The World is Polytheistic

**SnakeLord** · 12-19-07, 09:28 PM

....and there are many words for the supreme god, eg "possessor of all opulences in full", "cause of all causes", "him to whom no one is greater or equal" etc etc

With all due respect but someone going under the statement "him" cannot be supreme to an entity that is both a him and a her. A "him" can never be supreme... he instantly lacks a certain something and a supreme being by definition cannot "lack" anything. Thus the second you refer to this entity as 'him' you can't be talking about any supreme being.

**lightgigantic** · 12-19-07, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode

Well God says He is a jealous god. Odd behavior if there are no other gods to actually worship.

I understand these passages to mean that devotion to god bestows unique results - IOW its not sufficient to have devotion to any personality one deems worshipable (or at least in terms of getting the ultimate result of religiosity - namely liberation from material duality(

Why craven images? What's craven got to do with it? Cowardly, fearful images or images made by cowards? That word seems out of context with idol worship. Unless God is jealous of the images because they represent cowardly gods that He is aware of.

I understand these passages to mean the worship of images that bear no relationship to scriptural authority - this explains why the images of jesus, mary etc are worshipable

**lightgigantic** · 12-19-07, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

With all due respect but someone going under the statement "him" cannot be supreme to an entity that is both a him and a her. A "him" can never be supreme... he instantly lacks a certain something and a supreme being by definition cannot "lack" anything. Thus the second you refer to this entity as 'him' you can't be talking about any supreme being.

unless the "Him" has the quality of being the cause of all causes (which would make "her'ness" a contingent potency of Him)

**SnakeLord** · 12-19-07, 09:45 PM

unless the "Him" has the quality of being the cause of all causes (which would make "her'ness" a contingent potency of Him)

If the "him" is also a "her" then it is not a "him" and you're all defining your god incorrectly. Needless to say, to be supreme given my last statement this being must also be gay and inherently evil along with everything else that an entity could possibly lack. Without either it actually lacks something and by very definition can therefore not be considered supreme.

However, let's from now on be accurate.. your god is not a "him", it is an it. Ok?

**lightgigantic** · 12-19-07, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

If the "him" is also a "her" then it is not a "him" and you're all defining your god incorrectly.

the problem is that you are relying on material duality (him/her) to discern the nature of something that is the cause of material duality. Therefore it's not surprising that you insist on an "it"

If you insist on using your own (material) experience to discern the absolute nature of something transcendental, problems arise

**SnakeLord** · 12-19-07, 10:02 PM

the problem is that you are relying on material duality (him/her) to discern the nature of something that is the cause of material duality.

The only thing I was going by is you giving it material distinction, (him). Did I call it a him or did you? I do believe it was you and in saying I made a pertinent point - that a "him" cannot claim to have supremacy over an entity that is both and anything else of relevance.

Don't call it a him and we wont have an issue. It's an it.. you agree?

If you insist on using your own (material) experience to discern the absolute nature of something transcendental, problems arise

Statement returned to sender with the note: "you're the twat that said it" included.

I am also at a loss at why one worships an entity that is inherently evil, and must be if it wishes to retain the title 'supreme'.

**lightgigantic** · 12-19-07, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

The only thing I was going by is you giving it material distinction, (him)

and that's the problem
you assume that (him) is ultimately a material designation

**SnakeLord** · 12-20-07, 06:18 AM

you assume that (him) is ultimately a material designation

I assume that the word him means what the word means instead of something it doesn't mean.. I suppose that is my ultimate undoing. For all I know you could use the word him to mean an invisible genderless snow goblin but if it isn't what it actually means and you don't warn me in advance how is it my fault?

<-- returned to you.

What's wrong exactly with 'it'?

Of course if this entity isn't material it instantly lacks something. We have something it does not. In saying it can't be the supreme being.

**lightgigantic** · 12-20-07, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

What's wrong exactly with 'it'?

its wrong because you only bring the term in to somehow compensate for your material concepts of gender

Of course if this entity isn't material it instantly lacks something.

yes
namely the quality of being contingent on something outside themselves

We have something it does not. In saying it can't be the supreme being.

just because we have fallibility doesn't make us somehow better

**SnakeLord** · 12-20-07, 09:15 AM

its wrong because you only bring the term in to somehow compensate for your material concepts of gender

You're an odd one, somehow trying to contend that using a word that has a specific meaning regarding the sex of a certain being is somehow a better word to use than one which doesn't have such an issue.

It: used to represent a being understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded

As this entity is genderless 'it' would be the word to use, whereas him is completely the wrong word to use when referring to a genderless entity. The reason 'him' is used in scripture is because of the status of women in society at the time these texts were penned. To try to prevent this scripture from being called into question people like you make up entirely new meanings for words that already have clear meanings.

just because we have fallibility doesn't make us somehow better

It shows that we have something that god does not, and thus outrank him in that regard. This is the problem with any claim to an entity being a supreme entity. As Gasking stated:

1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

With any argument to a supreme being you will find that that completely pulls it apart the very second that entity lacks anything. The second it lacks, a greater entity can be conceived.

My god is both material and immaterial and thus outranks your god.

**PsychoticEpisode** · 12-20-07, 09:36 PM

It is pretty much established that some people believe in more than one god. Whether you believe in one god or many you are a theist, poly or mono has no bearing. Not believing in either labels one an atheist. Why is a monotheist not considered atheistic when refuting the validity of other gods?

Atheists believe in no gods.
Monotheists believe in one god.
Polytheists believe in many gods.
By not believing in any other god, is it safe to say that every monotheist has a little atheist in them?

**lightgigantic** · 12-20-07, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode

It is pretty much established that some people believe in more than one god. Whether you believe in one god or many you are a theist, poly or mono has no bearing. Not believing in either labels one an atheist. Why is a monotheist not considered atheistic when refuting the validity of other gods?

Atheists believe in no gods.
Monotheists believe in one god.
Polytheists believe in many gods.
By not believing in any other god, is it safe to say that every monotheist has a little atheist in them?

more specifically, an atheist believes that there is no system of conscious universal management

Monotheism and polytheism are simply different views on how that system of universal management exists

**lightgigantic** · 12-20-07, 11:40 PM

Snakelord

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

You're an odd one, somehow trying to contend that using a word that has a specific meaning regarding the sex of a certain being is somehow a better word to use than one which doesn't have such an issue.

again - thats the problem
the only issues you know of are the one's that concern your (limited) self

IOW you (conveniently) bypass the issue whether your experience of gender is the final last word in understanding

It shows that we have something that god does not, and thus outrank him in that regard. This is the problem with any claim to an entity being a supreme entity. As Gasking stated:

1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

I don't know if that is so much an argument but speaking in meaningless way
kind of like "can god create a circle that looks like a triangle
In the same way, what does it mean for a non-existent thing to create something?

My god is both material and immaterial and thus outranks your god.

sounds familiar

BG 7.6 All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

(BTW - just to say that something doesn't possess material qualities doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist - et al justice etc etc)

**SnakeLord** · 12-21-07, 10:41 AM

IOW you (conveniently) bypass the issue whether your experience of gender is the final last word in understanding

Eh? You labelled your god a 'him'. Your god can be anything it wants to but if you label it using a human word with a specific human meaning then you are labelling your god incorrectly. This has nothing to do with my experience of gender but with your inexperience of word meanings.

Is your god a 'him'? If your god is not a male entity then you should find a word that labels this entity accurately instead of using one that does not. "It" would be better because while referring to something it does not raise issues such as gender of that thing.

kind of like "can god create a circle that looks like a triangle

There's the thing: My god can create a circle that looks like a triangle and thus is clearly above your god.

If your god cannot, then it is clearly not the greatest conceivable entity.

**lightgigantic** · 12-21-07, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

Eh? You labelled your god a 'him'. Your god can be anything it wants to but if you label it using a human word with a specific human meaning then you are labelling your god incorrectly. This has nothing to do with my experience of gender but with your inexperience of word meanings.

it has everything to do with your (limited) experience

There's the thing: My god can create a circle that looks like a triangle and thus is clearly above your god.

If your god cannot, then it is clearly not the greatest conceivable entity.

clearly you are not using language in any intelligible manner

**SnakeLord** · 12-21-07, 05:25 PM

clearly you are not using language in any intelligible manner

That doesn't really mean much coming from the person that does not know the meaning of the word 'him' but it's ok. What would be a bonus is if you could do slightly more than just make a grand statement. Is there some explanation behind your claim?

**lightgigantic** · 12-21-07, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

That doesn't really mean much coming from the person that does not know the meaning of the word 'him' but it's ok.

What would be a bonus is if you could do slightly more than just make a grand statement. Is there some explanation behind your claim?

a triangle is a logical construct
a triangle that looks like a circle is as logical as an existing thing being created by a non-existent thing

gender is a relative construct

if you examine scripture (which I just know you love to do) you can find further explanations of "him" and "her" that can take things to a level beyond our own (relative) experience

eg - purusa and prakrti

**SnakeLord** · 12-21-07, 06:26 PM

a triangle is a logical construct

There are two ways to answer this:

1) Certainly. A "triangle" is a human word defining a specific shape. A triangle is not a circle by very definition of the word. Alas you have for the past 5 or 6 posts been basically telling me that you do not care what a word actually means. "Him" no longer means him, it means whatever you want it to mean at the time. In saying you bring this problem upon yourself.

2) You are looking at it from the perspective of human understanding. You would need to explain why your god is confined by this when, if it is to be claimed that this entity is the source of all and the greatest conceivable entity then he can dismiss those constructs and rules that he created without so much as blinking an eyelid. The only problem comes down to word meanings. As shown in 1, you do not care for word meanings.

**lightgigantic** · 12-21-07, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeLord

There are two ways to answer this:

1) Certainly. A "triangle" is a human word defining a specific shape. A triangle is not a circle by very definition of the word. Alas you have for the past 5 or 6 posts been basically telling me that you do not care what a word actually means. "Him" no longer means him, it means whatever you want it to mean at the time. In saying you bring this problem upon yourself.

to repeat again
a triangle is a logical issue
gender is a relative issue

if further information can be introduced to re-establish the relativity of a term, the term becomes re-established
(perhaps you could re-establish the term triangle by introducing some new information about the properties of a 180 degree line )

2) You are looking at it from the perspective of human understanding. You would need to explain why your god is confined by this when, if it is to be claimed that this entity is the source of all and the greatest conceivable entity then he can dismiss those constructs and rules that he created without so much as blinking an eyelid. The only problem comes down to word meanings. As shown in 1, you do not care for word meanings.

you are arguing that the term is completely relative to human experience
I am arguing that the term is completely relative to god

In other words our very ideas of what it means to have gender are a shadow of the ideas of gender that surround god

eg - purusa and prakrti

**SnakeLord** · 12-21-07, 07:44 PM

to repeat again
a triangle is a logical issue
gender is a relative issue

No, it's a human words with human meanings issue.

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. 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. If it is subservient to these rules and constructs then it can never be considered the greatest conceivable entity, (yes, conceivable to humans).