Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is The Christian Trinity A Form Of Polytheism?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Immortalist
May 18, 2013, 9:36:48 AM5/18/13
to
Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
distinct entities. Soft polytheism may include varieties of monolatry,
henotheism or polytheist mythologies coupled with forms of pantheism
or panentheism.
"Soft polytheists" regard their multiplicity of gods as being
manifestations of either common entities, or representing different
aspects or facets of a single personal god, the latter also sometimes
known as "inclusive monotheists", as are many modern neofpagan groups.
[citation needed]
Ancient Egyptian religion in its later phase (New Kingdom) espoused
soft polytheism in the form of triads or triple Gods or Goddesses.
They believed that certain Gods were aspects of a great God. Amon was
an aspect of Ra and was usually known as Amon-Ra. The presence of
triple Gods such as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, or "the Trinity", shows that
even though their Gods may have distinct personalities and traits,
they are considered to be aspects of another deity.[citation needed]
In Hinduism, the Smartha tradition can also be seen as a form of soft
polytheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monistic-polytheism
Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
distinct entities. Soft polytheism may include varieties of monolatry,
henotheism or polytheist mythologies coupled with forms of pantheism
or panentheism.
"Soft polytheists" regard their multiplicity of gods as being
manifestations of either common entities, or representing different
aspects or facets of a single personal god, the latter also sometimes
known as "inclusive monotheists", as are many modern neofpagan groups.
[citation needed]
Ancient Egyptian religion in its later phase (New Kingdom) espoused
soft polytheism in the form of triads or triple Gods or Goddesses.
They believed that certain Gods were aspects of a great God. Amon was
an aspect of Ra and was usually known as Amon-Ra. The presence of
triple Gods such as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, or "the Trinity", shows that
even though their Gods may have distinct personalities and traits,
they are considered to be aspects of another deity.[citation needed]
In Hinduism, the Smartha tradition can also be seen as a form of soft
polytheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monistic-polytheism
Immortalist
May 18, 2013, 10:58:36 AM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 6:48 am, Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and
> subtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau
>
So the worth or truth of a religion depends not on some evidence but
only on how complex they are when compared to each other? Weak, you
lose already thought of that one, try again.
"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews and Vedic culture are
those of a wilder and ruder tribe, wanting the civility and
intellectual refinements and subtlety of an Animistic nature culture."
- Me Fucking You
Animism is the idea that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but
also in animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder,
geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of
the natural environment. Animism may further attribute souls to
abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology.
Animism is particularly widely found in the religions of indigenous
peoples, although it is also found in Shinto, and some forms of
Hinduism, Sikhism, Pantheism and Neopaganism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
The term animism is derived from the Latin word anima meaning breath
or soul. The belief of animism is probably one of man's oldest
beliefs, with its origin most likely dating to the Paleolithic age.
From its earliest beginnings it was a belief that a soul or spirit
existed in every object, even if it was inanimate. In a future state
this soul or spirit would exist as part of an immaterial soul. The
spirit, therefore, was thought to be universal...
...It is insignificant how men and women gained the belief that a
spirit or soul resides in all objects it is historically evident that
they did. Trees and plants were worshiped as totems or because of
their usefulness and beauty. In many cultures certain trees and plants
have been feared. In some ancient cultures "trees were generally
regarded as maternal deities or forest spirits, to be respected even
when their lives were sacrificed for human use (pagan woodcutters
never felled a tree without first begging its forgiveness). Female
tree spirits live on in myth and folklore as dryads, the Greek version
of the tree-worshiping druid priestesses."
Plants and trees have been considered sacred by themselves because, as
some have thought, they are home to certain spirits. Both the soma
plant of India and the coca shrub of Peru are worshiped for the
intoxicating properties of the products made from them. Field crops,
thought to harbor spirits of infertility, has been honored by ancient
tribesmen and peasants throughout Europe. Traces of these cults can
still be found...
Animism by Alan G. Hefner and Virgilio Guimaraes
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/animism.htm
> Have a look at my art -
>
> http://youtu.be/K6y-GNCHgow- Buddha Barhttp://youtu.be/Ucvk5t2Inyk- Frictionhttp://youtu.be/sVUgoBaq71Q- I am your soulhttp://youtu.be/2uRbsf9Vzg8- Sudder streethttp://youtu.be/DC5OHr-Pm4I- Jahnavahttp://youtu.be/y9KqLPCWR1E- Krishnart
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnuhttp://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq-n0bbhpaA- Georgehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QIX5h8y1w&feature- TOVP
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
> >Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>
> "The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
> >Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>
> ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and
> subtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau
>
So the worth or truth of a religion depends not on some evidence but
only on how complex they are when compared to each other? Weak, you
lose already thought of that one, try again.
"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews and Vedic culture are
those of a wilder and ruder tribe, wanting the civility and
intellectual refinements and subtlety of an Animistic nature culture."
- Me Fucking You
Animism is the idea that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but
also in animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder,
geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of
the natural environment. Animism may further attribute souls to
abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology.
Animism is particularly widely found in the religions of indigenous
peoples, although it is also found in Shinto, and some forms of
Hinduism, Sikhism, Pantheism and Neopaganism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
The term animism is derived from the Latin word anima meaning breath
or soul. The belief of animism is probably one of man's oldest
beliefs, with its origin most likely dating to the Paleolithic age.
From its earliest beginnings it was a belief that a soul or spirit
existed in every object, even if it was inanimate. In a future state
this soul or spirit would exist as part of an immaterial soul. The
spirit, therefore, was thought to be universal...
...It is insignificant how men and women gained the belief that a
spirit or soul resides in all objects it is historically evident that
they did. Trees and plants were worshiped as totems or because of
their usefulness and beauty. In many cultures certain trees and plants
have been feared. In some ancient cultures "trees were generally
regarded as maternal deities or forest spirits, to be respected even
when their lives were sacrificed for human use (pagan woodcutters
never felled a tree without first begging its forgiveness). Female
tree spirits live on in myth and folklore as dryads, the Greek version
of the tree-worshiping druid priestesses."
Plants and trees have been considered sacred by themselves because, as
some have thought, they are home to certain spirits. Both the soma
plant of India and the coca shrub of Peru are worshiped for the
intoxicating properties of the products made from them. Field crops,
thought to harbor spirits of infertility, has been honored by ancient
tribesmen and peasants throughout Europe. Traces of these cults can
still be found...
Animism by Alan G. Hefner and Virgilio Guimaraes
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/animism.htm
> Have a look at my art -
>
> http://youtu.be/K6y-GNCHgow- Buddha Barhttp://youtu.be/Ucvk5t2Inyk- Frictionhttp://youtu.be/sVUgoBaq71Q- I am your soulhttp://youtu.be/2uRbsf9Vzg8- Sudder streethttp://youtu.be/DC5OHr-Pm4I- Jahnavahttp://youtu.be/y9KqLPCWR1E- Krishnart
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnuhttp://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq-n0bbhpaA- Georgehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QIX5h8y1w&feature- TOVP
duke
May 18, 2013, 1:24:19 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
>Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
>
>Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
>in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
>"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
>distinct entities.
There is one God almighty in 3 separate but equal persons.
>Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
>Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
>
>Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
>in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
>"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
>distinct entities.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
Christopher A. Lee
May 18, 2013, 4:09:49 PM5/18/13
to
>Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
>in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
>"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
>distinct entities. Soft polytheism may include varieties of monolatry,
>henotheism or polytheist mythologies coupled with forms of pantheism
>or panentheism.
Don't forget the devil. In other religions that would also be a god.
>in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
>"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
>distinct entities. Soft polytheism may include varieties of monolatry,
>henotheism or polytheist mythologies coupled with forms of pantheism
>or panentheism.
But they're stuck with their "one and only" so they have to
rationalise Jesus and the devil as not being gods.
Immortalist
May 18, 2013, 5:37:23 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 10:33 am, Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> Krishna says:
>
> My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to
> you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which
> you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence. (Bg. 9.1)
>
> This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
> secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
> perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
> religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)
>
Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
presenting an argument, try again but maybe bring something you can
support. Why do you believe it?
> Have a look at my art -
>
http://st.depositphotos.com/1012097/1269/i/950/depositphotos_12699273-Body-details---penis.jpg
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >So the worth or truth of a religion depends not on some evidence but
> >only on how complex they are when compared to each other? Weak, you
> >lose already thought of that one, try again.
>
> <blah blah>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >So the worth or truth of a religion depends not on some evidence but
> >only on how complex they are when compared to each other? Weak, you
> >lose already thought of that one, try again.
>
>
> Krishna says:
>
> My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to
> you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which
> you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence. (Bg. 9.1)
>
> This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
> secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
> perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
> religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)
>
Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
presenting an argument, try again but maybe bring something you can
support. Why do you believe it?
> Have a look at my art -
>
Immortalist
May 18, 2013, 5:41:37 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
> >Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
>
> >Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
> >in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
> >"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
> >distinct entities.
>
> There is one God almighty in 3 separate but equal persons.
>
I guess that explain it all!
> >Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
> >Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
>
> >Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
> >in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
> >"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
> >distinct entities.
>
> There is one God almighty in 3 separate but equal persons.
>
http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/58087_284571611679033_1584951311_n.jpg
Anonymous
May 18, 2013, 6:16:37 PM5/18/13
to
In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
Immortalist
May 18, 2013, 6:06:53 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 3:16 pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>
> In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>
>
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
>
> You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
>
> You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
May 18, 2013, 7:35:20 PM5/18/13
to
In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On May 18, 3:16=A0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.=
> com>
> >
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
> >
> > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
I'm fucking your mom.
> >
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
> >
> > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
Immortalist
May 18, 2013, 10:49:29 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 4:35 pm, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
<mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93-ab27-a22f2936b...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>
with a corpse
I never got along with the girls at my school
Filling me up with all their morals and their rules
They'd pile all their problems on my head
I'd rather go out and fuck the dead
'Cause I can do what I want and they won't complain
I wanna fuck I wanna fuck the dead
Middle of the night so silently
I creep on over to the mortuary
Lift up the casket and fiddle with the dead
Their cold blue flesh makes me turn red
'Cause I can do what I want and they won't complain
I wanna fuck I wanna fuck the dead
And I don't even care how she died...
But I like it better if she smells of formaldehyde!
Never on the rag or say leave me alone
They don't scream and they don't moan
Don't even cry if I shoot in their hair
Lying on the table she smiles and she stares
'Cause I can do what I want and they won't complain
I wanna fuck I wanna fuck the dead
http://www.truesoundsofliberty.com/online.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DnfCGPnWfKQ.
<mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93-ab27-a22f2936b...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>
>
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 3:16=A0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.=
> > com>
>
> > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
>
> > > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> > Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
>
> I'm fucking your mom.
Easy enough to claim, have fun trying to prove that your having sex
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 3:16=A0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.=
> > com>
>
> > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
>
> > > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> > Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
>
> I'm fucking your mom.
with a corpse
I never got along with the girls at my school
Filling me up with all their morals and their rules
They'd pile all their problems on my head
I'd rather go out and fuck the dead
'Cause I can do what I want and they won't complain
I wanna fuck I wanna fuck the dead
Middle of the night so silently
I creep on over to the mortuary
Lift up the casket and fiddle with the dead
Their cold blue flesh makes me turn red
'Cause I can do what I want and they won't complain
I wanna fuck I wanna fuck the dead
And I don't even care how she died...
But I like it better if she smells of formaldehyde!
Never on the rag or say leave me alone
They don't scream and they don't moan
Don't even cry if I shoot in their hair
Lying on the table she smiles and she stares
'Cause I can do what I want and they won't complain
I wanna fuck I wanna fuck the dead
http://www.truesoundsofliberty.com/online.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DnfCGPnWfKQ.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 18, 2013, 11:05:26 PM5/18/13
to
Anonymous
May 18, 2013, 11:43:01 PM5/18/13
to
In article <89f67ca4-7eac-4bf0...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On May 18, 4:35=A0pm, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
> <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> > In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93-ab27-a22f2936b...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups=
> .com>
> >
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 18, 3:16=3DA0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegro=
> ups.=3D
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On May 18, 4:35=A0pm, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
> <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> > In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93-ab27-a22f2936b...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups=
> .com>
> >
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 18, 3:16=3DA0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegro=
> ups.=3D
> > > com>
> >
> > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
> >
> > > > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
> >
> > > Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
> >
> > I'm fucking your mom.
>
> Easy enough to claim, have fun trying to prove that your having sex
It's you're not your, imbecile.
> >
> > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
> >
> > > > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
> >
> > > Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
> >
> > I'm fucking your mom.
>
> Easy enough to claim, have fun trying to prove that your having sex
Anonymous
May 18, 2013, 11:53:19 PM5/18/13
to
bil...@microsoft.com
May 19, 2013, 3:10:47 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 03:53:19 GMT, Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org>
wrote:
sure you can just tell a christian that guy thinks he god is better
and the christian will most likely try and shoot him
wrote:
and the christian will most likely try and shoot him
Immortalist
May 19, 2013, 9:41:26 AM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 8:43 pm, Anonymous <anonym...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
> In article <89f67ca4-7eac-4bf0-9b36-f81c75046...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> In article <89f67ca4-7eac-4bf0-9b36-f81c75046...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
>
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 4:35=A0pm, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
> > <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> > > In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93-ab27-a22f2936b...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups=
> > .com>
>
> > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 18, 3:16=3DA0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegro=
> > ups.=3D
> > > > com>
>
> > > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
>
> > > > > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> > > > Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
>
> > > I'm fucking your mom.
>
> > Easy enough to claim, have fun trying to prove that your having sex
>
> It's you're not your, imbecile.
What is not mine?
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 4:35=A0pm, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
> > <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> > > In article <c221e34a-f12d-4f93-ab27-a22f2936b...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups=
> > .com>
>
> > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 18, 3:16=3DA0pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article <6394450c-cfe2-45cf-9baa-e76188a92...@a9g2000pbq.googlegro=
> > ups.=3D
> > > > com>
>
> > > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why should anyone believe any of that shit? Your not very good at
>
> > > > > You're not very good at grammar. It's you're not your, troll.
>
> > > > Can you show the bad grammar? Or are you just fucking your friends leg?
>
> > > I'm fucking your mom.
>
> > Easy enough to claim, have fun trying to prove that your having sex
>
> It's you're not your, imbecile.
Immortalist
May 21, 2013, 10:33:24 AM5/21/13
to
On May 19, 4:08 am, Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> Because it makes sense to listen to God, the Supreme Authority?
>
Why does it make sense to do so?
> >Your not very good at
> >presenting an argument, try again but maybe bring something you can
> >support. Why do you believe it?
>
> Because I know who God is, what His name is, where He lives, why and
> how He created the world, who and what the soul is.
>
You have not provided any convincing evidence that you know the god
nor have you provided any evidence at all in support of your theory of
gods.
An important form of the Argument from Religious Experience focuses on
the issue of mysticism — it might be called the Argument from
Professional Religious Experience. What is claimed is that,
throughout time, in various cultures and places, there have existed
particular individuals who have somehow had direct, personal
experiences with God.
Like the general Argument from Religious Experiences, it is claimed
that these experiences should be given the same credence as other
experiential claims and should not be rejected out of hand. But unlike
the general argument, it is observed that mystics spend a lot of time
working on understanding and reaching God — they are professionals, in
a sense, and their observations and conclusions should be treated like
those of other professionals.
How should we respond to this argument? The first thing to note is
that, as with general religious experiences reported by others, there
is a tremendous amount of variety in the reports by religious mystics
over the millennia. Not only are the reports from different religions
mutually incompatible, but not even all the reports in a single
religious tradition are compatible.
This embarrassment of riches is an Achilles’ Heel of the Argument from
Religious Experiences, including mystical reports. If they can’t all
be true, how do we differentiate the incorrect reports from the
correct reports? How can any one mystic give us a good reason to
accept his or her claims over and above the claims made by others?
Another problem with these mystical claims is how the mystical
experiences themselves originated. It is unclear how the religious
experiences of an “average” person originate, but they are not so
intense and spectacular as to require an unusual explanation. Mystical
experiences, however, need a bit more digging.
Fortunately, the mystics themselves often provide the answer because
even though the reports from mystics vary greatly, the road they take
is shared much more closely. The usual recipe for these experiences is
some sort of deprivation — going without food, water, and often sleep,
sitting in the heat of a desert or sweat lodge, isolation from human
contact, the repetition of chants or prayer, and even the use of
drugs.
All of this is unusual — they are not the sorts of things that a
normal person does over the course of a normal life. Is it really so
surprising that going through extremely unusual physical experiences
will produce unusual effects in the brain? Deprivation of food, water,
sleep and human contact will, over time, result in hallucinations.
When you add in certain drugs, visions are even more likely.
Because hallucinations happen in your brain, they are naturally
informed by what you know, what you believe, and what you expect. To
put it another way, when you are looking to have visions, and actually
prepare your brain for them, then you are likely to find just what you
were expecting.
Dr. Michael Persinger in Canada can produce mystical visions in people
with a mechanical device and what people see is heavily influenced
even just by the sort of things he has in his office. When he plays
music with an Eastern theme, people tend to have Buddhist-type
visions. When he hangs crucifixes in the room and plays Christian
chants, people have Christian-type visions.
Because there are possible physical and natural explanations for these
mystical experiences, and because they can actually be produced at
will in very natural ways, it becomes incumbent upon the supporter of
mysticism to help us differentiate between the naturally induced
experiences and those which allegedly have a supernatural origin.
One curious issue with the claim that mystics’ experiences of God
provide good reasons to believe that God really exists is the question
of just how a person can claim to recognize God. What arguments or
evidence, without resorting to question begging, can a person use to
claim that whatever they experienced is necessarily that of the god
they believe in?
Perceptual recognition is something which can merit skepticism even in
mundane matters we encounter in everyday life. Consider how easy it
can be to make an error in recognition when it comes to the voices or
faces or writing styles of people we know very well — but how would we
“know” the voice or face or speaking style of “god”?
Michael Martin offers the example of someone claiming to have spoken
on the phone with a person who seemed to be the strongest man of
County Cork. How on earth could such an identification be made merely
on the basis of a voice? Perhaps if the person was an expert on Irish
accents at least a small part of the claim could be justified — but
only a very small part.
These same problems occur with the claims made that someone has spoken
with God or even just “experienced” God. This claim cannot be taken at
face value: we need to know what part of this experience justifies the
conclusion that it involved “God” — with all of the qualities and
attributes alleged for this god, like omniscience, omnipotence,
omnibenevolence, etc. — and not an experience of something else, even
if it is another supernatural being.
A traditional question based upon this dilemma is, “Are you so sure
that you can’t be fooled and it wasn’t Satan who spoke to you?” You
don’t have to be a believer in God or Satan to recognize the
importance of such a question. The point is, no one has offered a
sound basis for differentiating between an experience of “god” and of
something else entirely.
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/mysticism.htm
And the general argument from religious experience
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/religexperience.htm
> Krishna says:
>
Like a weirdo
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> Because it makes sense to listen to God, the Supreme Authority?
>
Why does it make sense to do so?
> >Your not very good at
> >presenting an argument, try again but maybe bring something you can
> >support. Why do you believe it?
>
> how He created the world, who and what the soul is.
>
You have not provided any convincing evidence that you know the god
nor have you provided any evidence at all in support of your theory of
gods.
An important form of the Argument from Religious Experience focuses on
the issue of mysticism — it might be called the Argument from
Professional Religious Experience. What is claimed is that,
throughout time, in various cultures and places, there have existed
particular individuals who have somehow had direct, personal
experiences with God.
Like the general Argument from Religious Experiences, it is claimed
that these experiences should be given the same credence as other
experiential claims and should not be rejected out of hand. But unlike
the general argument, it is observed that mystics spend a lot of time
working on understanding and reaching God — they are professionals, in
a sense, and their observations and conclusions should be treated like
those of other professionals.
How should we respond to this argument? The first thing to note is
that, as with general religious experiences reported by others, there
is a tremendous amount of variety in the reports by religious mystics
over the millennia. Not only are the reports from different religions
mutually incompatible, but not even all the reports in a single
religious tradition are compatible.
This embarrassment of riches is an Achilles’ Heel of the Argument from
Religious Experiences, including mystical reports. If they can’t all
be true, how do we differentiate the incorrect reports from the
correct reports? How can any one mystic give us a good reason to
accept his or her claims over and above the claims made by others?
Another problem with these mystical claims is how the mystical
experiences themselves originated. It is unclear how the religious
experiences of an “average” person originate, but they are not so
intense and spectacular as to require an unusual explanation. Mystical
experiences, however, need a bit more digging.
Fortunately, the mystics themselves often provide the answer because
even though the reports from mystics vary greatly, the road they take
is shared much more closely. The usual recipe for these experiences is
some sort of deprivation — going without food, water, and often sleep,
sitting in the heat of a desert or sweat lodge, isolation from human
contact, the repetition of chants or prayer, and even the use of
drugs.
All of this is unusual — they are not the sorts of things that a
normal person does over the course of a normal life. Is it really so
surprising that going through extremely unusual physical experiences
will produce unusual effects in the brain? Deprivation of food, water,
sleep and human contact will, over time, result in hallucinations.
When you add in certain drugs, visions are even more likely.
Because hallucinations happen in your brain, they are naturally
informed by what you know, what you believe, and what you expect. To
put it another way, when you are looking to have visions, and actually
prepare your brain for them, then you are likely to find just what you
were expecting.
Dr. Michael Persinger in Canada can produce mystical visions in people
with a mechanical device and what people see is heavily influenced
even just by the sort of things he has in his office. When he plays
music with an Eastern theme, people tend to have Buddhist-type
visions. When he hangs crucifixes in the room and plays Christian
chants, people have Christian-type visions.
Because there are possible physical and natural explanations for these
mystical experiences, and because they can actually be produced at
will in very natural ways, it becomes incumbent upon the supporter of
mysticism to help us differentiate between the naturally induced
experiences and those which allegedly have a supernatural origin.
One curious issue with the claim that mystics’ experiences of God
provide good reasons to believe that God really exists is the question
of just how a person can claim to recognize God. What arguments or
evidence, without resorting to question begging, can a person use to
claim that whatever they experienced is necessarily that of the god
they believe in?
Perceptual recognition is something which can merit skepticism even in
mundane matters we encounter in everyday life. Consider how easy it
can be to make an error in recognition when it comes to the voices or
faces or writing styles of people we know very well — but how would we
“know” the voice or face or speaking style of “god”?
Michael Martin offers the example of someone claiming to have spoken
on the phone with a person who seemed to be the strongest man of
County Cork. How on earth could such an identification be made merely
on the basis of a voice? Perhaps if the person was an expert on Irish
accents at least a small part of the claim could be justified — but
only a very small part.
These same problems occur with the claims made that someone has spoken
with God or even just “experienced” God. This claim cannot be taken at
face value: we need to know what part of this experience justifies the
conclusion that it involved “God” — with all of the qualities and
attributes alleged for this god, like omniscience, omnipotence,
omnibenevolence, etc. — and not an experience of something else, even
if it is another supernatural being.
A traditional question based upon this dilemma is, “Are you so sure
that you can’t be fooled and it wasn’t Satan who spoke to you?” You
don’t have to be a believer in God or Satan to recognize the
importance of such a question. The point is, no one has offered a
sound basis for differentiating between an experience of “god” and of
something else entirely.
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/mysticism.htm
And the general argument from religious experience
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/religexperience.htm
> Krishna says:
>
Like a weirdo
duke
May 22, 2013, 6:13:48 PM5/22/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 18, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
>> >Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
>>
>> >Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
>> >in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
>> >"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
>> >distinct entities.
>>
>> There is one God almighty in 3 separate but equal persons.
>>
>
>I guess that explain it all!
>
>http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/58087_284571611679033_1584951311_n.jpg
It's evidence that there is more than one person.
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 18, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Some Critics of Christianity have criticized the concept of the
>> >Trinity as "soft_polytheism."
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Christianity
>>
>> >Soft polytheism is a variety of polytheism in which adherents believe
>> >in many Gods and Goddesses but consider them to be manifestations or
>> >"aspects" of a single God (or God and Goddess) rather than completely
>> >distinct entities.
>>
>> There is one God almighty in 3 separate but equal persons.
>>
>
>I guess that explain it all!
>
>http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/58087_284571611679033_1584951311_n.jpg
0 new messages