Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
1) Similarly, I sighed when I read your post ... you missed the point.
In these discussions that is what we do so to be polite let's me say that I am sorry and thank you for a wonderful reply.
2) A truism with open bigotry welded onto the end of it.
Nice but again I choose to miss the point.
3) Do try making sense, next time.
Why?
4) The statistical reality is whatever it is, but that's still your problem.
I didn't realise there was a problem other than we all tend to generalise.
The thing is, the topic post can't get any more specific than, "theists", because it's author isn't capable of being any more specific.
OK ...should I start specific threads one for each version of god mythology?
You needn't read it through, or anything; just look at what it is and maybe peruse a couple creation tales to understand how they are recorded and compiled. Normally, I find myself pointing out that creation stories tend to deal with the people who tell them; it's actually surprising how often people haven't stopped to think about that point.
Select something specific and then go on and generalise ...I get it now.
Understanding religions of course is so much to do with the economy of the inventors... but we know that... although a generalisation, to look at how a group of humans put food on the table often will lend understanding as to why their god was invented and so often that god specifically tailored to fit their enterprise.
But you must know all that.
More to our context in the moment, though, something else you might notice in creation tales is that often, the Creator spirit, while broad in function, is not a monotheistic godhead.
Well no I have not noticed that but then our discussion here covers only the invention of Jan and he is not at all specific but at least he works with one god.
And as you read through other various scriptures and lores from around the world, you will find much seemingly implicit sentiment that the ultimate reality is what it is, and the stories deal with mundane questions of daily life. It seems worth reminding that, in history, philosophy has, at times, been something of a luxury; the underlying philosophies of religion are, generally, even more esoteric than those of politics, economics, or history. Among the Salish tibes, for instance, not much has changed about the old religion. And where Shaker Christianity found inroads, it's much more experiential than philosophical.
If there was a point I missed it.
To wit: Compared to daily life, it seems worth noting that if Francis Barrett was apparently born to a humble family, he was of sufficient means to fail repeatedly at attempted balloon flight, in addition to translating and speculating on Qabalistic and Christianist-metaphysical manuscripts. Moreover, if Éliphas Lévi was born to a shoemaker, he also abandoned Seminary and became a political philosopher of the sort who earned repeated prison terms for offending the Catholic Church. Say what we will of luxury and political philosophers°, but it only took the priesthood washout turned Christian socialist, and the 1st Baron Lytton°°, to bring the failed balloonist's book to more influential notice among the sort of folk who did, indeed have the luxury of education and opportunities of association, being a Freemason, sitting around royal libraries translating and speculating on old manuscripts, marrying into prominent literary and political circles, and, well, y'know, running the Golden Dawn. Because, really, if the Salish people don't happen to have finely resolved and metaphysically determined tables describing which angel has what authority over which day of the week, and, furthermore, the daily schedules of diverse angels given which authority over what hours on any given day of the week, there might be a reason. I'm pretty certain they also never invented an invisible college, either; and if there was ever a 1st Earl Nisqually, it wasn't a Squalliabsch appointment. If there is no Nisqually angel of three o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, it does not seem so much to hope the reasons why are apparent.
I will frame this paragraph so if asked for the meaning of verbosity I can reach up take down your words hand them to my enquirer and say this is perhaps the best example I can offer.
• See those people over there? They're wrong.
Now you get it and I know you are right.
Still, though, why does it matter? Oh, they're causing harm? To others? And themselves? And, y'know, we care, right? And go ahead and dissent at this point; harm to self and others, and caring about people, is a pretense offered me by this guy I know, in justification of his own behavior toward those people over there, because he, like us, knows they're wrong.
Sure but they are wrong so please focus.
When you go out of your way to disqualify them from the discussion you pretend to want to have, how do you expect they will respond?
Well here is the thing and let us remember this is all about Jan...to think there is a discussion available in a climate of lies and dishonesty would be a grave mistake and so for my position I would think that I have made it very clear that any engagement I do not take seriously and merely play with a troll who is intent upon avoiding discussion and here for no other reason than to frustrate and anyoy anyone who would offer a reality that Jan wishes would just go away.
And I don't have to go out of my way nor does anyone else to find Jan is confronting science in a dishonest manner and holding onto ingnorance as it were a virtue above all others.
But what about you, or anyone else? There's the part where your beliefs are your beliefs, and other such platitudes, but when you declare that, "none of them can employ objectivity", what, aside from the ephemeral thrill of judgment and contempt, does that statement intend to accomplish?
Merely to state the obvious fact.
OK I make a claim and I should give evidence in support but you know it's one of those things that is just part of the game, that although not a rule is a fundamental that has been present for so long no one stops to give it a second thought..in a traffic matter the prosecution refers to the offence taking place upon a public road and although available no one calls upon the prosecutor to prove that the road was indeed a public road...it is more appropriate if a defendant wishes to claim that the offence was not on a public road that he prove such...Is it not reasonable to say that, using the loose term, theists, do not employ objectivity.
[
Alex...mtc