The World is Polytheistic

[Myles]

done in post 59

In post 59 you refer to the Vedas and some of the names of god. I didn.t ask about names. I asked for a description which would include attributes. Can you describe god or only tell us some of the names people give him ?

You also failed to deal with the question of etymology. I asked about this because an earlier post of yours suggested that someone was wrong about god and you referred to the etymology without giving the origin of the word.

 

[lightgigantic]

In post 59 you refer to the Vedas and some of the names of god. I didn.t ask about names. I asked for a description which would include attributes. Can you describe god or only tell us some of the names people give him ?

the names are descriptions - its not clear what you are asking exactly

 

[Myles]

the names are descriptions - its not clear what you are asking exactly

It may not be clear to you but a description is about attributes. A name is irrelevant. So please stick to attributes

If you cannot understand what I said above , let me give you an example . A witness to a crime may give a detailed DESCRIPTION of the crimnal to the police. It is not necessary that the witness should know the crimnal's name.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

god isn't the one who appears to have trouble understanding the implications of being omnimax ....

Snakelord has a point.

According to your interpretation we must readjust the definition of polytheism. Monotheism being the belief or acceptance of one all powerful god with lesser gods. Polytheism is a belief in lesser gods, none of which are omnimax. I'm so glad you are here to rewrite the bible glossary for us.

So polytheists aren't really doing anything wrong. They obviously are unaware of an omnimax god as you put it. They are not putting other gods ahead of your God because that would be impossible, if I follow your logic. For some unknown reason God mentions other gods. He doesn't specify if they are like Him or not but His choice of the word god is at best ambiguous.

 

[SnakeLord]

still doesn't explain why you insist on using male in strictly humanistic terms

Because you and I are humans giving something a human name with a given human definition. If you can actually forward me a copy of a non-human dictionary then perhaps it will have a different definition of 'him', but on this planet when you, a human, refer to something else as a 'him' you are, by definition, stating that it is a male entity. You can continue to use the term 'him' using some non-existent alien dictionary, but it doesn't amount to much.

actually as opposed to accommodating the implications of terms like "purusa" and "prakrti"

Both human terms written by humans for humans with human definitions.

if you insist on arguing out of your own relative experience, why complain when that relative experience is brought into critical focus?

There are several ways with which to conduct debate and discussion. One of them is to use the lg tactic which means continuously attacking the poster while actually not saying much about the issues presented. The second and more worthile method is to look at what is written and focus on that.

Prakrti is personified as a 'goddess', the female counterpart of every god. Purusa means 'man'. In saying it would relate to a god entity being both male and female. This invariably goes against the very definition of 'him' and so once again 'it' would be the more accurate word to use. Further to that it is actually in agreement with my original post concerning the ability to call an entity the supreme. It must invariably be everything combined, for if it lacks anything it cannot be supreme.

Possible from this moment on you could do the decent thing and respond to the post?

1) Do you concur that to be a supreme entity, one that no greater can be imagined, it cannot lack anything?

2) Do you understand that the word 'him' that has a specific meaning is not the most accurate word to use in relation to any entity that is not specifically male?

If you insist on your continual post avoidance in preference of poster attack I shall be forced to add you to ignore once again.

 

[lightgigantic]

the names are descriptions - its not clear what you are asking exactly

It may not be clear to you but a description is about attributes. A name is irrelevant. So please stick to attributes

If you cannot understand what I said above , let me give you an example . A witness to a crime may give a detailed DESCRIPTION of the crimnal to the police. It is not necessary that the witness should know the crimnal's name.

so IOW

"tom" is not a description
"manager" is a description

yes?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord has a point.

According to your interpretation we must readjust the definition of polytheism. Monotheism being the belief or acceptance of one all powerful god with lesser gods. Polytheism is a belief in lesser gods, none of which are omnimax. I'm so glad you are here to rewrite the bible glossary for us.

you don't have to redefine it since you won't find any descriptions of omnimax personalities (ie cause of all causes etc) in polytheism

So polytheists aren't really doing anything wrong. They obviously are unaware of an omnimax god as you put it. They are not putting other gods ahead of your God because that would be impossible, if I follow your logic. For some unknown reason God mentions other gods. He doesn't specify if they are like Him or not but His choice of the word god is at best ambiguous.

on the contrary there are tons of descriptions in the vedas that clearly distinguish between the two grades of personalities and also clear indications why there can be many (poly) personalities that are not the cause of all causes and only one (mono) personality that can be

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

still doesn't explain why you insist on using male in strictly humanistic terms
”
Because you and I are humans giving something a human name with a given human definition.

its not clear why you think humans are incapable of indicating anything beyond themselves

“
actually as opposed to accommodating the implications of terms like "purusa" and "prakrti"
”
Both human terms written by humans for humans with human definitions.

why?
because it violates your beliefs as indicated above?

“
if you insist on arguing out of your own relative experience, why complain when that relative experience is brought into critical focus?
”
There are several ways with which to conduct debate and discussion. One of them is to use the lg tactic which means continuously attacking the poster while actually not saying much about the issues presented. The second and more worthile method is to look at what is written and focus on that.

Prakrti is personified as a 'goddess', the female counterpart of every god. Purusa means 'man'.

seems like you are violating your principles here - there are about a dozen different definitions for prakrti and purusa according to the context they appear in - to help you out I provided you with a link, but for some reason you are choosing to shift focus on what was actually presented

I guess that's just the snakelord way of argument, eh?

Possible from this moment on you could do the decent thing and respond to the post?

1) Do you concur that to be a supreme entity, one that no greater can be imagined, it cannot lack anything?

not necessarily since imagination is not necessarily logical - eg circular triangle
"conceived" might be a more apt word

2) Do you understand that the word 'him' that has a specific meaning is not the most accurate word to use in relation to any entity that is not specifically male?

certainly
(I also hope you also realize that masculinity is a relative word, and can take a different significance according to what it is relative to - eg purusa)

If you insist on your continual post avoidance in preference of poster attack I shall be forced to add you to ignore once again.

believe me, I wouldn't be any the poorer

 

[Myles]

so IOW

"tom" is not a description
"manager" is a description

yes?

You are avoiding the issue. It is possible to describe Tom or a manager without mentioning a name or occupation. I spoke of attributes. Think about it his way. Tom is a 6'2" rugby player who weighs 14 stone, 7 lbs. He is a family man who enjoys being with his wife and children whenever he has some free time. Those who know him well describe him as a lovimg, caring person and so on......

Now remove the name Tom and you will see that we could have been describing Fred. We need not mention a name at all. We could start by saying, I know a 6' 2" rugby player, etc. So a proper description requires reference to at least some attributes such as I have mentioned .

Now you know what it is I am asking you to do in describing god. Can you do it ?

 

[SnakeLord]

its not clear why you think humans are incapable of indicating anything beyond themselves

Eh? I fail to see the relation of this statement to what I said.

why?
because it violates your beliefs as indicated above?

Why what? Why were those words written by humans? What are you espousing exactly.. martians wrote them?

seems like you are violating your principles here - there are about a dozen different definitions for prakrti and purusa according to the context they appear in - to help you out I provided you with a link

Violating? What? In order to rule out bias and error one is best off checking several sources. I have done just that and am willing to provide links if you think you can then argue against the validity of those sites. I of course found some trouble with the link you pasted given that in it's very first few sentences the author expresses his dismay that science books don't use the word god :bugeye:

I guess that's just the snakelord way of argument, eh?

Would you look at that.. an attack on the poster instead of the post. Quite interesting really. Would you like to explain in detail why you think prakrti does not refer to female counterpart or go into details concerning anything other than what you think of me? Didn't think so.

not necessarily since imagination is not necessarily logical - eg circular triangle
"conceived" might be a more apt word

Conceived was the word I intended to use, a mistake on my part. Anyway, now can you answer it?

certainly

Done.

believe me, I wouldn't be any the poorer

Duh, of course not.. you'll still be able to read and respond to my posts, (like you did last time I put you on ignore). I however will be richer not having to watch your display of attacking the person while completely avoiding the post. It seems Myles is the next to fall victim to that tactic of yours.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

What I've gathered so far

Despite the fact there is one true god, It has many names in many religions even though
Many other gods are mentioned in the same religious text with the one true god but
Gods that aren't the cause of all causes are not gods so
Gods that aren't gods are heavenly entities mistaken for gods by polytheists therefore
Polytheists are not polytheists because they are not worshipping any gods but
The one true god says in religious text that other gods exist however
The holy word is misinterpreted by humans so
God didn't mean it that way because
God wouldn't be god if It were like the others

 

[lightgigantic]

You are avoiding the issue.

actually I am after a clarification

It is possible to describe Tom or a manager without mentioning a name or occupation. I spoke of attributes. Think about it his way. Tom is a 6'2" rugby player who weighs 14 stone, 7 lbs. He is a family man who enjoys being with his wife and children whenever he has some free time. Those who know him well describe him as a lovimg, caring person and so on......

Now remove the name Tom and you will see that we could have been describing Fred. We need not mention a name at all. We could start by saying, I know a 6' 2" rugby player, etc. So a proper description requires reference to at least some attributes such as I have mentioned .

so if we said "tom was a manager" the bit in bold would be a description?
(after all if we took away the word tom we could just have easily been talking about fred)

Now you know what it is I am asking you to do in describing god. Can you do it ?

still a bit unsure since it seems that "manager" is a description as opposed to a name

 

[lightgigantic]

What I've gathered so far

Despite the fact there is one true god, It has many names in many religions even though
Many other gods are mentioned in the same religious text with the one true god but
Gods that aren't the cause of all causes are not gods so
Gods that aren't gods are heavenly entities mistaken for gods by polytheists therefore
Polytheists are not polytheists because they are not worshipping any gods but
The one true god says in religious text that other gods exist however
The holy word is misinterpreted by humans so
God didn't mean it that way because
God wouldn't be god if It were like the others

you would get an F for grammar, but on the whole it's okay, except for the middle bit about polytheists not being polytheists

 

[Myles]

actually I am after a clarification


so if we said "tom was a manager" the bit in bold would be a description?
(after all if we took away the word tom we could just have easily been talking about fred)



still a bit unsure since it seems that "manager" is a description as opposed to a name

As usual, you are fudging the issue because you cannot answer my question. You seem to be suggesting that a person's name and job title is sufficient to describe him. You are choosing to ignore the example of the crimnal whose description was given to the police even though his name was not known. His job title need not have been known either. I also gave you another example which made it abundantly clear what was asked of you but you have ignored that also.

There is a German proverb , " No answer is also an answer ", which fits the present situation exactly. Apart from a few names, such as in the Vedas, you know nothing more of god , with the possible exception of his job title whatever that might be.

YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND WANTING ,AS ANYONE ELSE READING OUR POSTS WILL SEE. YOU USE LOTS OF WORDS BUT SAY NOTHING.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

you would get an F for grammar, but on the whole it's okay, except for the middle bit about polytheists not being polytheists

Again, Snakelord is proven correct but......

Polytheists need to worship other gods whom you have indicated do not exist. You can't be what you are not, in keeping with your logic. By your above statement I would think that you believe polytheists worship other gods, so where and who are they?

 

[lightgigantic]

Again, Snakelord is proven correct but......

Polytheists need to worship other gods whom you have indicated do not exist.

its not clear where I indicated they don't exist

You can't be what you are not, in keeping with your logic. By your above statement I would think that you believe polytheists worship other gods, so where and who are they?

ok just to reiterate ....
suppose a person encountered several angels (given that angels are existent entities within the hierarchy of monotheism).
If they started worshiping those angels as the ultimate personalities while remaining ignorant of the ultimate hierarchy angels exist in, how would they be worshipping nonexistent beings?
(IOW it tends to suggest the foundation of polytheistic worship has issues that need addressing as opposed to the objects of worship)

 

[lightgigantic]

As usual, you are fudging the issue because you cannot answer my question.

actually I am trying to understand your question

You seem to be suggesting that a person's name and job title is sufficient to describe him.

you seem to be suggesting that a job title is not a description

You are choosing to ignore the example of the crimnal whose description was given to the police even though his name was not known.

so if the police were given the instruction to arrest a manager of a certain illegal operation, that information is useless?

His job title need not have been known either. I also gave you another example which made it abundantly clear what was asked of you but you have ignored that also.

its still not clear what you are asking for?
are you asking for a personal description?

There is a German proverb , " No answer is also an answer ", which fits the present situation exactly.

there's also another common proverb that begins with "ask a stupid question ...."

Apart from a few names, such as in the Vedas, you know nothing more of god , with the possible exception of his job title whatever that might be.

the vedas are full of descriptions of god
of course if you want to declare that something like "manager" is not a description its not clear what you are trying to ask for in the name of general descriptions

YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND WANTING ,AS ANYONE ELSE READING OUR POSTS WILL SEE. YOU USE LOTS OF WORDS BUT SAY NOTHING.

Caps lock doesn't help you speak more clearly
if you want a precise answer, I suggest you ask a precise question

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If they started worshiping those angels as the ultimate personalities while remaining ignorant of the ultimate hierarchy angels exist in, how would they be worshipping nonexistent beings?

Could be the same people read that God is jealous of these entities. Perhaps a lot of smart people found it hard to believe that God would be jealous of something He created. God jealous of angels mistaken for Him? Very strange. Why would God utter the fact He is jealous of other gods ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Could be the same people read that God is jealous of these entities. Perhaps a lot of smart people found it hard to believe that God would be jealous of something He created. God jealous of angels mistaken for Him? Very strange. Why would God utter the fact He is jealous of other gods ?

so we have officially resolved this topic and you want to move on to a related yet slightly different one about the use of the word "jealous" in christian scripture?

 

[Myles]

actually I am trying to understand your question


you seem to be suggesting that a job title is not a description

so if the police were given the instruction to arrest a manager of a certain illegal operation, that information is useless?

Alone it is insufficient because it is simply a tag. A guy who's a manager this week could be selling hot dogs next week. So mentioning his occupation is saying nothing about his qualities.

its still not clear what you are asking for?are you asking for a personal description?

I'm not asking you to describe yourself unless you are god, which is possible I suppose. You claim to know god, so describe him/her/it !



there's also another common proverb that begins with "ask a stupid question ...."

Apart from a few names, such as in the Vedas, you know nothing more of god , with the possible exception of his job title whatever that might be.[/COLOR]


the vedas are full of descriptions of godof course if you want to declare that something like "manager" is not a description its not clear what you are trying to ask for in the name of general descriptions

I haven't asked about descriptions in the Vedas. I want your own description


Caps lock doesn't help you speak more clearly
if you want a precise answer, I suggest you ask a precise question

Even you must know that you are talking crap. You know very well what is being asked of you or are you too dim to understand a simple question. I'll make it even easier for you :

DESCRIBE GOD FULLY !