Just as in any field of research , when attempting to decipher theological scriptures the scholar should position himself as objectively as possible and take in into consideration the various factors on which the semantical result (and intention) of the writers depends . Unfortunatly this is being done insufficient , if at all , resulting in a method of interpertation that is centric to one's own bias . This bias as far as relevant to theology can easily be traced if we would seek guidance in one of our modern Gods The Dictionary .
Theism : Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world .
Questionable is this defintion , as an assumption is made for the belief in "personal , creating and ruling" Gods to be of a superior value ("especially" implies more certainty of theist presence) . What the dictionary-God does is fall for the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity . This attempted manipulation has it's obvious roots in the popular idea of Theos in the time of it's import in the dictionary . It is our first evidence of a European-Christian mind-frame at basis . After filtering this first obstacle to correct understanding we are left with :
Theism = Belief in the existence of a God or Gods .
Here 2 issues are stated :
1) Belief
2) Existence of God/Gods
Belief
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something .
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
What oftenly brings confusement is the implication of "invalidity/error" of the issue believed in , as if it were not believed in after rational consideration and understanding , which would translate it into "acknowledgement" . The second definition describes this best , and the other 2 do not implicate otherwise . Logically is to understand both are an option , however historically it has always been the "not proved" assumption that has been applied to research and interpertation of Theologic concepts . This emphasized the meaning given to the concept of understanding (Logic) which is God (Theos) , while more correct would have been in particular for the Theologic definition to tend toward "belief" as "acknowledgement" instead of something like "hope to be truth" . It emphasized the wrongly assumed defintion through defining God as irrational itself :
God
*a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
*b)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
*A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
*An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
*A very handsome man.
*A powerful ruler or despot.
Clearly only the last 2 definitions are the only one that point logically toward physical reality , the rest cannot be interpreted as such (while it is being implied) without being irrational thus more likely to be "believed" in instead of acknowledged . Aside of the idolization as in money , all of the "beings" implied to be God and then translated into the subject of study within Theology , only to be reproduced as some global thing called theism , is an insult to every non-European non-Christian philosophies and ways of life . Unfortunatly it is exactly these defintions that have been set premis within religious and historical studies , implications of "beings" as in living entity's , combined with "adoration or worship" as if indeed we are speaking of living powerfull beings . From this perspective all religious scriptures from over the entire world , monotheistic and polytheistic , religious and mythological , have been interpreted .
Important is to understand the exact context of Christian import on European Civilization , as it was with the Greeks and Romans where this term got its Christian meaning .
[Middle English theologie, from Old French, from Latin theologia, from Greek theologi : theo-, theo- + -logi, -logy.]
The question is how intellectually fragile were those Greeks and Romans , in order to adapt such a simplistic idea of monotheism in trade for their own polytheism , a research in the area of pre-Christian gnosticism would be necesarry to have complete certainty of the development of the semantical realities in question . My guess is that Hellenism made the Greeks mentally ripe for Christianity , while the Romans pretty much had a mind empty enough since their beginning of days . A mythologic revisioning does not necesarry include them because of this . Ofcourse there are various options for latter change in semantics , for instance in relation to the Dark Ages .
More clear however is that the premisses within defintions do have it's base in a European-Christian mindframe while the scriptures to be studied are intended otherwise , but the problems we encounter extend this bias . There are various factors that are relevant in order to understand what the intentional meaning ancient scriptures have , for instance metaphorical or poetical elements or even overal identities of texts .
Revisionism is desirable , especially when we have arrived in an age where complete philosophies are thrown away based assumptions and prejudice . This forum proves no different . A necesarry point is to treat the writers and original intepreters of these scriptures as intelligent and rational creatures instead of delusionary worshippers of the unexplainable .
Theism : Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world .
Questionable is this defintion , as an assumption is made for the belief in "personal , creating and ruling" Gods to be of a superior value ("especially" implies more certainty of theist presence) . What the dictionary-God does is fall for the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity . This attempted manipulation has it's obvious roots in the popular idea of Theos in the time of it's import in the dictionary . It is our first evidence of a European-Christian mind-frame at basis . After filtering this first obstacle to correct understanding we are left with :
Theism = Belief in the existence of a God or Gods .
Here 2 issues are stated :
1) Belief
2) Existence of God/Gods
Belief
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something .
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
What oftenly brings confusement is the implication of "invalidity/error" of the issue believed in , as if it were not believed in after rational consideration and understanding , which would translate it into "acknowledgement" . The second definition describes this best , and the other 2 do not implicate otherwise . Logically is to understand both are an option , however historically it has always been the "not proved" assumption that has been applied to research and interpertation of Theologic concepts . This emphasized the meaning given to the concept of understanding (Logic) which is God (Theos) , while more correct would have been in particular for the Theologic definition to tend toward "belief" as "acknowledgement" instead of something like "hope to be truth" . It emphasized the wrongly assumed defintion through defining God as irrational itself :
God
*a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
*b)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
*A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
*An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
*A very handsome man.
*A powerful ruler or despot.
Clearly only the last 2 definitions are the only one that point logically toward physical reality , the rest cannot be interpreted as such (while it is being implied) without being irrational thus more likely to be "believed" in instead of acknowledged . Aside of the idolization as in money , all of the "beings" implied to be God and then translated into the subject of study within Theology , only to be reproduced as some global thing called theism , is an insult to every non-European non-Christian philosophies and ways of life . Unfortunatly it is exactly these defintions that have been set premis within religious and historical studies , implications of "beings" as in living entity's , combined with "adoration or worship" as if indeed we are speaking of living powerfull beings . From this perspective all religious scriptures from over the entire world , monotheistic and polytheistic , religious and mythological , have been interpreted .
Important is to understand the exact context of Christian import on European Civilization , as it was with the Greeks and Romans where this term got its Christian meaning .
[Middle English theologie, from Old French, from Latin theologia, from Greek theologi : theo-, theo- + -logi, -logy.]
The question is how intellectually fragile were those Greeks and Romans , in order to adapt such a simplistic idea of monotheism in trade for their own polytheism , a research in the area of pre-Christian gnosticism would be necesarry to have complete certainty of the development of the semantical realities in question . My guess is that Hellenism made the Greeks mentally ripe for Christianity , while the Romans pretty much had a mind empty enough since their beginning of days . A mythologic revisioning does not necesarry include them because of this . Ofcourse there are various options for latter change in semantics , for instance in relation to the Dark Ages .
More clear however is that the premisses within defintions do have it's base in a European-Christian mindframe while the scriptures to be studied are intended otherwise , but the problems we encounter extend this bias . There are various factors that are relevant in order to understand what the intentional meaning ancient scriptures have , for instance metaphorical or poetical elements or even overal identities of texts .
Revisionism is desirable , especially when we have arrived in an age where complete philosophies are thrown away based assumptions and prejudice . This forum proves no different . A necesarry point is to treat the writers and original intepreters of these scriptures as intelligent and rational creatures instead of delusionary worshippers of the unexplainable .
