Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ECrownofFire]

What sort of supernatural interactions are there?

I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in.

Not going to go into that, it's irrelevant. And I'm not 100% sure about it anyway, but whatever. What beliefs are of 100% certainty anyway?

[Shade-o]

Oh right.

So, given the choice between a supernatural and natural universe, each other them exactly the same, why did you choose supernatural?

[ECrownofFire]

Oh right.

So, given the choice between a supernatural and natural universe, each other them exactly the same, why did you choose supernatural?

That's rather personal, but suffice to say that a supernatural universe explains more to me.

[Urist is dead tome]

Well if we're entering the realm of personal questions.

Shade-o, may I ask why you believe that God has a weakness to iron?

[Shade-o]

Because the Bible explicitly states that the presence of iron chariots caused his defeat in battle.

That's rather personal, but suffice to say that a supernatural universe explains more to me.

I'll just assume that you witnessed tragedy that no sane universe would inflict.

[ECrownofFire]

That's rather personal, but suffice to say that a supernatural universe explains more to me.

I'll just assume that you witnessed tragedy that no sane universe would inflict.

You can assume whatever you like, as long as you don't use your assumptions to judge me

[scriver]

I've heard theories that the serpent was supposed to represent Marduk. To distance the burgeoning religion from its source. The most interesting part of that is that Marduk's symbol, the snake-dragon, is commonly depicted with legs. And in the story of the Fall, God later condemns the serpent to crawling on its belly, implying that it originally had some other form of movement.

I think I remember hearing that snake's have what appear to have once been legs. I don't know how truthful this is though.

Some constrictors have remnants of a pelvic girdle (basically hips), but that's about it. They're very tiny, though; more or less certainly vestigial elements leftover from whatever their evolutionary ancestor was.

Anecdotal tidbit; There's also the Anguis fragilis, which is basically a lizard that dropped it's legs.

You can assume whatever you like, as long as you don't use your assumptions to judge me

_{...But if you don't explain stuff you will be judged-by-assumption by default...}

[Shade-o]

I won't just you on my assumptions, but I will judge based on your non-participation in threads that you participate in.

And by that I mean entering this thread and refusing to discuss your religion.

[ECrownofFire]

I won't just you on my assumptions, but I will judge based on your non-participation in threads that you participate in.

And by that I mean entering this thread and refusing to discuss your religion.

I'm not refusing to discuss my religion, and in fact, have discussed it more than pretty much everybody here except maybe urist is dead tome. What I am refusing to discuss is my reasons for believing it, which are far too personal and very irrelevant.

[malimbar04]

CrownofFire,

Why are you in this discussion? I mean this quite honestly by the way, not in the snarky way it sounds. I've seen you post one-sentence posts saying that you don't want to tell us something about what you believe over and over again. In a thread set up to debate the existence of gods and the validity or religion, we shouldn't have to work your beliefs out of you. You should just be forthcoming about them. You should do so every time that it is a barrier to the discussion, and we shouldn't see posts like

"I'm not refusing to discuss my religion, and in fact, have discussed it more than pretty much everybody here except maybe urist is dead tome. What I am refusing to discuss is my reasons for believing it, which are far too personal and very irrelevant."
or
"You can assume whatever you like, as long as you don't use your assumptions to judge me "
or
"I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in."
and so forth.

This is continuous dancing around the issue, when the thread is explicitly about debating the issue. I'm pretty sure that every religious belief you hold, when looked at honestly and openly, will be vacuous and silly. The ones you've expressed so far I think we've shown to be as such. However, your wording keeps suggesting that you're holding back your real belief system, which might be completely plausible. I don't think it is. I think it's probably the vague and meaningless kind, or the superstitious, specific, and flat out wrong kind.

[Willfor]

[withdrawn; unfounded]

[Siquo]

CoF has stated his beliefs and explained them numerous times. Really, almost as often as I did

He just doesn't want to discuss his personal reasons for choosing his belief, something that should be respected. It might be an event or something that he feels very emotional about, and his reasons are not up for discussion. You may discuss what he believes as much as you wish.

Your criticism on CoF's refusal to discuss his beliefs is unfounded (since he has done so if you'd care to read back), and malimbar is being especially disrespectful. Cut that out.

[Willfor]

I don't particularly care to read back, so I will simply withdraw my objections.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Two easily manipulated, completely naive humans, a forbidden tree of knowledge and power, and a serpent who exists only to trick people into disobeying God.

Why those last two were included in the first place is not very clear.

The whole question of the origin of evil, and why it exists, is a problem for many religions. (Mine is not one of them )

I'm sorry but do your Gods do anything?

i find this so ironic.

and malimbar is being especially disrespectful. Cut that out.

i disagree, i think malimbar is trying very hard to be respectful without being outright dishonest.
-------------

Well, technically due to pantheism, they cause everything that's ever happened that isn't a result of a choice of a sapient being (because almost anything a sapient being does is either good or bad, and the gods are neither, only nature and the gods are truly neutral) Sort of. I mean, it's more complicated than that, and I don't really care to explain my beliefs regarding it.

That just sounds as if you are attributing natural universal processes to a supernatural cause.

Not exactly, but kind of. It's part of the deal with pantheism (or at least the "version" that I believe) that there's no distinction between the natural and supernatural, that everything that could be described as supernatural is natural, etc. I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in.

my view is that good and bad are concepts that came out  of human mind, i don't even think they are or always were present in all human cultures, therefore, without humans judging each other, all human actions are neutral, there is no good or bad. do you disagree with me? if no, the why are sapient beings any different from any other natural phenomenon?
also, would you classify your gods as sentient? if yes, why are they neutral? or why are they sentient if they are neutral, if a creature, or thing, has no interest in anything at all, i don't see why it should have sentience or perception at all

[Siquo]

i disagree, i think malimbar is trying very hard to be respectful without being outright dishonest.

Claiming someone is dancing around the issue, and then attacking his beliefs, without taking the effort to actually read back what those beliefs are, is disrespectful in my book.

The irony of Urist is obvious, though