|
Post by beth on May 17, 2010 21:48:47 GMT -5
Many people in the world believe Gods and Demons are tangible reality. Others believe they are the feeble attempts of man to personify good and evil. Where do you stand?
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 17, 2010 21:52:17 GMT -5
Posted by Erasmus on May 17, 2010, 8:43 p.m. I know what I mean but I find the words are not there to put it unambiguously. I believe the words were put there in the past, but using much more personalised imagery and we fail to understand it now as was intended then - in fact the uninitiated failed even then.
A few hours ago I was sharing a few beers with Des talking about his ex-lover we are fairly certain is mixed up in something 'Satanic'. It is probably more sex fun & games than any serious belief because she lacks the education and intelligence, and in any case any serious 'believer' would not use the name 'Satan'.
We disagree about detail, yet we agree on the general principle: a 'demon' is not some personality stalking this world, in a way an invisible inhabitant of this world, or inhabitant of another dimension, it is a force, an influence, as much a part of us that can take over, as something external.
We identify demons now with psychological disorders, something generated internally, but they used to be associated with physical disorders too. Medicine discovered microbes of various kinds and disproved the idea of a demon inflicting the disease. The microbes are not the disease-demon's army. But they are not the disease either! The disease is an abstraction and we treat it very much as a complete disorder. So maybe we have misunderstood what the past personified as demon when they meant it in the same sense as we say disease, and with the Dark Ages came to be a reduction of what was meant, to quasi-physical personalities going around causing these illnesses.
Maybe the same is true still of psychological disorders, that we are more behind on those than on physical ones, so do not see that something dwelt on and brooded over can become obsessive and that the kind of obsession comes from the same aspects in all people, that is a demon, not in the sense of a 'being' causing these problems, but in the sense Carl Jung recognized, of an Archetypical mental aspect common to all with definite characteristics distinct from whatever physical goings-on we can pin it on. Yes there are demons, but their grotesque images of the Middle Ages were simply language of the time. Just because no such beings stalk the land does not mean that no such forces exist. They just do not exist in that representation.
I think religion throughout history starts with understanding something transcendent and over time becomes more institutionalized, more a power structure, and drags what was originally intended to be beyond its understanding down to something petty enough to personify and understand. Then a new Dispensation comes along to suit the thinking of a new Age. The last age was emotional and abstract as not part of this world. The coming age will be intellectual and abstract in a sense that groups aspects of this world together as similar. It uses published external scientific observation instead of personal experience to reveal itself. Religion is about making sense of the world we live in, not about worshiping superior beings. "Elohim created Man in Their own likeness, Male and Female created They Them" and "Ye are Gods, and sons of the Most High God." Psalm 82:6
The gods we worship, they are the ideal we deny we surpass by worshiping gods. The Godhead beyond need of worship, That is what we really are an aspect of, could we ever get off our knees to stop worshiping our fantasy of it and dare to take the responsibility of being it in this world ignorant of it.
So too of every political and social group that goes on griping about how they have all the power and how feeble they are (even though they insist on their equality) to do anything in their own right until they have rid themselves of these monsters they never will because they insist they are such unassailable monsters they can do nothing about.
"God created man and man created God. So is it in the world. Men make gods and they worship their creations. If would be fitting for the gods to worship men" - Gospel of Philip, Logion 85:1-4
reposted by Jencin May 17, 2010, 10:52 pm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2010 22:55:34 GMT -5
Many people in the world believe Gods and Demons are tangible reality. Others believe they are the feeble attempts of man to personify good and evil. Where do you stand? Upwind.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 18, 2010 8:54:49 GMT -5
For most of us, I'm sure, the idea of demons (daemons) is so archaic it falls in with a belief the world is flat or the sky is a firmament. God(s) can be myth, but demons must be superstition. Believing in Gods can't harm us really. Believing in demons, here in the mainstream world, can make us the target of ridicule or be used as a reason to sign commitment papers for the mental rehab institute of choice. And yet, the Christian Bible is filled with content that describes demonic possession and belief in demons. There is even a field of study, demonology, that explores the idea that people are sometimes "taken over" by demon spirits. If all/most Christians believe in the Devil, they probably believe in demons as well. Therefore, it is obvious, scoffers are far out-numbered by believers, though common sense certainly points away from that idea.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 18, 2010 9:11:28 GMT -5
Therefore, it is obvious, scoffers are far out-numbered by believers, though common sense certainly points away from that idea. I don't know that I would describe myself as a 'scoffer', but there is no evidence to support the existence of a god; my daemons are within and my struggle with them continues....
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 18, 2010 9:41:01 GMT -5
But, who put them there, Fret? Are they your welcome companions or were they inflicted upon you. I've long believed mine were the result of Karma . . . or, maybe the Wiccan Three-fold law, which makes a certain amount of sense to me. Of course, that is almost as superstitious as believing in demonic possession literally.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 18, 2010 10:08:14 GMT -5
They are the monsters of the id. They are in the dark side - and everybody has one. Some are welcome, others are not. Its conscience, guilt and quite possibly karma.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 18, 2010 12:03:55 GMT -5
They are the monsters of the id. They are in the dark side - and everybody has one. Some are welcome, others are not. Its conscience, guilt and quite possibly karma. Conscience and guilt sometimes equal karma, I suspect. The old - "What goes around, comes around" - often turns out to be true. Whether coincidence or just desserts depends on the perception - maybe on what it suits us to think. And, yes we all have our "stranger" (thank you, Billy Joel ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2010 14:16:55 GMT -5
I am not a believer in gods or demons but I have experienced many strange things in life and lean slightly towards a belief in the possibility of survival of death.
All forms of theism face the problems of good and evil. A monotheist has to deal with the problem of evil; a polytheist has to explain not only the violation of Occam's Razor but also why so many of his or her gods or goddesses appear helpless; a satanist has to deal with the problem of good.
Atheism suffers from being too dogmatic in its denial even of the possibility.
I am an agnostic but possibly have slight sympathy with a radically modified polytheism than any other type of theistic religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2010 15:12:26 GMT -5
Atheism suffers from being too dogmatic in its denial even of the possibility. The possibility of what, exactly? Let's say I believed if I dressed in chiffon, grabbed my elbows and blinked while I bobbed my head, I could transport myself through time and space to a different room in my apartment, or into a different dwelling altogether. (I may even be induced to call you "Master." PM me.) Would you share that belief absent proof? Would I call you dogmatic because you dismiss the possibility of my teleportation? My problem with theism is that it presupposes a point of origin. If quantum physics is true, there is no point of origin and therefore no need for creation -- natural or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 18, 2010 16:44:30 GMT -5
I am not a believer in gods or demons but I have experienced many strange things in life and lean slightly towards a belief in the possibility of survival of death. All forms of theism face the problems of good and evil. A monotheist has to deal with the problem of evil; a polytheist has to explain not only the violation of Occam's Razor but also why so many of his or her gods or goddesses appear helpless; a satanist has to deal with the problem of good. Atheism suffers from being too dogmatic in its denial even of the possibility. I am an agnostic but possibly have slight sympathy with a radically modified polytheism than any other type of theistic religion. Mike Its pretty obvious you're sitting on the fence. if you can show me a scintilla of evidence that a god exists I might just change my mind. Some might argue that agnostics are even worse than atheists, at least we've come to a conclusion based on the available evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2010 17:22:18 GMT -5
I believe in evil beings; they exist and I have encountered them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2010 18:31:46 GMT -5
Fret, I find it rather sad that people on BOTH sides of the religious divide find it necessary to be dogmatic and dismiss all those who have any doubts as 'sitting on the fence' or worse.
The notion of an omniscient supreme being makes determinism and fatalism inescapable; the notion of a benevolent supreme being makes the existence of evil incomprehensible.
I wish I could share the naive trust in scientific objectivity that you and Joseph appear to have.
Ignoring the numerous examples of fraud and deceit among scientists, the Big Bang remains in essence nothing more than a Creationist theory without a Creator. The putative African Lucy is simply a rehashed variant on Adam and Eve.
It is incredible that ANYTHING exists on Earth or ever has done. The intricate and complex structures of DNA. of the planet's atmosphere and all the other delicate cosmic balancing mechanisms that exist make the hypothesis of an intelligent designer at least worthy of being considered rather than simply dismissed out of hand on a priori grounds.
That does NOT make me willing to swallow the vast mythological systems with which every religion in human history has chosen to surround itself.
On the other hand, it does not make me willing to swallow the equally vast mythologies of the scientific community.
I will leave you with a quote from a British psychologist on telepathy.
'This is the kind of thing I would not believe in even if it happened.'
How 'objective' and 'hypothetico-deductive' is THAT attitude?
It is simply the expression of his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2010 21:23:21 GMT -5
Ignoring the numerous examples of fraud and deceit among scientists, the Big Bang remains in essence nothing more than a Creationist theory without a Creator. The putative African Lucy is simply a rehashed variant on Adam and Eve. The Big Bang doesn't suggest a point of origin. It only suggests a big bang. It is incredible that ANYTHING exists on Earth or ever has done. The intricate and complex structures of DNA. of the planet's atmosphere and all the other delicate cosmic balancing mechanisms that exist make the hypothesis of an intelligent designer at least worthy of being considered rather than simply dismissed out of hand on a priori grounds. So there must be an intelligent designer because you're all misty about DNA and atmospheric phenomena? And where is this "balance" of nature? Every species is brutally competitive, and there is always one, and only one, species at the top., and would not have any ethical problem extinguishing every other species in order to survive.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 19, 2010 5:23:49 GMT -5
I don't think that a conclusion arrived at from the available evidence is sad at all, Mike. I'm certainly not dogmatic; should any evidence come to light I would re-evaluate accordingly. I adhere to the hypothetico deductive method until something better comes along. You should differentiate between the purity of the method and the actions of the corrupt who have a tendency to make the data fit the hypothesis, eg Climate Change, Cold Fusion etc etc.
Why are they corrupt? Money and prestige of course.
The big bang is an hypothesis, but its certainly not creationist, its evolutionary. After the event the the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma. A few minutes into the expansion neutrons combined with protons to form deuterium and helium nuclei (Big Bang nucleosynthesis). 300,000 years later the dark ages began and lasted until the first stars began to form at 400 million years. The rest as they say is history.
So far a lot of the evidence supports the big bang, but that could change. Theories stand or fall, or are even modified in the light of new knowledge. You can't say that for religion - its fixed and it has a hard time adapting to paradigm shifts.
One man's attitude is just that, Mike, one man's attitude.
|
|