Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2017, 12:44 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
We never hear much about this Holy Spirit dude, other than he's super sensitive about insults.

My hypothesis is that he represents the celestial deity portion of the mythologies that were cobbled together to form Christianity.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
16-05-2017, 12:44 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 12:19 AM)Aliza Wrote:  So… taking on the role of the American, what hesitations might you have about jumping on the Lien bandwagon? Does Lien match the description of the Kennedy that the Americans are expecting? Are the excuses that the aliens provided sufficient to sway your position?

Well, the one objection that I would have would be that the book of Aliza seems to be of questionable provenance itself Wink Also I don't particularly hold with making decisions based off religious considerations. If the aliens are offering a fair deal I'll sell the planet no problem Smile But this whole business of retro-fitting their story would definitely convince me not to do business with them, they're clearly lying scum who wouldn't honour a contract.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2017, 03:32 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 12:44 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  We never hear much about this Holy Spirit dude, other than he's super sensitive about insults.

My hypothesis is that he represents the celestial deity portion of the mythologies that were cobbled together to form Christianity.

The "holy ghost" is just a way for believers to trump anything anyone else says. When believers are inspired, they always know better. In other words, it's a rationalization tool.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
16-05-2017, 03:37 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
Quote: Christianity is technically polytheistic. You've got three godheads (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit)--even though they are offshoots of one god. You also have angels and demons. And Satan. That's what you call a pantheon.

No doubt a lot of Christians disagree -- since they disagree about everything -- but Augustine would definitely want to correct your vocabulary here.

The "godhead" is the divine nature or essence. Since, they say, God is only one, there is only one godhead.

But this God may be seen as three Persons.

When they started writing about this stuff, the word "person" in Greek didn't describe an individual human, as it does today. First it meant "mask," and then, because actors wore masks, it meant "role," as in the role an actor played. A given actor could play several roles in one play by changing his mask. So when they said that God had three persons, it meant three roles he was doing. The difference of course is that a human can do three roles sequentially, but God does them simultaneously. Just as a human today can be doctor, wife, and mother, yet be the same individual.

Augustine uses an analogy: think of someone you love. When you do this, your mind is a) remembering that person, b) understanding that person, and c) loving that person. This is to hold an image in existence, to know what that image is of, and to feel something about the original of that image. We are doing three "activities," of remembering, understanding, and loving, when looked at a certain way, but in fact we do all three simultaneously. It's the same act. Augustine says that this is just a way to think about the Trinity -- just a kind of model. But it gives a hint. It also corresponds to the three personae of what God is doing: the Father holds everything in existence; the Son [Logos] is the principle through which he holds it; and the Spirit is the love that he feels for it.

Of course, all this is allegory -- what God does is not what people do.

As for angels, demons, and Satan: they are all created beings. For Christians, no created being can be a god. The *definition* of God is that he is uncreated. So they may be "up there" and non-material, but they are not a pantheon of gods. According to standard Christian theology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Belaqua's post
16-05-2017, 03:50 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 03:37 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  For Christians, no created being can be a god. The *definition* of God is that he is uncreated. So they may be "up there" and non-material, but they are not a pantheon of gods. According to standard Christian theology.

I realize that Christians can rationalize anything, and they do make up some interesting stories. But at a point (especially with their theodicies) you have to say to yourself, "This is just too complicated." The stories are like the loops within loops of the Ptolemaic model of the universe -- not only are they too complicated, there are much simpler and more obvious explanations which make more sense.

One of those simpler explanations is that Christians are hypocrites who believe they are monotheists when they really aren't. After all, how many Christians read, understand, and agree with Augustine? Some certainly, but not all that many.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
16-05-2017, 05:49 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2017 05:54 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 03:50 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 03:37 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  For Christians, no created being can be a god. The *definition* of God is that he is uncreated. So they may be "up there" and non-material, but they are not a pantheon of gods. According to standard Christian theology.

I realize that Christians can rationalize anything, and they do make up some interesting stories. But at a point (especially with their theodicies) you have to say to yourself, "This is just too complicated." The stories are like the loops within loops of the Ptolemaic model of the universe -- not only are they too complicated, there are much simpler and more obvious explanations which make more sense.

One of those simpler explanations is that Christians are hypocrites who believe they are monotheists when they really aren't. After all, how many Christians read, understand, and agree with Augustine? Some certainly, but not all that many.

It also fails to address why one "mask" doesn't know what the other is thinking, talks to the other "mask", and asks it to change its mind.

It's an ad hoc explanation at best. The Bible clearly makes these out to be separate individuals, and yet to attach the Christian ideas to Judaism's claim that there can be only one God, they've had to do some astounding mental gymnastics.

Edit to Add: I've often found it amusing that the solution (to me) is to simply say that Jesus is not himself God, but only a "son of God", not individually a deity... a person blessed and created by God (as Adam was), and containing the powers granted to him by God, and that the "holy spirit" is the power of God when in use-- the "breathed into existence" type of Spirit that was mentioned in Genesis ("and the spirit moved upon the face of the waters"). That would make Jesus no less important, as God's vessel and mechanism for fulfilling the blood sacrifice role needed to save us from himself, and as an example of "this is how a human can be holy enough to get into heaven with God" (the reason we would "follow" Jesus is because he is an example of how a regular human can become Exalted), and also make Jesus closer to something knowledgeable Jews could get behind, theologically. In other words, the Christians shot themselves in the foot, by making Jesus *actually God*.

It still doesn't address the failure in connecting him to the actual line of the House of David, but that's another matter.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-05-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 05:49 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Edit to Add: I've often found it amusing that the solution (to me) is to simply say that Jesus is not himself God, but only a "son of God", not individually a deity... a person blessed and created by God (as Adam was), and containing the powers granted to him by God, and that the "holy spirit" is the power of God when in use-- the "breathed into existence" type of Spirit that was mentioned in Genesis ("and the spirit moved upon the face of the waters"). That would make Jesus no less important, as God's vessel and mechanism for fulfilling the blood sacrifice role needed to save us from himself, and as an example of "this is how a human can be holy enough to get into heaven with God" (the reason we would "follow" Jesus is because he is an example of how a regular human can become Exalted), and also make Jesus closer to something knowledgeable Jews could get behind, theologically. In other words, the Christians shot themselves in the foot, by making Jesus *actually God*.

AFAIK there are (or were, before they were branded as heretics and told to fuck off) some sects that espouse this view.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
16-05-2017, 05:58 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 05:57 AM)morondog Wrote:  AFAIK there are (or were, before they were branded as heretics and told to fuck off) some sects that espouse this view.

If by "told to fuck off", you mean "viciously hunted down and exterminated", then yes.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-05-2017, 06:00 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 05:58 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 05:57 AM)morondog Wrote:  AFAIK there are (or were, before they were branded as heretics and told to fuck off) some sects that espouse this view.

If by "told to fuck off", you mean "viciously hunted down and exterminated", then yes.

Early years of the church they weren't quite so dogmatic about people not following the official line AFAIK. I could be wrong.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2017, 06:14 AM
RE: Misc Q&A-sea_tiger
(16-05-2017 06:00 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 05:58 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  If by "told to fuck off", you mean "viciously hunted down and exterminated", then yes.

Early years of the church they weren't quite so dogmatic about people not following the official line AFAIK. I could be wrong.

No, not in the very early years (at which point it was largely a letter-writing campaign... thus the Pauline epistles), but then again we don't have good records of the 1-2nd century period because of the later dominance of the Orthodoxy, and then the Catholic, leadership who saw to it that most of the early stuff was wiped out-- that's what made the find at Nag Hammadi such a big deal--and replaced with The Official Truth™, so to speak.

Nag Hammadi was our first glimpse into "competing" scriptures. But we have strong evidence of brutality among the sects, such as the destruction of Gnostic temples and scriptures accompanying the rise of the Orthodoxy/Catholics in the 3rd-4th centuries, and we have later records of the Christians violently stamping out groups that dared to question the Trinity (such as the Cathars in the 13th century).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: