The World is Polytheistic

snakelord
“
to repeat again
a triangle is a logical issue
gender is a relative issue
”
No, it's a human words with human meanings issue.
Click to expand...
ie - relative to humans
if you have scope for redefining that relativity (eg purusa and prakrti) you have a new reference point
“
you are arguing that the term is completely relative to human experience
”
You're arguing from a human perspective using human experience to try and define what a god can or cannot do along with every other human in existence that would try to do define one as well.
Click to expand...
I am?
Alas you have not managed to tell me why this god of yours is confined to rules and constructs that you would claim it created and put in place.
Click to expand...
because logic gives an important contribution to anything knowable
for instance if I start talking about circles that look like triangles, it becomes unclear what I am referencing

If it is subservient to these rules and constructs then it can never be considered the greatest conceivable entity, (yes, conceivable to humans).
Click to expand...
it may never be completely conceivable but it can be conceivable enough to be discernible
for instance there is no such thing that can be physically indicated as a perfect triangle or perfect circle
still they remain independently discernible enough to make a "circular triangle" an absurdity
 
ie - relative to humans
Click to expand...

Umm.. You're a human, (I assume), using a human word with a human meaning to define an entity that does not come under the definition of that human word with a human meaning. What's so hard to grasp? It isn't, by the definition of the human word with a human meaning a 'him' - unless it's a male in which case call it him all you like.

I am?
Click to expand...

Apologies, I was assuming you were human.

for instance if I start talking about circles that look like triangles, it becomes unclear what I am referencing
Click to expand...

As explained it is a human word with a human definition and thus the problem arises. Same thing with calling a genderless entity a 'him'.

However it's ultimately inconsequential. You can call your god whatever you want to call it. When you refer to it as a him people will unfortunately perhaps picture it as a male being with a penis. Indeed you'll find even in your own culture that this is exactly what has and is done via paintings, statues etc etc. Of course they're probably equally unsure what a genderless entity would look like and so they shape these gods in a manner of things they can relate to - like elephants and cows and men.. of course.

These images would ultimately be just as inaccurate.
 
Snakelord
“
ie - relative to humans
”
Umm.. You're a human, (I assume), using a human word with a human meaning to define an entity that does not come under the definition of that human word with a human meaning.
Click to expand...
or alternatively, you are using a human meaning of a word that can also be applied to something that is not merely human

What's so hard to grasp? It isn't, by the definition of the human word with a human meaning a 'him' - unless it's a male in which case call it him all you like.
Click to expand...
the issue is to what extent your understandings of masculinity are absolute
“
I am?
”
Apologies, I was assuming you were human.
Click to expand...
it was more about your assumptions of my relying on human experience
“
for instance if I start talking about circles that look like triangles, it becomes unclear what I am referencing
”
As explained it is a human word with a human definition and thus the problem arises. Same thing with calling a genderless entity a 'him'.
Click to expand...
as explained it is a relative issue
and as offered, there is further information (purusa and prakrti) which can bring the term to a level beyond what humans normally experience
However it's ultimately inconsequential. You can call your god whatever you want to call it. When you refer to it as a him people will unfortunately perhaps picture it as a male being with a penis.
Click to expand...
if they don't know what is meant by purusa and prakrti, yes, they will probably think something much like you
Indeed you'll find even in your own culture that this is exactly what has and is done via paintings, statues etc etc.
Click to expand...
needless to say, your cultural understanding enables you to personally comprehend the issue to the same degree as egyptian hieroglyphics
Of course they're probably equally unsure what a genderless entity would look like and so they shape these gods in a manner of things they can relate to - like elephants and cows and men.. of course.

These images would ultimately be just as inaccurate.
Click to expand...
or alternatively, your cultural bias has you facing the opposite direction
 
You call them gods, the bible calls them gods, and God calls them gods. Gods are gods no matter how you slice it. Even God is polytheistic.
 
Not me. You have more at stake and therefore more of the dilemma. If mine is an assumption then so is yours. Mine is in print with the backing of God and yours is semantics and the mind of God.

The fact is God knows there are other gods. Not other things described as gods but as in His word, gods. There are other gods out there, I don't have to interpret god to mean anything else to suit my story, but you do.
 
or alternatively, you are using a human meaning of a word that can also be applied to something that is not merely human
Click to expand...

Wake up. It doesn't have to be human, that's not what the word means. It does however have to be male, that is what the word means.

it was more about your assumptions of my relying on human experience
Click to expand...

As opposed to... aliens from the 5th dimension experience? :bugeye:

if they don't know what is meant by purusa and prakrti
Click to expand...

As long as the understand what is meant by "him", they wont face the problems you're having.

needless to say, your cultural understanding enables you to personally comprehend the issue to the same degree as egyptian hieroglyphics
Click to expand...

I'm actually quite well clued up on hieroglyphs, (I wanted to be an Egyptologist back in the day). Anyway, is there any chance you could start a new habit of focusing not on the speaker but on what is spoken? I notice that you constantly attack the person instead of the argument. Poor tactics.

or alternatively, your cultural bias has you facing the opposite direction
Click to expand...

Yet another attack on the person instead of the post. Do you deny what was said? Your gods are not imaged in human, elephant etc form? Attack the argument lg, not the person heh?
 
Hi LG

In describing god please put us right on the etymology. You now have the floor and the chance to show us the errors of our ways. Don't throw your chance away or some of us may think you are simply bluffing.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Not me. You have more at stake and therefore more of the dilemma. If mine is an assumption then so is yours. Mine is in print with the backing of God and yours is semantics and the mind of God.

The fact is God knows there are other gods. Not other things described as gods but as in His word, gods. There are other gods out there, I don't have to interpret god to mean anything else to suit my story, but you do.
Click to expand...
actually your use of the word is god is a mental concoction

the very fact that there is a god (described as being omnimax) suggesting other "gods" clearly indicates that placing them on an equal qualitative platform is foolish
 
Snakelord
“
or alternatively, you are using a human meaning of a word that can also be applied to something that is not merely human
”
Wake up. It doesn't have to be human, that's not what the word means. It does however have to be male, that is what the word means.
Click to expand...
still doesn't explain why you insist on using male in strictly humanistic terms, particularly when an offering was made to indicate how it can be taken beyond such terms
“
it was more about your assumptions of my relying on human experience
”
As opposed to... aliens from the 5th dimension experience?
Click to expand...
actually as opposed to accommodating the implications of terms like "purusa" and "prakrti"
“
if they don't know what is meant by purusa and prakrti
”
As long as the understand what is meant by "him", they wont face the problems you're having.
Click to expand...
you mean like an understanding of "him" that doesn't draw a connection to terms like "purusa" and "prakrti"?

“
needless to say, your cultural understanding enables you to personally comprehend the issue to the same degree as egyptian hieroglyphics
”
I'm actually quite well clued up on hieroglyphs, (I wanted to be an Egyptologist back in the day). Anyway, is there any chance you could start a new habit of focusing not on the speaker but on what is spoken? I notice that you constantly attack the person instead of the argument. Poor tactics.

“
or alternatively, your cultural bias has you facing the opposite direction
”
Yet another attack on the person instead of the post. Do you deny what was said? Your gods are not imaged in human, elephant etc form? Attack the argument lg, not the person heh?
Click to expand...
if you insist on arguing out of your own relative experience, why complain when that relative experience is brought into critical focus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top