Insult to Polytheists

[Michael]

I've noticed that monotheists often think it's fine to suggest a few things about Hindu, Shinto, Chinese Joss houses and other forms of polytheism.

namely these two comments:

1) That polytheists are being deceived by Satan and his minions (aka other daemons). Have you ever heard that one? It's Baptist bread and butter.

2) They patronizingly suggest that polytheists "need" something they can "touch" "see" and "feel" - in essence their beleif in multiple Gods and Goddesses is a reflection on their inability to grasp and understand the "real" truth of the "One" God and their polytheistic beliefs are more base .. you know, easier for the "little" people to grasp and take home.

When this second one comes up, it's as if they are speaking to children.

Now, that's pretty funny, considering atheists often suggest something similar about monotheists! Isn't it interesting how they think it's patronizing when their beleif is humanistically rationalized (and feel we treat them as children) yet when they do the same sort of thing to polytheists it all fine and good :bugeye:

Hypocrites!
M

 

[nova900]

I've noticed that monotheists often think it's fine to suggest a few things about Hindu, Shinto, Chinese Joss houses and other forms of polytheism.

namely these two comments:

1) That polytheists are being deceived by Satan and his minions (aka other daemons). Have you ever heard that one? It's Baptist bread and butter.

Hypocrites!
M

I have heard it many times.One of the reasons I no longer follow the Baptist church. I find the majority of these baptist ministers and their congregations very ignorant of Polytheism. They rely completely on the same old "spiel" about how it's, evil,false,foolish,etc rather than do any type of research themselves about it's history and the history of their own religion as well.
As much as I admire Isis,I'm not about to drive thru the bible belt with a "Isis Saves" bumper sticker

 

[Simon Anders]

and are never given pause by the 'created in God's image' concept. Hm. Two sexes, one male God. Two sexes, one male God. Hm. Why didn't their single God create a monosexual species? A quick look around will find some species with one sex so God ought to be seen as having the capability.

 

[Michael]

and are never given pause by the 'created in God's image' concept. Hm. Two sexes, one male God. Two sexes, one male God. Hm. Why didn't their single God create a monosexual species? A quick look around will find some species with one sex so God ought to be seen as having the capability.

Interesting.
Jews used to worship male and female gods.

Atheists "defending" polytheists, what a joke.

The point isn't "defending" polytheists SAM, it's pointing out how at ease monotheists like yourself are with patronizingly suggesting that Hindu (edit: or SHINTO, or any other polytheist) are base; as they have this "need" to represent God with an image. You completely disregard the whole idea that just maybe their religion is a valid beleif. YET, when atheists do the exact same thing to your silly moon God.... Oooo Hoooo Hooooo ... that's not right!

Geesh...

Here, let me show you once again:

Is it possible SAM that the Hindu Gods or Shinto Gods actually exist? If not then what are Hindu and Shinto worshiping?

Michael II

PS: For my part I am more than happy to say it is possible there is one God, or two or three or a million or none or a goddess or a Xenu, it's certainly possible.

 

[Michael]

I know Hindu as well SAM, gee imagine that. You'll also notice I posted Shinto.
Now, instead of serving up the usual: red herring, answer the question or craw back under from wherever it is your crawled out from

 

[Michael]

Ok whats a Hindu God? Give me an example of a Hindu God.

Haaa! This is perfect. What next SAM? The Hindu and Shinto statues of their Gods are really Idols and "Idols" is bad, thems the work of the devil...

In short, you are living up to exactly what was posted as #2. Trying your damnedest to reinterpret anything that may be polytheism as second class dumbed down monotheism. Of course you don't "know" enough about Shinto to comment on them, but your sure as hell positive all Hindus are really monotheists, if only they knew Islam then they'd give up their reliance on incarnations and avatars and see the light and truth the way you know it.


What's the reason for the Hindu avatars SAM? Come on, go ahead and give us your explanation. You know, the one were you tell us of the little people and their need to have something they can see, touch and hold on to? Not like YOU, the great SAM who knows that in reality there is One God and he is the God of the Qur'an. Which makes more sense, to you, and this God's special square rock in Mecca and special magical human who heard an angle in his head....


Anyway, I digress, the title of the thread is POLYTHEISTS, such as many Hindu, many Shinto, many Africans, many Chinese, many native Americans, etc... ... ... ... there are still 100s of millions of people that believe there are more than one God. As in individual separate beings.


So, on that, thanks for making my point ..




The next time some atheist condescendingly reinterprets your beleif in God as part brainwashing and part human "need" to believe in magical pixi dust (to get you through the day) you can look back to this thread and reflect on your own notions on polytheists and appreciate the fact that you're basically an atheist for all but this one god.

In short: you think just like an Atheist when contemplating polytheists, you just can't apply this same logic to this last one.


Michael

 

[Simon Anders]

Atheists "defending" polytheists, what a joke.

I don't think the point was to defend polytheists, though I would do this, but rather to say 'aren't many monotheists doing the same thing to polytheists that atheists do to monotheists which monotheists consider immoral.' You may disagree, but it is a different kind of argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

So, any example of a Hindu God?

 

[Simon Anders]

Interesting.
Jews used to worship male and female gods.

And you can see a twisted yearning for it in Catholicism. Many pagan religions have female and male head or encompassing deities.

 

[Michael]

I don't think the point was to defend polytheists, though I would do this, but rather to say 'aren't many monotheists doing the same thing to polytheists that atheists do to monotheists which monotheists consider immoral.'

Oh, SAM knows exactly what she is doing which is why she refuses to answer my questions. There's no point in entertaining her ideas of Hinduism because next we move to definitions of word and from there on to the meaning of meaning and bla bla bla .... down into hell we descend.

So, any example of a Hindu God?

I'm sure you'd like to derail the thread into a debate about the nature of Hinduism, which this thread is not about, and weather or not Hindu are true polytheists, monotheists, pantheistic, atheistic, etc... go make yourself another thread if you want to debate that, as it's not a part of this thread.

To make it easy for you think of this: POLYTHEISTS people who believe in more the one God. Think Ancient Greeks or modern Japanese if it makes makes the reason for this thread easier to grasp.

And you can see a twisted yearning for it in Catholicism. Many pagan religions have female and male head or encompassing deities.

It certainly would seem more fitting to have a Patriarch and Matriarch to balance one another. And, Jews initially had exactly that. I wondered what effects venerating Mary brought to Xainity? A sort of femininity that softened the religion and helped bring some balance.

Catholics also have many Saints, these sort of serve in the place of all the other Gods of old.


But, to tell you the truth, Saints IMO aren't as interesting as Gods. Gods can and do act in ways that are considered moral and immoral whereas Saints by definition seem to always be so saintly.

 

[lightgigantic]

I've noticed that monotheists often think it's fine to suggest a few things about Hindu, Shinto, Chinese Joss houses and other forms of polytheism.

namely these two comments:

1) That polytheists are being deceived by Satan and his minions (aka other daemons). Have you ever heard that one? It's Baptist bread and butter.

2) They patronizingly suggest that polytheists "need" something they can "touch" "see" and "feel" - in essence their beleif in multiple Gods and Goddesses is a reflection on their inability to grasp and understand the "real" truth of the "One" God and their polytheistic beliefs are more base .. you know, easier for the "little" people to grasp and take home.

When this second one comes up, it's as if they are speaking to children.

Now, that's pretty funny, considering atheists often suggest something similar about monotheists! Isn't it interesting how they think it's patronizing when their beleif is humanistically rationalized (and feel we treat them as children) yet when they do the same sort of thing to polytheists it all fine and good :bugeye:

Hypocrites!
M

actually this is the standard issue with polytheism (from the bhagavada gita, of all places)

BG 7.20: Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

BG 7.21: I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity.

BG 7.22: Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

BG 7.23: Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

The only reason people or particular cultures are situated within models of polytheism is that they are in the grip of material desire. Why else worship an entity that is subject to the frailties of material existence for a boon that time will diminish?

Its not all bad news however, since at least a polytheist can see something as more worshipable than themselves, so such disciplines have their place in spiritual progress. Problems only ensue when one declares that such practices are perfectional.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

I've noticed that monotheists often think it's fine to suggest a few things about Hindu, Shinto, Chinese Joss houses and other forms of polytheism.

namely these two comments:

1) That polytheists are being deceived by Satan and his minions (aka other daemons). Have you ever heard that one? It's Baptist bread and butter.

2) They patronizingly suggest that polytheists "need" something they can "touch" "see" and "feel" - in essence their beleif in multiple Gods and Goddesses is a reflection on their inability to grasp and understand the "real" truth of the "One" God and their polytheistic beliefs are more base .. you know, easier for the "little" people to grasp and take home.

When this second one comes up, it's as if they are speaking to children.

Now, that's pretty funny, considering atheists often suggest something similar about monotheists! Isn't it interesting how they think it's patronizing when their beleif is humanistically rationalized (and feel we treat them as children) yet when they do the same sort of thing to polytheists it all fine and good :bugeye:

Hypocrites!
M

As an ex-polytheist and a current atheist, I'd say you're 100% correct in your conclusions.

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

Firstly, you are taking a verse written just how many millennia ago? In a long forgotten culture and language that doesn't exist. Was this peace written in response to the power of religous establishment? At THAT time and THAT place for THOSE people?

Think about it, Thomas Jefferson said as much about MONOtheism. Many authors did. Because they understood that when religous people are given any amount of power they squeeze the people with their superstitious carrot and the stick tactics.

Or maybe not. If not, then I'd say they're as bad as the people they claim to rail against.

The only reason people or particular cultures are situated within models of polytheism is that they are in the grip of material desire.

Oh? Now you know the motivation of all people, in all places in all of time. Please! Do you know how many polytheistic monks lived squalid material-free lives over the ages!?!

I'd like to make the point again that MANY, if not ALL, monotheisms offer materialist rewards in the here and now as well as the later. There's a reason why people say: Oh please God, PLEASE GOD, lucky 7s... DAMN Snake Eyes!!!

Why else worship an entity that is subject to the frailties of material existence for a boon that time will diminish?

To explain why things happen in the world, and what happens after I die.

No body likes: You fathers ship went down for no real reason other than bad weather and "you" completely end when you die. Much better to say, Poseidon attacked the ship (insert Xenu or Allah) and you go to heaven when you die where you drink wine and bonk virgins.

Its not all bad news however, since at least a polytheist can see something as more worshipable than themselves, so such disciplines have their place in spiritual progress. Problems only ensue when one declares that such practices are perfectional.

Many atheists see the "State" or even "humanity" as greater then themselves.

As to the:Problems only ensue when one declares that such practices are perfectional.

Please explain.

As an ex-polytheist and a current atheist, I'd say you're 100% correct in your conclusions.

Thanks

 

[Medicine*Woman]

doesn't

*************
M*W: Michael, I have a question for you. Are Scientologists generally atheists?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic,

Firstly, you are taking a verse written just how many millennia ago?

regardless of the presence or absence of washing machines or computers, material desire has the same aroma

In a long forgotten culture and language that doesn't exist.

I guess you are not familiar with the gita (or the opinions of a host of contemporary writers about the timeless wisdom presented in the gita)

Was this peace written in response to the power of religous establishment? At THAT time and THAT place for THOSE people?

there are some aspects of the vedas that deal with such issues - technically called issues of sva-dharma - (specifically the puranas) however the bhagavad gita is celebrated as the "cream" or summarized conclusion of the entire vedas - IOW its sole topic of explanation is sanatana dharma

Think about it, Thomas Jefferson said as much about MONOtheism. Many authors did. Because they understood that when religous people are given any amount of power they squeeze the people with their superstitious carrot and the stick tactics.

any social power has the capacity to exert a certain norm and standard.
If it didn't, it wouldn't be a social power

Oh? Now you know the motivation of all people, in all places in all of time. Please! Do you know how many polytheistic monks lived squalid material-free lives over the ages!?!

yes, but too what ends?
Even tyaga (or material renunciation) is cautioned as an expression of material desire (repulsion and attraction are simply two sides of the same coin).
Once again, material desire has the same aroma, and even a little bit of familiarity with works like bhagavad gita enables one to understand this

I'd like to make the point again that MANY, if not ALL, monotheisms offer materialist rewards in the here and now as well as the later. There's a reason why people say: Oh please God, PLEASE GOD, lucky 7s... DAMN Snake Eyes!!!

hence there is a distinction between religiousity performed under material desire and religiousity without

eg BG 18.34 But that determination by which one holds fast to fruitive results in religion, economic development and sense gratification is of the nature of passion, O Arjuna.
etc etc

To explain why things happen in the world, and what happens after I die.

No body likes: You fathers ship went down for no real reason other than bad weather and "you" completely end when you die. Much better to say, Poseidon attacked the ship (insert Xenu or Allah) and you go to heaven when you die where you drink wine and bonk virgins.
Many atheists see the "State" or even "humanity" as greater then themselves.

without some over-riding universal element, such explanations are plagued by the same frailties of this world (because the over-riding element of polytheistic paradigms is the time factor aka - birth, death, etc)

As to the:Problems only ensue when one declares that such practices are perfectional.

Please explain.
Thanks

because there is no ultimate solution to the problems of life - namely birth and death, and the business of so called liberated life is practically identical to the business of this life - hence you find that polytheistic societies have the tendency to progress to voidist paradigms (aka mayavada, buddhist, etc)

 

[John99]

*************
M*W: Michael, I have a question for you. Are Scientologists generally atheists?

NO.

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

Really, I fail to see why believing in two Gods or a God and a Goddess or revering and having faith in the local Mountain Goddess and acknowledging and respecting the the River God as well somehow promulgates materialism more than monotheism?

I'm visualizing Native Americans and European Xians... which were the materialistic one's again?

anyway, I'm just not seeing the connection...

RE: Are Scientologists Atheists?

From the Offical Website:
The word Scientology literally means "the study of truth". Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

I'm going to say probably no.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Material renunciation is a material desire. Next we'll be told absurdity is logic.

and are never given pause by the 'created in God's image' concept. Hm. Two sexes, one male God. Two sexes, one male God. Hm. Why didn't their single God create a monosexual species? A quick look around will find some species with one sex so God ought to be seen as having the capability.

So you know what a god would do?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic,

Really, I fail to see why believing in two Gods or a God and a Goddess or revering and having faith in the local Mountain Goddess and acknowledging and respecting the the River God as well somehow promulgates materialism more than monotheism?

I'm visualizing Native Americans and European Xians... which were the materialistic one's again?

such deities are worshiped according to their capacity to provide bountiful boons etc, so even though there are some noble aspects to the discipline, such practices always remain tainted to a greater or lesser extent by the materialistic concept of life.

Of course even monotheistic disciplines are frequently tainted by material desire.

The problem of either of these two scenarios only becomes apparent when they are advocated as perfectional

RE: Are Scientologists Atheists?

From the Offical Website:
The word Scientology literally means "the study of truth". Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

I'm going to say probably no.

you would have to ask more in depth q's, like what is the living entity's ultimate relationship with god, and given that man is immortal etc, what are the activities of such a person who has fully realized their eternal self.

In short there are all different grades of atheists - sometimes it is convenient to think in terms of one being a philosophical atheist or an atheist in practice - for instance a so called religious practitioner can very easily avoid being a philosophical atheist but remain an atheist in practice

 

[lightgigantic]

Material renunciation is a material desire.

sure
if I walk up to a bank teller and say "I want to spend 10 000 000 000 dollars" it has the same value as me saying "I renounce 10 000 000 000 dollars" - either case, the money is not mine so my repulsion or attraction to it is the same old thing (illusion, material desire etc etc)

hence

BG 3.4 Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection.