Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ah, perhaps I need to be more accurate. G-d does not lie in the way we do, in the way we think of it, but he can and does, in scripture make people lie. Quite like hardening the pharaoh's heart. I should phrase things more carefully or y'know, eat something before trying to get in philosophical arguments.

 

Why do I have a feeling Nascha is going to force feed me and blister my ears when she gets home?

So the spirit volunteered and the Lord told the spirit to go ahead. At least it was not words spoken by the Lord directly that were the lie. I wonder how much of that is simply blinding their perspectives? Does speaking what you believe, even if inaccurate, count as lying?

Share this post


Link to post
So the spirit volunteered and the Lord told the spirit to go ahead. At least it was not words spoken by the Lord directly that were the lie. I wonder how much of that is simply blinding their perspectives? Does speaking what you believe, even if inaccurate, count as lying?

No...because there is no separate spirit. Jews are not trinitarians . The lying spirit of G-d is as much G-d as the merciful spirit of G-d or the holy spirit of G-d. There are many names for G-d, but he is one, indivisible and whole. G-d is just G-d. Actions are given different names, but it's no less an action of G-d.

Share this post


Link to post

I think he means a demon-type spirit, like with Job. But Awdz, she showed clearly that the roots were referring to God.

 

There's no margin for error in something that claims perfection imeobo

Share this post


Link to post
No...because there is no separate spirit. Jews are not trinitarians . The lying spirit of G-d is as much G-d as the merciful spirit of G-d or the holy spirit of G-d. There are many names for G-d, but he is one, indivisible and whole. G-d is just G-d. Actions are given different names, but it's no less an action of G-d.

My curiosity got the better of me, why not type down "God"?

 

Off-topic: Also, a question to fellow atheists, when you talk to theists about religion or are engaged in a discussion do you use "your god" or "a god", or simply "God"?

Share this post


Link to post
My curiosity got the better of me, why not type down "God"?

 

Off-topic: Also, a question to fellow atheists, when you talk to theists about religion or are engaged in a discussion do you use "your god" or "a god", or simply "God"?

I'm pretty sure this is against Judaism, so she doesn't do it. I'm sure she'll give you a more detailed explanation though.

 

Anyway, I don't really care what I use. I will either just use G/god and I don't really care about it. When typing "Oh my god" though I will just use lowercase.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm pretty sure this is against Judaism, so she doesn't do it. I'm sure she'll give you a more detailed explanation though.

 

Anyway, I don't really care what I use. I will either just use G/god and I don't really care about it. When typing "Oh my god" though I will just use lowercase.

Oh? Never knew that! Interesting.

 

I usually use the god's name (or the name he/she/it is known with) if I know it and am discussing with a person belonging to a monotheistic religion. Otherwise I usually use ""your".

Share this post


Link to post
Off-topic: Also, a question to fellow atheists, when you talk to theists about religion or are engaged in a discussion do you use "your god" or "a god", or simply "God"?

I don't capitalize it. I might put it in quotes.

Share this post


Link to post

Off-topic: Also, a question to fellow atheists, when you talk to theists about religion or are engaged in a discussion do you use "your god" or "a god", or simply "God"?

 

Depends a bit on the occasion. It is almost always lowercase god, though - a god if it is any hypothetical god, your god if I am speaking of the other's god more specifically, I might also make a distinction between "god as you see the one / them" and "how the god(s) of your religion is (are) usually depicted". If it is a religion wherein "God" is also the god's name, I might at times capitalize it (or, say, strike it out like Shiny has been doing (One shall not speak G-d's name in vain?)).

 

Edited to add: if the god I am speaking of has a name, I'll use that.

 

(I wouldn't put it in quotes outside of stating direct speech, though... That would feel somehow disrespectful to me.)

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post

Not an Atheist (Christian, as it happens, specifically Anglican), but I'll usually use a lowecase 'g' if talking in generalities, and an upper case 'G' if speaking of my own beliefs, or specifically about Christianity. If speaking to Muslims I will use Allah, and if I know the name of the specific pagan deity being referenced I will also use that.

Share this post


Link to post
Not an Atheist (Christian, as it happens, specifically Anglican), but I'll usually use a lowecase 'g' if talking in generalities, and an upper case 'G' if speaking of my own beliefs, or specifically about Christianity. If speaking to Muslims I will use Allah, and if I know the name of the specific pagan deity being referenced I will also use that.

Same. I also have a tendency to not capitalize when using "god" as a curse. I forget if it's intentional or not anymore. (though when I say "oh God" I usually capitalize it, huh *Has weird habits*)

Share this post


Link to post

I use "God" when speaking about the single entity, Creator of the universe; it is the name by which I know God. I use "god" when speaking about any other being who is worshipped, because it is not a name then.

 

Getting back to

Now before anyone gets on me that the spirits are lying and not G-d, let me be clear, the "lying spirit" used in Hebrew is Ruach Sheker, which is grammatically and theologically just a derivative of Ruach Elohm, or The Spirit of G-d (See, Genesis 1:2, etc), just as Ruach Elohm Raah is the evil spirit of G-d. (See: I Samuel 16:23)

So, essentially you adhere to the words being fact that God is evil and lies. It is not possibly human perspective coloring what God is and does as something other than good? Or an explanation of what is going on merely in terms that the people experiencing them can relate to/understand, since we cannot possibly see the entire picture?

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post
Off-topic: Also, a question to fellow atheists, when you talk to theists about religion or are engaged in a discussion do you use "your god" or "a god", or simply "God"?

I say 'god' without capitalizing it as a sign of disrespect.

Share this post


Link to post
It is not possibly human perspective coloring what God is and does as something other than good?

Now, just wondering, though...

 

How can you be sure it's not human perspective that makes God something other than evil?

 

 

Re: how to refer to god(s):

 

It really depends on context. If I'm specifically talking about the god of another person, and it makes sense in context, I use "your god". If God is being used as a name, I'll use that. Otherwise I generally just use "god".

Share this post


Link to post
Now, just wondering, though...

 

How can you be sure it's not human perspective that makes God something other than evil?

I guess it is part of my frame of reference. Creator of all, source of all life - without God we simply would not be. I think it is good to exist, therefore the Creator, God, is good.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess it is part of my frame of reference. Creator of all, source of all life - without God we simply would not be. I think it is good to exist, therefore the Creator, God, is good.

But, perhaps I could counter with the idea of a sadistic creator, a god/ who derives enjoyment from tragedy occurring in the world, with the good that happens simply being a byproduct of human choice--rather than a god that prefers goodness in the world with evil being a byproduct of human choice.

 

 

But, like you said, it's up to your frame of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess it is part of my frame of reference. Creator of all, source of all life - without God we simply would not be. I think it is good to exist, therefore the Creator, God, is good.

And I would counter on that notion, I think there are far worse things than not existing/living, so having been created =/= not necessarily good.

Share this post


Link to post

My curiosity got the better of me, why not type down "God"?

 

It is against Judaism to allow many of the names of G-d to be destroyed/deleted/wiped out in any way. Jews avoid this by dropping letters.

 

So, essentially you adhere to the words being fact that God is evil and lies.

 

What I think, and here's my agnostic side showing, is that G-d doesn't lie in what he says. He may make people lie.

 

It is not possibly human perspective coloring what God is and does as something other than good? Or an explanation of what is going on merely in terms that the people experiencing them can relate to/understand, since we cannot possibly see the entire picture?

 

If I'm going to believe that the Torah is the word of G-d, no.

 

I guess it is part of my frame of reference. Creator of all, source of all life - without God we simply would not be. I think it is good to exist, therefore the Creator, God, is good.

 

My frame of reference is this. From G-d comes all, if I believe it. Everything. Is existing good? Yeah, maybe for you. That doesn't mean it's good for the person down the street or the six-year-old at the pool.

 

It's like the book of Job. HaSatan is just roaming around, doing his job, doing what he's supposed to do, playing the prosecutor. He's not evil, and yet many people view his role in the story to be evil. Why? Perspective. We're human, so we sympathize with the human. We judge G-d and HaSatan call one or the other or both evil or sadistic or cruel, because that's how we think about it.

 

So what other option do I have? ignore those verses? Change the interpretation because it doesn't work with the idea of a merciful god? Guess what? A lot of the Torah doesn't. If we saw someone get pushed out a window to be eaten by dogs, we would call someone who had it happen a monster. There are consequences for actions. Some of those consequences are not pretty. Just because they are just doesn't purify the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, the nature of "quantum particles" are not completely accepted. Most have issues with the idea, and still consider it a contradictory duality. It's still considered a mystery.

 

Shut up and calculate. XD

 

Is that an assumption? I doubt the majority of physicists subscribe to dialetheism. What proof is there for it being an actual contradiction if it’s still a mystery? Some say it’s all fields and the corresponding “particles” are excitations of the fields. Some say it’s particles and fields. Some say it’s just “particles”. It’s difficult to comprehend.

 

So...lying is good?

 

Lies are always bad?

 

You would be surprised. There is such a thing as the triune doctrine in some branches of Christianity

 

I meant that the Oneness folks and the Trinity folks can’t both be right.

 

the Infinite Determinism theology in others.

 

Is that predestination? Let’s leave that out. I’m referring to us not being able to have done otherwise in the past. The Fall of Man, Jesus dying for our sins, etc. is nonsensical without it (technically, it already is but…) Even Calvin described Adam as having free will.

 

No, He cannot be. God, if He exists, is always good, because that is His nature.

 

Really, phil? So you’re defining “good” by whatever he thinks?

 

It's like the book of Job. HaSatan is just roaming around, doing his job, doing what he's supposed to do, playing the prosecutor. He's not evil, and yet many people view his role in the story to be evil.

 

Well, he could have just created a paradise, and all the souls could have been like him (i.e. having free will but always choosing good actions). He’ll eventually have to shut the whole thing down anyways lest the Boltzmann brains start appearing. XD I know people that argue a simulated universe mimicking this one (assuming consciousness is substrate-independent) is unethical because of the suffering it would introduce.

 

I liked how Mark Twain put it.

 

" Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane--like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell--mouths mercy and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!...”

 

Why? Perspective. We're human, so we sympathize with the human. We judge G-d and HaSatan call one or the other or both evil or sadistic or cruel, because that's how we think about it.

 

Really? The atheists must be drowning out the others. XD There are so many people even in the 21st century who think the majority of people deserve eternal torment because they don't have faith, didn’t get baptized the right way, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Learning about different branches is interesting, since I've always been brainwashed and fed a bit of nonsense for years until I finally thought for myself. I want to lean towards wicca but I'm torn..

Share this post


Link to post
Learning about different branches is interesting, since I've always been brainwashed and fed a bit of nonsense for years until I finally thought for myself. I want to lean towards wicca but I'm torn..

I have a friend from high school that is Wiccan (born Jewish) and she would tell me certain things about it. It's definitely really neat but be sure not to confuse real wicca with fake wicca. Fake wicca is basically wannabe witches that claim wicca goes all the way back to the Salem witch trials and crap.

Share this post


Link to post
I have a friend from high school that is Wiccan (born Jewish) and she would tell me certain things about it. It's definitely really neat but be sure not to confuse real wicca with fake wicca. Fake wicca is basically wannabe witches that claim wicca goes all the way back to the Salem witch trials and crap.

Yes, but how do you define "real Wicca"? Can you be a "real" Wiccan if you're a member of a Dianic coven? Or if you're not currently with a coven at all because you're under 18 so you have to wait until you're of age or you moved before your initiation and have yet to find a coven in your new location? I know a few people that say unless you're an initiate of a Gardnerian coven, you're not a "real" Wiccan.

 

That said, yes, anyone interested in Wicca does need to be mindful of the fluff-bunnies who think the religion can be traced back to pre-Christian days in an unbroken line, etc. If you (and Ghostchili and anyone else) are interested in looking into it a little more, I generally suggest reading A Witches' Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook by Janet and Stewart Farrar, Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft by Ray Buckland, and possibly Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. Starhawk's The Spiral Dance is fairly good as well, and for anyone interested in a somewhat more scholarly overview of the neo-pagan movement, I suggest Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but how do you define "real Wicca"? Can you be a "real" Wiccan if you're a member of a Dianic coven? Or if you're not currently with a coven at all because you're under 18 so you have to wait until you're of age or you moved before your initiation and have yet to find a coven in your new location? I know a few people that say unless you're an initiate of a Gardnerian coven, you're not a "real" Wiccan.

 

That said, yes, anyone interested in Wicca does need to be mindful of the fluff-bunnies who think the religion can be traced back to pre-Christian days in an unbroken line, etc. If you (and Ghostchili and anyone else) are interested in looking into it a little more, I generally suggest reading A Witches' Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook by Janet and Stewart Farrar, Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft by Ray Buckland, and possibly Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. Starhawk's The Spiral Dance is fairly good as well, and for anyone interested in a somewhat more scholarly overview of the neo-pagan movement, I suggest Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon.

Except Starhawk isn't Wiccan. She's founded her own Tradition, called Reclaiming. (And IMO if you're not honouring Deity in male/female polarity, your claim to be called Wiccan at all is dubious at best.)

 

As a Wiccan of twenty years myself, the first book I recommend to anybody interested in the religion is "Wicca for Beginners" by Thea Sabin, because if what that book has to say about Wicca doesn't resonate for you, there's a pretty good chance that Wicca isn't going to be a fulfilling path for you; as well, it outlines the theory behind Wiccan practice, which helps the reader to understand what they'll see in other books about the faith.

Edited by prairiecrow

Share this post


Link to post
Except Starhawk isn't Wiccan. She's founded her own Tradition, called Reclaiming. (And IMO if you're not honouring Deity in male/female polarity, your claim to be called Wiccan at all is dubious at best.)

 

As a Wiccan of twenty years myself, the first book I recommend to anybody interested in the religion is "Wicca for Beginners" by Thea Sabin, because if what that book has to say about Wicca doesn't resonate for you, there's a pretty good chance that Wicca isn't going to be a fulfilling path for you; as well, it outlines the theory behind Wiccan practice, which helps the reader to understand what they'll see in other books about the faith.

Okay, strike Starhawk from my suggestions list. I'll be honest, it's probably been 15 years since I opened The Spiral Dance, but since it survived my culling of the shelves, I obviously misremembered the contents. Mostly I was purging myself of too many fluff-bunny authors whose books I bought back when I was 18-ish and didn't know any better.

 

Oddly, I've never heard of Wicca for Beginners, which is a shame. It sounds like something I could have used when I started on my path back when, especially since the person who first got me interested *was* something of a cross between a fluff-bunny and a pathological liar who claimed a heck of a lot more than was ever delivered.

Share this post


Link to post

About Wicca....I'd recommend each and every book by Scott Cunningham. He is not dogmatic at all and its not too complicated reading for beginners.

 

My husband is a traditionally initiated Wiccan and he initiated me, but even he is very open for all traditions. At the moment I suppose we could be called norse Wiccans or maybe Wiccatru *g* if we have to be called something other than pagan.

One might even say we are working on our own tradition, so to speak.

(Southern german, not scandinavian)

Works for us....

Edited by Severus_S

Share this post


Link to post
I have a friend from high school that is Wiccan (born Jewish) and she would tell me certain things about it. It's definitely really neat but be sure not to confuse real wicca with fake wicca. Fake wicca is basically wannabe witches that claim wicca goes all the way back to the Salem witch trials and crap.

Yea I've seen wannabe "witches" running around in HS it was usually more of a rebellion thing, like smoking or partying. I have real wiccan friends who like going into the forest behind their neighborhood and hanging and cleansing. I loved it.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.