To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Adey, thanks, I try not to be too much of a dick (though can be at times like Banjo asks). Though I'll try to stop cumming all over the thread, the spicey scent seems to have driven off poor Borg. Sad (Did not mean derail his thread into masturbation of a non-theological nature.)

Dom, glad to supply a laugh!

Banjo, so sorry to hear that Sad

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 12:35 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 12:30 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Though I'll try to stop cumming all over the thread, the spicey scent seems to have driven off poor Borg.

I'm not gonna even ask how the fuck you know this. You're not supposed to sniff the sock when you're done.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
08-01-2017, 01:12 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 12:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 12:30 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Though I'll try to stop cumming all over the thread, the spicey scent seems to have driven off poor Borg.

I'm not gonna even ask how the fuck you know this. You're not supposed to sniff the sock when you're done.

(In all fairness, never have sniffed it, was going for a failed joke about sandworm byproducts all smelling of the Spice Melange in the Dune universe.)

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 04:43 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 11:22 AM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Basically, on the "open to life" stuff. The sex act has to end in the possibility of the creation of new life; and though 98% of Catholics use the condom and the Pill, that's not the church teaching according to Humanae Vitae. Adey67, part of me wants to go "Oh no! to Onanism..." if we could make a DARE-esque, equally ineffective, "don't touch thyself" campaign. Tongue

(07-01-2017 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Enjoy your self-imposed guilt. Thumbsup
I don't need religion for my own self imposed guilt complexes sadly. But hey, I do, do, the Catholic guilt thing well, and self impose it well, you are right.

(08-01-2017 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have generalized 'sin' and 'worship' into meaninglessness. Good job. Dodgy

Funny enough, this would fall under the sin of "relativism" as far as Borgy and mine's churches go...which would mean that Chas is agreeing with the Church... I do believe Hell froze over? Yes

Not relativism, meaninglessness.
If there is anything of the church with which I agree, it just means they accidentally got something right. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-01-2017, 04:54 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 07:42 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  I will submit that everyone worships something. People don't call it worship, but the form is worship regardless.

You're welcome to "submit" this notion, but unless one is a theist, it's meaningless. Worship is defined specifically as the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity, or the reverent honour and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. You're merely playing with semantics here.

(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  People can worship money, or material things, or even people.

No. Semantics again. Typical theist point of false argumentation.

(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  There are so many things that people create an imaginary altar in their minds, and they do sacrifice on that altar feelings, thoughts, cares, et al. to achieve their goal in life.

Again, no. Unsubstantiated.

(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  There are times when I don't give a shit about other people. ME-first. I have hurt people.

You're a typical theist then? Hypocrisy and self flagellation?

(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  We all have a god.

Oh dear... I'm beginning to think you're severely self-deluded, or a stubby short of a 6-pack. This is possibly one of the most inane comments you've posted here LOL.

[Image: born-in-sin-come-on-in.png?v2]

Thumbsup

Again, very myopic. You use--no, you demand--that words must fit your definitions. There can be no dialogue as long as one side insists on translating words within narrow, confined denotations while ignoring the others.

And, in very simple terms, you have created yourself as your god.

Again, the notion of theism and atheism are mere psychological and philosophical concepts. I'll ignore the insult, as it appears you are lacking in both areas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 04:59 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 07:45 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 07:20 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  I'm sorry, but with all due respect, you want to argue. I am used to academic discussions. Unfortunately, you would not walk one step with me in trying to understand what I was saying.

I don't agree with you so I don't understand?

Quote:Case in point. You questioned my knowledge of mythology. I brushed off the attack. Yes, I am quite knowledgeable of mythology in Norse, European (including British), African, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. And I have just started studying Filipino mythology.

I questioned your alleged knowledge cause you didn't backed it with facts. You just asserted that: In all of our mythologies, being human is a "sin" to the gods, without providing a shred of proof. I won't even mention unwarranted use of word "all" - I highly doubt that you have even cursory knowledge of all mythologies.

Saying that you're knowledgeable means nothing if you won't back your statements with something.

Quote:I suggested we open up the definitions of "sin" and "worship," which you preferred to shoot down, regarding your own concepts as, well, let's be honest, sacro sanct or the only definitions you will accept.

I see no reason for accepting your meaninglessly wide definitions as I suspect yours so called arguments hinge on redefining words. Otherwise how could everyone be considered worshiping something?

Quote:A meaningful discussion would have entailed you coming back with a supposition or argument (as opposed to an argument of who should have filled the car up with gas) or hypothesis. I see little value in having my words thrown back in my face with "prove it," when these are concepts that often have very little proof to begin with. Much of what we are discussing falls in the realm of psychology and philosophy, and taking in both disciplines en total, there isn't a whole lot of proof but a cruise ship full of theories.

Meaningful discussion would be possible if you were to show some actual knowledge not only assert that you have it. I guess it is easier to play a wise man used to academic discussion than actually put some thought in what you're saying.

I'll keep it simple - you claim that everyone has a god and you expect to be taken seriously?

Quote:Sorry, but I don't have the time to argue. Discuss? Not a problem.

For discussion to be possible something more than claims about having knowledge would be needed. In that department I find you lacking.

To sum it all up:

1. You lack respect of me. You want me to fill volumes of pages with research I have done over the last 50 years.
2. Filling pages and pages on this forums with just references to documents, videos, etc. is not only a waste of time, but I am sure that there is a "rule" against doing that.
3. Regarding the understanding part, in part, perhaps, it is not so much that you do not understand me as you refuse to understand me. This is called entrenchment, by the way.

And like I responded to the other "criitc": you have created yourself as your god. It is pure and simple. All is relatively psychological and philosophical, and you, too, apparently are lacking in both.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2017 05:11 PM by adey67.)
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Created ourselves as gods ? What a load of utter excreta No
Flush out your headgear mate Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
08-01-2017, 05:19 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 08:12 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  I will submit that everyone worships something. People don't call it worship, but the form is worship regardless.
If they don't call it worship then perhaps it is not worship in the sense that worship is normally understood. Worship is ritual adoration. One could hyperbolically say that I worship software development but I do not ritually adore it. I just enjoy it and engage in it both vocationally and (subject to time and energy) avocationally. It is important to me. But I do not get messages from my code that no one else can hear, that guides my life and conduct, either.
(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  We have to move from the narrow concept of dancing, singing, sacrificing, et al. to some kind of deity to the much broader scope of observation.
If you would say WHY we need to do such a thing I might even be convinced. I can think of a number of reasons why NOT but let's hear your rationale first.
(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  People can worship money, or material things, or even people. There are so many things that people create an imaginary altar in their minds, and they do sacrifice on that altar feelings, thoughts, cares, et al. to achieve their goal in life.
Back in my theist days I used to buy this line of thinking that "everyone worships something, even if only themselves". But I now see that for what it is: an attempt to legitimize worship as an innate human need so that the only question becomes having a "correct" object.

First, even if that were true, who is to say that you couldn't meet the need with most any object. Who is to say what would be an "unworthy" or "incorrect" object of worship? Indeed, wouldn't a being who demands worship as its due be a highly suspect object of worship? Wouldn't worship freely given be of better quality and benefit to the giver as well as more authentic for the recipient?

Of course that line of questioning exposes another problem: worship doesn't just need an object. It needs a sentient object. Worship is adoration. Inanimate objects or abstractions like money are indifferent to adoration.

But in fact I see no evidence for an inherent need for worship. What humans try to achieve with theism and its trappings such as worship, is transcendence of the human condition, most particularly, their mortality and lack of agency in the face of suffering. Once you understand it that way then you see worship for what it is, it is part of the ritual-based undergirding to support theistic ideation and the immortality project that it represents.
(08-01-2017 03:28 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  My favorite is ME. I see people--including myself--worshiping the ME. There are times when I don't give a shit about other people. ME-first. I have hurt people.
As have we all. But this is not self-worship. It is simply being aware of your needs / fears / desires more than that of others. We should call that what it really is: self-centeredness. And it is a product, fundamentally, of immaturity. I have found that the more life experience I have, the more I put myself in proper relation to life and to others. That is, I recognize that I suck as much as, and in the same ways as, everyone else, am just as likely to be mistaken, myopic or venal. But I do not see this as something I am helpless to do anything about other than to go to the extreme of self-abnegation and self-loathing, to be afraid to take any legitimate credit for anything and "give all the glory to god" and all the blame to myself, either.

Self-absorption is a straightforward problem with a simple remedy. That doesn't make it a trivial one-time decision to become other-centered, it is a lifelong project to be sure. But that is entirely explicable without constructs like 'worship'. It is perfectly to be expected that people put #1 first. That is a bias provided by natural selection for the pre-urban world of hunter-gatherers and we have to override it because our social and technological development and needs have far outstripped natural selection's operating pace to adjust for it. It's that simple ... and that problematic.

I will at least grant you that the ultimate end of your arguments about worship isn't the usual "therefore, god". At least it does not presently appear so. For the moment at least you seem to be arguing for worship as a way to better understand one's humanity, as something to work with. But I think there are underlying concepts that are better focused on: our need for a safe and comprehensible existence over against the need for social reciprocity, the need to otherize vs empathy, etc. Worship is just a flawed abstraction for attempting to wrestle with the human condition.

You wrote: "Worship is ritual adoration." This is a true statement but not a definitive statement of the word "worship." Take out the word "ritual" and you have a much more definitive statement. People worship their cars, their money, even other people. If someone "hurts" their object of worship, then there is hell to pay.

Likewise, you wrote: "But I do not get messages from my code." This may be a function of some forms of worship, but it does not apply to all forms of worship. Many societies worship their ancestors, but they do not expect to get messages from them. Instead, they show respect and obeisance, which merely raises them in the eyes of society. Although, there are humorous stories about individuals who failed to keep the custom of worshiping the dead and suffering consequences from "the beyond."

You wrote: "Once you understand it that way then you see worship for what it is, it is part of the ritual-based undergirding to support theistic ideation and the immortality project that it represents." At first glance, I would agree with you. However, this statement is not relevant when our ancestors would treat nature as anthropomorphistic in order to influence nature in a positive way.

And again, I am not boxing myself into a corner by only relying on one denotation. In philosophical discussion, one cannot.

Yes, self-centeredness. I have boiled it down to one word: ME. I agree with you until you got to the point of helplessness. At this point, you stepped into the theistic nonsense and made this nonsense a denotation of the word worship. A defining denotation, by the way.

I wrote a mini-essay elsewhere based on the book Christianity's Dangerous Memory, whereby Jesus did NOT talk about some kingdom of the sky but rather spiritual empowerment. In other words, Jesus, like so many other teachers on the planet in our long history, would have been pissed off by the very human complaint of helplessness and instructed people to find that spark within themselves of spiritual empowerment. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with a God. Just some people feel more comfortable by having a faith in a God to help them, but organized religion beats them back into submission as being weak, helpless, pieces of shit.

You wrote: "Worship is just a flawed abstraction for attempting to wrestle with the human condition." Perhaps so. But given the discussion so far, I have attempted to use words that are being bandied about. You have elevated the discussion to begin using other synonyms that others may appreciate or more fully understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 05:25 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 11:22 AM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Basically, on the "open to life" stuff. The sex act has to end in the possibility of the creation of new life; and though 98% of Catholics use the condom and the Pill, that's not the church teaching according to Humanae Vitae. Adey67, part of me wants to go "Oh no! to Onanism..." if we could make a DARE-esque, equally ineffective, "don't touch thyself" campaign. Tongue

(07-01-2017 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Enjoy your self-imposed guilt. Thumbsup
I don't need religion for my own self imposed guilt complexes sadly. But hey, I do, do, the Catholic guilt thing well, and self impose it well, you are right.

(08-01-2017 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have generalized 'sin' and 'worship' into meaninglessness. Good job. Dodgy

Funny enough, this would fall under the sin of "relativism" as far as Borgy and mine's churches go...which would mean that Chas is agreeing with the Church... I do believe Hell froze over? Yes

You wrote: "You have generalized 'sin' and 'worship' into meaninglessness." Really? Or did I speak outside your sacred teacup?

The speed limit is 40. You drive 41. You have sinned, transgressed, broke the law. How is the word "sin" now made meaningless.

You have a car, and that car is your most prized possession. You would kill anyone who touches your car, especially to do it injury. How is that not different from "worship"? Meaningless? I think not.

We have to open-wide the "box" that surrounds our thinking. Arguments and positions that insist on using only one detonation while rejecting the others spins nowhere but into the ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 05:32 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 05:06 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Created ourselves as gods ? What a load of utter excreta No
Flush out your headgear mate Laugh out load

Why? Please explain position why you think that people cannot or have not created themselves as gods?

Then perhaps we can better understand Hitler, all the Korean Kims, Pol Pot . . . ah, but let us get deeper into society. All the way down to fathers who rule their families as if they are gods.

Perhaps we should get psychological. You get hungry, you eat. But did you share? You are tired and want to sleep. Did you move someone else out of their sleeping area? You have an opinion, and you think: the first person who disagrees with me dies!

Hmmm. No god-making here, huh?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: