinks it's too agnostics. It is Hard to understand, just too hard.Salaam,
Jul 28, '07 12:57 PMfor everyone
There are many Monotheistic faiths which hold only one God. Those feature is similar. He is absolute and omnipotent being. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. Are they all the same God whose names only differ or are they all different Gods who claim to be only one God?
Tags: monotheism
Prev: Repent, the end is nigh
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28First, are any of these REALLY monotheistic to begin with? Just about all of these recognize angels and saints. What Christians call an angel another (polytheistic) religion might refer to as a "lesser" god, a saint would be called a demi-god. It's just a matter of semantics.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer, Azazel, Seraphim, Cherubim...
I meant many monotheistic Gods in the title 'polytheistic reality' , but in fact there are many supernatural beings in a description of Bible and their relationship to only one God is very obscure. Some are called God in Bible.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidSome are called God in Bible. I believe you will find that Satan for example, is called "god" - Only the Father - at least in the Bibles I have, is called "God", with a capital "G". :)
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's not important as to whether we use capital G or not in God. God in Bible is a proper noun, though 'god' might be an ordinary noun.
So could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? Basically I use NIV and in there for example Genesis 32:22-31, it says Jacob struggles with God. this God is not YHWH, but some supernatural being like an Angel.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
mercedo saidSo could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? New King James, Jerusalem, Goodspeed, New World, King James - Czech translation, King James - Romanian translation.In the account you give, true, it was an angel - some believe it was Jesus in his heavenly form but that is beside the point.There are many instances where there is a representative of God - but is spoken of as "God", since he fully stands in for him.The G-g is an important difference, not merely grammatically but it gives the sense of whether this particular one is a "true" or "false" god.Therefore, Satan is "a god of this world", not "God of this world".Forgot Moffatt's translation :)
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It largely depends on your particular interpretation of what angels and saints are and what their relationship is to us and to God.Some Catholics or other Christians would certainly pray to saints or even angels (or invoke them in some way), and you would have a point. However, many others would be horrified at the idea because of the injunction of the commandment to not have any other gods before God, and would also vehemently deny that saints or angels are divine themselves. So praying to a saint or invoking them would be blasphemous or heretical -- or at the very least theologically iffy.This is, for example, one bone of contention between most Christians and Roman Catholics -- the Marian cult, where the Virgin Mary is in effect treated as virtually godlike in her own right (from our non-Roman Catholic point of view). From the point of view of most Christians, she was a mere human being -- a particularly blessed and chosen human being, but still a human being more or less like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has elevated her to near-divine status, such as claiming she was born without sin, etc.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I wonder how the interpretation is very similar however vary the denominations the Protestant has. You used to make a comment that Nietzsche's criticism was done in Protestant's understanding of Bible. If he knew Roman Catholicism, did he stop criticising Christianity in general?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28I don't know if Nietzsche would have stopped criticizing Christianity had be been more familiar with Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican thinking, but certainly the basis for the criticism he leveled at it wouldn't have been there or wouldn't have been anywhere as strong. Whether he would have had other things to criticize is open to speculation.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28During the Mughal Empire in India, Emperor Akbar (who was of course a Muslim) held Hinduism to be basically monotheistic, because all divinities and all creatures were held to exist within one ultimate reality. And as the Sufi Muslims say, "It's not that there is no God but Allah; it's that there is nothing except Allah".How could Akbar be wrong?
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's interesting to see he thought one ultimate reality is monotheistic God as if everything depends on interpretation.
reply
controlgroup wrote on Jul 28I like the sufi muslim saying. If you're gonna be religious, that's the way to go. It's kinda zen like.But I'm an atheist, so I'd ask a different question. I'd ask how mankind constructs these images and what the similarities say about that construction. Do we always choose certain concepts? Or is it that we plagiarise? The bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts, and christianity is stolen from mithraism. All the judeo-Xtian religions are the same, but they don't look at all like (say) the hindu gods. But the Hindu gods do look somewhat similar to the Ancient Thai and Chinese gods, and China happens to be only a thousand miles or so away.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
controlgroup saidThe bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts This is very correct, you knew that? Basically today many Hebrew Scriptures were thought to be edited around the period of Babylonian captivity. I'm not sure as to the latter part of your comment. I am not well versed in those beliefs, but I think Chinese gods are directly adopted from Hinduism.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28OK, I am a bit puzzled by the "Zeus in Catholicism" - last I knew, Zeus was a Greek god and Jesus was venerated by the Catholics almost over His Father ..??
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Traditionally the name of monotheistic God in Judaism was YHWH, but since Jewsish states were ruled under both Ptlemaic 323 -198 and Selucid 198 - 166, they started calling their only one God as Zeus, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid king 175 -163 forced Jewish people to worship Greek God Zeus in Jewish temple. 63 BC, Jewish states were finally annexed by Romans. Roman Catholicism adopted the name of Greek highest God as Jewish monotheistic God. Zeus was changed phonetically in Deus, and later it came to the origin of Theos, God in Greek, and Deitas, God in Latin. Theism and deity are from Zeus etymologically.
reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidTheism and deity are from Zeus etymologically. May it ever be so - you just try to go into a Catholic church and start praying and worshiping Zeus! That - to me - is comparable to call your friends "Monkey" or "Chimp" - because a theory has it we evolved from them.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Zeus comes from *diwos pitar = father of gods (in Latin it became Jupiter). Theos and deus are related to *diwos, which is Sanskrit (Hindi devi/deva). Deus is NOT derived from Zeus, and neither is theos or deity or theism or anything. Theos and deus both mean (a) god. Linguistically speaking - and this has nothing to do with the age of the texts - deus is the older form. You got it totally wrong.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Thanks, Ullangoo....Here I accept a linguist's commentary.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28You're welcome.Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This three-in-one God is the only non-created being and therefore the only one worshipped. Whatever you call angels and blah-blah, they are parts of creation and essentially different from God.
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I see. There is an optimal interpretation in understanding the description of Bible. your understanding seems to be so, so I embrace this most acceptable one. God refers to only one monotheistic absolute being, and 'god' includes many other spirits.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28At least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots.As for other religions, arguably yes, they do worship the same Godhead in differing ways. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in the Catholic tradition essentially argue as much in between the lines (though you have to pick apart the teachings to get the meaning, but it is definitely there in Dominus Iesus -- other belief systems are described as "defective", but they are also clearly described as being possible ways to salvation, i.e. they "point" to the same Godhead, if you will).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Ok, I value your idea. But many believers think very differently. They hardly imagined all Gods are the same. How can you persuade them? Are you going to say, ' If we've got only one God, it must be the same.' ?
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It just depends on the believer. Some people are going to be bigoted pinheads no matter what you do.But actually many are quite happy with the idea. Indeed it is the basis of a lot of the dialog between religions, such as that with the Pope and Anglican Church or other interfaith dialog. And Islam, for example, explicitly recognizes monotheistic faiths as being more legitimate than others, particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, so they don't need much convincing, either (though they get annoyed by the concept of the Holy Trinity, which they view as contradicting their strict interpretation of monotheism).Cheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. While I understand each of these religions proclaims to worship the God of Abraham, as an outside observer looking in it's no so clear to me that is actually the case :P
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28You could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidYou could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred Indeed. What is up with those Mormons? ;-P
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. I prefers to say it not because they evolved from the same roots. But as a consequences of monotheism it self.If we say there only one God, -- one and only one -- and others people say it too. Then there is a consequences that, It is the same God.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think we can rest assured that Chinese religion evolved independently of Hinduism. For one thing, the former is considerably older. There is, I think, some fairly late influence via Buddhism.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Ethelred, your thoughts are interesting.I think we have three possibilities. 1) we believe that there's only one God and that people who haven't received the true revelation nevertheless seek Him, hence worship Him as well as they can; 2) people without the revelation worship demons; 3) there may or may not be one God, but all religions are made by humans, and which you follow makes no difference. I opt for 3) - being fairly sure there is a God.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28In ancient times, polytheism was the overwhelming way of understanding of the heavens, only rarely and sometimes very briefly did true monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, perhaps around the 10th century BC. Vast portions of the world's population today, on the order of 1/3 of them, still adhere to polytheistic traditions - Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Daoism, Animism, the folk religions of Asia (especially China), etc. Billions of people still follow polytheistic religions, they never ever went away.Given that the vast majority of the human experience, historically, is polytheism, and a significant portion of the human experience today remains so, why should we believe monotheism to be correct? The only basis for it is that nations that adopted monotheism conquered, crushed and vanquished polytheistic religions - might made right. Was their ability to conquer aided by divine grace, a sort of White Man's Burden? Then how to explain the collapse and retreat of these same conquering nations? What happened to Britain and France to cause them to lose their Empire, if God gave it to them in the first place? Casting might makes right in the light of religion leads to all sorts of ugly questions...To say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call.Personally I have to go with either the polytheistic world view, or the view that there are no gods at all and it's all a big hoax.
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28Actually, a number of apparently "polythestic" religions are actually arguably ultimately monotheistic. Hinduism, for example, has one Godhead, and all its gods proceed from that one Godhead. It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. So while Hinduism is technically "polytheistic", it is also just as well monotheistic because all its gods ultimately had one origin. Other religions have a similar framework.The mere fact that they now have multiple gods doesn't mean much. You have to look at their background stories to understand them and see the commonalities.Cheers,Ethelred
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidTo say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call. This is right on. We are just hypocrites when we say both that people should realize they can't know the ultimate, and at the same time we insist they believe certain concepts about the ultimate. Actually only one of these statements is true -- that we don't know. My fellow Muslims should get this: Belief that God is beyond anything we can comprehend means we do not know. So, we cannot presume to to have "the right" ideas about God, or dictate "God's will" to anybody. It's just our own will, and we are just pretending that we are the voice of the ultimate. What could be more sacrilegious than that?
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Personally, I see all the different gods as different aspects of Someone greater than my understanding. I've no quarrel with those who see them as actually different "persons". Just a matter of opinion. It's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Do you think it went that way historically speaking? I'd say they started with several gods (totemism, animism) and that the unity or origin is religious philosophy. Of course, if we're talking about how they think NOW, it doesn't make any difference how they got there.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Hey, we're all only part way to realizing how all of life is interrelated, that our acts have consequences for every creature, that we all have a common origen and destiny, etc. We're just a little ways toward waking up.
reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28Mer...Do god and God have deferent meaning to you? If we believe just in One GOD then it could be just matter of language. In my native language god mean 'dewa-dewi' -- it's include Zeus, Apollo, Venus, Vishnu (Wisnu), Shiva (Shiwa) and Brahma (Brahmana), etc, etc. It vary by culture and language.By my understanding, there is only one God. Allah is my only God.I should presume YHWH, Lord God, as the same person, if we may personalize Him. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him.Trinity is an absurd concept for me. I thinks it's too agnostics. It is Hard to understand, just too hard.Salaam,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)