The World is Polytheistic

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

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

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.

 

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

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

 

Snakelord
“

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

why?
because it violates your beliefs as indicated above?

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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)

believe me, I wouldn't be any the poorer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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

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:

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.

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

Done.

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

its not clear where I indicated they don't exist

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)

 

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?