"The God Virus"

[AquaLung]

I can't say I have ever met an athiest that did not feel the need to belittle those with faith. Usually with jokes, but sometimes with bumper stickers. I have never met one that actually respected another person's point of view and kept their mouth shut. So, I can't say I have ever met one without an agenda. I suppose the obvious opposition would be to point out how zealous many Christians are to share their opinion. I, however, do not talk about it until someone seriously asks me, or posts threads with some serious Christian bashing going on.

From my experience, atheists express their sentiments about God in a fairly wide variety of ways. Of course what they ultimately think we can't really know. But there does seem to be those who don't wear their atheism as an anti-theistic statement. They just for A or B reason, don't believe God, or don't know if God exists (keeping the atheism/agnosticism issue in mind). And the other extreme is the activist anti-theist who will take high school cheerleaders to court for putting Bible verses on signs.
Before I became a Christian, there were a few that I mocked (more in a subtle fashion); but it was more who I was addressing as opposed to what I was addressing. It depended on the individual giving me the message. There were times where a minister would tell me about Christianity (like a weekend in jail), where I respected the fact that someone showed concern (and may have felt bad for the guy for the negative comments he took from the person in the other cell just prior). The message of the Gospel didn't invoke anger to where whoever presented it to me would come under fire. It was only particular individuals who would experience a counter-response from myself. And usually it was merely subtle, just wanting to irritate.

 

[Tamayo]

From my experience, atheists express their sentiments about God in a fairly wide variety of ways. Of course what they ultimately think we can't really know. But there does seem to be those who don't wear their atheism as an anti-theistic statement. They just for A or B reason, don't believe God, or don't know if God exists (keeping the atheism/agnosticism issue in mind). And the other extreme is the activist anti-theist who will take high school cheerleaders to court for putting Bible verses on signs.
Before I became a Christian, there were a few that I mocked (more in a subtle fashion); but it was more who I was addressing as opposed to what I was addressing. It depended on the individual giving me the message. There were times where a minister would tell me about Christianity (like a weekend in jail), where I respected the fact that someone showed concern (and may have felt bad for the guy for the negative comments he took from the person in the other cell just prior). The message of the Gospel didn't invoke anger to where whoever presented it to me would come under fire. It was only particular individuals who would experience a counter-response from myself. And usually it was merely subtle, just wanting to irritate.

What I can say is that even in spite of being a Christian myself, I would advocate for no religion far before I'd ever throw in any support the "God hates fags" protesters. This is why I was saying that religion isn't a bad thing at all. I've actually never heard of a religion that didn't intend to be an overall positive influence.

 

[Mars Man]

What I would really be interested in seeing, is more care and rational thinking regardless. THAT is what is needed in our international society, and it is so greatly missing in even the sub-cultural, sub-social units (in-groups), that it causes me direct stress at times--if and when I think about it.

I do not know if you, Tamayo, or you, AquaLung actually read my earlier posts so as to make efforts to grasp the propositions, and the relative data underlying and substantiating them, but I would have to take it--merely for the purpose of friendly discussion--that you both did, at least, read them. It appears to me, that neither of you have really given the issue of religions, and theist-involved religious belief systems much serious thought at all.

First of all, I see that the word 'religion is being used overly loosely. I see that both you use the explicitly written word form "God." I wish to encourage and urge greater accuracy with the usage of the former word, and wish to ask if both of you happen to be referring to the very same god when you write "God?" The reason for this latter question is because 1) we are using English here, neither Arabic, early Latin, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Chinese, nor Sanskrit; 2) based on and stemming from number 1, only three at-all-possible gods are usually identified by the capitalized form of the common noun god, and in standard, and more accurate English usage, the capitalized form is used as a proper noun (a name) to stand in for the Tetragrammaton of the Tanakh. (The Tetragrammaton is the actually personal name of the Hebrew deity.)

Could I please ask both of you to help me see if we can work at thinking about this more clearly and rationally; please?

 

[Tamayo]

What I would really be interested in seeing, is more care and rational thinking regardless. THAT is what is needed in our international society, and it is so greatly missing in even the sub-cultural, sub-social units (in-groups), that it causes me direct stress at times--if and when I think about it.

I do not know if you, Tamayo, or you, AquaLung actually read my earlier posts so as to make efforts to grasp the propositions, and the relative data underlying and substantiating them, but I would have to take it--merely for the purpose of friendly discussion--that you both did, at least, read them. It appears to me, that neither of you have really given the issue of religions, and theist-involved religious belief systems much serious thought at all.

First of all, I see that the word 'religion is being used overly loosely. I see that both you use the explicitly written word form "God." I wish to encourage and urge greater accuracy with the usage of the former word, and wish to ask if both of you happen to be referring to the very same god when you write "God?" The reason for this latter question is because 1) we are using English here, neither Arabic, early Latin, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Chinese, nor Sanskrit; 2) based on and stemming from number 1, only three at-all-possible gods are usually identified by the capitalized form of the common noun god, and in standard, and more accurate English usage, the capitalized form is used as a proper noun (a name) to stand in for the Tetragrammaton of the Tanakh. (The Tetragrammaton is the actually personal name of the Hebrew deity.)

Could I please ask both of you to help me see if we can work at thinking about this more clearly and rationally; please?

I don't really see the significance in whether we're referring to one religion or another. My point was that many people have come to fear, criticize and hate religion because of the stereotypes that commonly accompany them, as with just about anything that people are unreasonably xenophobic about. I understand that there are plenty of religious beliefs out there that directly contradict the political consensus of each and every country with a developed government, but I'm sure we could all agree that the main religions in question can be narrowed down pretty easily depending on what part of the world we're talking about (when it comes to religion not being a negative thing, that is).

As for "God", I was specifically referring to Christians who protest homosexuality, but I usually refrain from talking strictly about the "God" of Christianity unless it can be justified with context as it was in my post. It's not a problem to refer to the supposed ultimate creator (when applicable) as capital-G "God", regardless of the religious context, is it? I can see how it would be inappropriate in certain cases, but at the end of the day, aren't all of the terms used to describe "ultimate creators" synonymous with some sort of "ultimate, capital-G God" anyway? I don't mean to mock you, but I should probably note that I'm not too terribly worried about being 100 percent accurate in the god to God translation so long as we all understand one-another. Although, I suppose I probably shouldn't assume that everyone knows what I'm referring to when I mention extreme people asserting that "God hates fags", given that this discussion does extend far beyond America's borders. I'll give you that.

 

[Mars Man]

I am a bit surprised (a bit, I mind you) that you did, actually, attempt a response. I had not so expected even that much. I actually am glad about that. Honestly, you have given me reason to appreciate your input in a serious demeanor. I would like to encourage that, and ask you to answer honestly and directly to the following questions.

1) When we look at a consensus derived from a number of good English dictionaries, is it true that we find the word 'religion' to be both a collective, uncountable noun, and, a countable noun? True or false.?

2) Is Christianity equal in its doctrine to Hinduism? True or false?

3) Does the following have any meaning to you : לא-תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך אל קנא פקד

4) Do you conclude that in the year 50 CE, English was in existence?

Everything else you had written in that post above, has it value pinned in your responses to the question I have asked here. I truly appreciate you carefully and honestly answering them. In this way, learning can be accomplished.

 

[AquaLung]

What I can say is that even in spite of being a Christian myself, I would advocate for no religion far before I'd ever throw in any support the "God hates fags" protesters. This is why I was saying that religion isn't a bad thing at all. I've actually never heard of a religion that didn't intend to be an overall positive influence.

I think generally these protesters, and those that support them, do so from personal prejudice. More than likely the vast majority of them, if not all, would hold to this sentiment whether they were Christian or not. And of course we all know that "Christian" as an identity doesn't necessarily mean a follower of Christ.

 

[AquaLung]

What I would really be interested in seeing, is more care and rational thinking regardless. THAT is what is needed in our international society, and it is so greatly missing in even the sub-cultural, sub-social units (in-groups), that it causes me direct stress at times--if and when I think about it.

I do not know if you, Tamayo, or you, AquaLung actually read my earlier posts so as to make efforts to grasp the propositions, and the relative data underlying and substantiating them, but I would have to take it--merely for the purpose of friendly discussion--that you both did, at least, read them. It appears to me, that neither of you have really given the issue of religions, and theist-involved religious belief systems much serious thought at all.

First of all, I see that the word 'religion is being used overly loosely. I see that both you use the explicitly written word form "God." I wish to encourage and urge greater accuracy with the usage of the former word, and wish to ask if both of you happen to be referring to the very same god when you write "God?" The reason for this latter question is because 1) we are using English here, neither Arabic, early Latin, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Chinese, nor Sanskrit; 2) based on and stemming from number 1, only three at-all-possible gods are usually identified by the capitalized form of the common noun god, and in standard, and more accurate English usage, the capitalized form is used as a proper noun (a name) to stand in for the Tetragrammaton of the Tanakh. (The Tetragrammaton is the actually personal name of the Hebrew deity.)

Could I please ask both of you to help me see if we can work at thinking about this more clearly and rationally; please?

To answer a question you posed, yes, I did read your post. And I think for the most part, I agree in principle with what you say.

As far as not giving the issue of religions, and theistic religions much thought, my suggestion would be to read all of Tamayo's, and perhaps all of my posts in this thread. I think for myself, I hit on the same ideas/issues you have. My main theme in this thread has been the problem of not being specific when addressing religion....and....God.

As I stated before, I admit to not having read the book presented in the OP. But I brought up what I believe is the existence of many inconsistencies within presentations like said book. The lack of specifics is what I believe to be one of the problems. It's just a plain fact that anti-religion propaganda in the west equals Christianity. But the sentiment varies to the point where it's not as black and white as to utilize the term "Christianity" without specifications. The anti-religion theme (allowing for the question of whether or not the book is anti-religion) may address all religions including eastern religion, or narrow down to Abrahamic religion, Judeo-Christianity, Western Christianity (including Catholicism), protestantism, or fundamentalism.

This being said, the term that's being thrown around anti-theism doesn't necessarily mean anti-religion. Anti-theism is sort of a term that seems to direct one away from the idea that given individual holds the same sentiment towards various eastern religions as they do western (or middle eastern) theistic religions, sects, denominations like that of Christianity and it's various denominations.



So I think the focus needs to be on the book represented in the OP, to the best we can considering most of us have probably not read it.

 

[AquaLung]

Potential problems in connection with (for lack of a better term) anti-religion:

Of course first off, an obvious question is, is there really a danger? When considering books like that presented in the OP, we certainly don't want this type of expression to be forbidden. We obviously don't want a resurgence of the European theocracies that stifled freedom of speech/expression, forcing individuals to, in some cases probably pretend to believe in their national religion. On the other hand, when religion becomes targeted as a, or the, source of the world's problems, historically and modern; I think we're stepping on shaky ground.

I think there's this idea thrown around that man will eventually educate ourselves away from religion. A potential problem of course would be, what happens when potential patience runs out? This idea may pacify some today; sort of giving a visionary hope of the future we may not see in our lifetime; but it doesn't mean that patience of this sort will exist tomorrow. When we take a look at the various communist regimes noted for their intolerance of religion and abuse, none of them originally promoted their cause as being one of brutality. None of them sold abuse and brutality. And neither did Nazism for that matter. Their promo was that of a better existence for all.

Some things to consider in light of a potential anti-religion based government, whether national, regional, or global gone wrong. The modern anti-religionist probably has friends and relatives who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Would they be willing to see friends and family suffer due to an anti-religion authoritarian system?
Or the person who labels themselves anti-theist, who only opposes theistic religions like Christianity. Typically many of these individuals have no problem with religions like Buddhism. And many of them seem to maintain that Buddhism is not a religion. Well there's no guaranty that an ant-religion society will share the same sentiment. For instance, it seems a number of western expats resent Christian missionaries in Asian nations, and assume that a society that eliminates religion in Asia would only eliminate religions like Christianity. Just because these individuals maintain that Buddhism is not a religion doesn't mean that an authoritarian type of government of this nature will feel the same. How would the many western expats in Japan like to see Buddhist temples, Shinto shrines, etc. torn down? Japanese citizens thrown in jail for clinging to Buddhist tradition/beliefs?

 

[Mars Man]

As far as not giving the issue of religions, and theistic religions much thought, my suggestion would be to read all of Tamayo's, and perhaps all of my posts in this thread.

I appreciate your getting back, AquaLung. Yes, I did read all the posts in this thread; and thus my understanding presented.

I think for myself, I hit on the same ideas/issues you have. My main theme in this thread has been the problem of not being specific when addressing religion....and....God.

Well, I will of course take your word for your intentions here, yes. You did, nevertheless, wade off into messy, muddy, unclear waters, which to me, at least, signifies lack of concerned care, or information, or both. But please, do get me wrong here, I intention is to help out, and to see if I can clear some things up for you better. I would hope you'd be open to that.

As I stated before, I admit to not having read the book presented in the OP. But I brought up what I believe is the existence of many inconsistencies within presentations like said book.

As far as not having read the book, I neither, have read it--although I have seen papers on the general hypothesis. I also find much carelessness by some who write, but, when looking over scholarly material and literature, I find a very high ratio of accurate and correct term usage, language usage, and so on.

The lack of specifics is what I believe to be one of the problems.

Exactly ! That is the point. There is a great lack of specifics and details which amount to sound and valid knowledge which far too many either do not have access to, could care less, or are just not cognitively capable of such.

It's just a plain fact that anti-religion propaganda in the west equals Christianity.

CASE IN POINT: Here you are overly loosely using the word 'religion' again. The prefix 'anti' simply means in opposition towards, and can be used in many combined words, right? But 'religion' is a very different term, and care must be taken. To say 'anti-Christianity' is one thing, and to say 'anti-religion' is a quite different thing. If you had said 'anti-religions,' then, OK, but you didn't take the extra care. I wish to encourage care, and so I am saying what I am saying.

But the sentiment varies to the point where it's not as black and white as to utilize the term "Christianity" without specifications. The anti-religion theme (allowing for the question of whether or not the book is anti-religion) may address all religions including eastern religion, or narrow down to Abrahamic religion, Judeo-Christianity, Western Christianity (including Catholicism), protestantism, or fundamentalism.

As far as I know, it focuses on the notion of gods, goddesses, and demi-gods (and/or goddesses) over all. That means it does not focus on Christianity.

This being said, the term that's being thrown around anti-theism doesn't necessarily mean anti-religion. Anti-theism is sort of a term that seems to direct one away from the idea that given individual holds the same sentiment towards various eastern religions as they do western (or middle eastern) theistic religions, sects, denominations like that of Christianity and it's various denominations.

I may be reading your wrongly here, and if I am, I apologize. To be 'anti-theistic' is to be in opposition (by way of active participation in, or support of, such a proposition) to the claim of the realities of gods and/or goddesses. The Greek base doesn't really carry over, actually, because it had been ignored in later early Christianity--which is the environment that English grew up in.

So I think the focus needs to be on the book represented in the OP, to the best we can considering most of us have probably not read it.

While the motion that you make here may be the optimal one, I would think that no discussion at all would persue execpt that those who will have read the book. However, in that the book obviously deals with the matter of gods and goddesses, and how they worked within human social groups so as to eventually lead to the god model which in English is written as 'God' (which is being used as a proper noun, a name, standing in for [originally] Yahweh), gives us plenty of room to discuss and present all the things relative to that... I would think, at least.

 

[Mars Man]

On the other hand, when religion becomes targeted as a, or the, source of the world's problems, historically and modern; I think we're stepping on shaky ground.

But here you go with this lack of care or concern from the get go again. Which theist-involved religious belief system do you wish to point to, or talk about--or do you wish to talk about all of them?

I think there's this idea thrown around that man will eventually educate ourselves away from religion.

I know that you are wrong on this point. Unless, and only unless, by 'religion,' you mean that portion of emotionally structured and organized propositional platform upon which much of human activity demands by nature. I don't think you have clearly thought this out well enough; although I could be wrong. The only way, however, for me to know if you have, is for you to demonstrate that in what you present. I wish to encourage you with that.

When we take a look at the various communist regimes noted for their intolerance of religion and abuse, none of them originally promoted their cause as being one of brutality. None of them sold abuse and brutality. And neither did Nazism for that matter. Their promo was that of a better existence for all.

This is non sequitur.

Some things to consider in light of a potential anti-religion based government, whether national, regional, or global gone wrong. The modern anti-religionist probably has friends and relatives who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Would they be willing to see friends and family suffer due to an anti-religion authoritarian system?

Now I know you are somewhat mixing up ideas which are false, with some which are actually matters of different domains altogether. In other words, you have a quite illogical presentation here, AquaLung I am very interested in helping you see just how that is so, if, and only if, you are really concerned about this.

It is because you making some false claims, and I do not intend--to the best that I can do anything about it in real-time here, off line--to simply sit by and allow such error to asserted to be correct. We have every need, in the effort and heartfelt desire of improving our human society at the international level, to work towards, encourage, and protect, accuracy and correctness of understanding, and to maintain a highest degree of human ability to stick to the sound and valid knowledge that we now do have.

Or the person who labels themselves anti-theist, who only opposes theistic religions like Christianity. Typically many of these individuals have no problem with religions like Buddhism. And many of them seem to maintain that Buddhism is not a religion. Well there's no guaranty that an ant-religion society will share the same sentiment. For instance, it seems a number of western expats resent Christian missionaries in Asian nations, and assume that a society that eliminates religion in Asia would only eliminate religions like Christianity. Just because these individuals maintain that Buddhism is not a religion doesn't mean that an authoritarian type of government of this nature will feel the same. How would the many western expats in Japan like to see Buddhist temples, Shinto shrines, etc. torn down? Japanese citizens thrown in jail for clinging to Buddhist tradition/beliefs?

To my reading, this is leaning towards extremeism itself. It is a fact that Siddhartha Gautama's most evidently-so fundamental teaching was much more of a philosophy than not. It is also a fact that he brought some degree of Vedantic Hindusim thought in with that. It is quite a good while later, that that turned into more of a theist-involved religious belief system--as pretty everywhere presently seen in Japan, for example.

It is also a fact that a god is a god. It does not matter which god, or goddess, for that matter, we happen to be talking about or looking at, but whichever one it is, at a given time that we may studying or looking at or talking about, is exactly a god, or a goddess. Let me give a few names of some of the possible gods and/or goddesses that we can do so with:

(Ill try not to list twice) Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatilpoca, Tialoc, Chalchihuitlicue, Xiehtecutli, Centeotl, Omaacatl, Yacatecutli, Mixcoatl, Xipe, Dis, Tarves, Moccos, Epona, Mullo, Damona, Esus, Drunemeton, Silvana, Dervones, Adsallta, Deva, Belisama, Axona, Vintio, Taranuous, Sulis, Cocidius, Adsmerius, Dumiatis, Caletos, Ollovidius, Albiorix, Leucitius, Vitucadrus, Ogmios, Uxellimus, Borvo, Grannos, Mogons, Sutekh, Resheph, Baal, Anath, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Hadad, El, Addu, Nergal, Shalem, Nebo, Dagon, Ninib, Sharrab, Melek, Yau (which may possibly be the link to YHWH's creation), Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Horus, Khnum, Montu, Amun, Amun-Ra, Anubis, Molech, Ashimath, Asherah, Bel, Gad, Yahweh, Rephan, Meni, etc.... (well, I guess I had better stop here, rather than go on with the some 20 or more remaining on this partial list I have.)​

I hope you get the picture. Now, here's a question to think about. If a person declares that it cannot be the case that, say, Dagon is an actually existing (out there in the universe, rather than just as a figment of the imaginative neural 'computation' in any number of human brains) god, does that make that person an anti-theist?

 

[AquaLung]

Hello Mars Man!

I read both your posts, and decided to try to address them as a whole in one post. If you feel I overlooked anything vital, by all means point it/them out.

The point I'm attempting to make is that your desire to interpret religion more accurately is not really the issue at hand concerning this thread. To interpret religion, or attempt to provide better detail would require that I know how others interpret religion...including the author of said book. I couldn't really tell you how the author interprets religion. And I probably couldn't even if I read the book. The terms I use are more for the benefit of others. I can easily argue that true Christianity for instance is not religion, but many cannot relate to that concept. Or they get offended. So rather than feuding over the issue, I may find it more profitable to go along with the label of 'religion', if for no other reason that it's classified as one of the 7 or so major religions of the world.

The word/term religion can have a negative connotation, but it can also have a positive one. It doesn't have to be a negative. If we say true religion is....(helping those in need, etc.)...it's sort of a way of legitimizing the word/term.

When I use terms like anti-religion, anti-theist, etc., these are self-professed terms by certain individuals. I've certainly heard the term anti-theist used as a personal identity. I'm not sure about a direct self labeling of anti-religion, but there are enough of those that make such suggestions of sentiment that the term would probably not be protested. But we're talking about different individuals with different views of what religion is. I don't really know for instance, how communist nations define religion. All I know is that it was/is banned in some parts of the world. I would feel safe to say that North Korea is an anti-religion State. However, the various line of dictators have been deified to the point where their deification has become, to some outsiders, an official religion.

I don't know how Mao Tse Tung defined religion. I know he didn't want the presence of Christianity and Buddhism. However, suppose the peoples of China decided to proclaim Tung a god? They boldly had proclaimed that at the risk of arrest, they would publicly worship Tung, build temples to worship him, build statues to worship him, etc.? Either he would have said something like "Let's not deprive the people of their desire"....or...."Nope, sorry...this idea falls into a classification of religion. Therefore anyone caught worshiping me will be arrested, publicly humiliated, and imprisoned"....

When referring to the western world, the sentiment is going to vary in regards to religion. But the idea that I presented that there's an idea that man will educate themselves away from religion is something I've seen proclaimed. I'm not implying that this is a universal thought among atheists and agnostics. However, some may substitute the word religion with the word superstition. They may do this because they are not against religion so much as maybe a certain religion(s). If someone says "education removes superstition", and then at another moment in time state that Christianity/the Bible is superstition, then theoretically with that individual, religion may not be a perceived problem. To them superstition is the enemy, and whatever religion they consider superstition.

It is also a fact that a god is a god. It does not matter which god, or goddess, for that matter, we happen to be talking about or looking at, but whichever one it is, at a given time that we may studying or looking at or talking about, is exactly a god, or a goddess. Let me give a few names of some of the possible gods and/or goddesses that we can do so with:

(Ill try not to list twice) Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatilpoca, Tialoc, Chalchihuitlicue, Xiehtecutli, Centeotl, Omaacatl, Yacatecutli, Mixcoatl, Xipe, Dis, Tarves, Moccos, Epona, Mullo, Damona, Esus, Drunemeton, Silvana, Dervones, Adsallta, Deva, Belisama, Axona, Vintio, Taranuous, Sulis, Cocidius, Adsmerius, Dumiatis, Caletos, Ollovidius, Albiorix, Leucitius, Vitucadrus, Ogmios, Uxellimus, Borvo, Grannos, Mogons, Sutekh, Resheph, Baal, Anath, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Hadad, El, Addu, Nergal, Shalem, Nebo, Dagon, Ninib, Sharrab, Melek, Yau (which may possibly be the link to YHWH's creation), Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Horus, Khnum, Montu, Amun, Amun-Ra, Anubis, Molech, Ashimath, Asherah, Bel, Gad, Yahweh, Rephan, Meni, etc.... (well, I guess I had better stop here, rather than go on with the some 20 or more remaining on this partial list I have.)​

I hope you get the picture. Now, here's a question to think about. If a person declares that it cannot be the case that, say, Dagon is an actually existing (out there in the universe, rather than just as a figment of the imaginative neural 'computation' in any number of human brains) god, does that make that person an anti-theist?

I did of course decide to quote this. Again, anti-theist is merely a popular term some have embraced. It's not something I wish, or can, define. If I don't believe that Dagon is an existing entity, and someone wishes to suggest that I'm an anti-theist (which they probably would if they truly believed Dagon existed), I wouldn't necessarily object. However, a famous missionary, who also studied the findings from other missionaries, has concluded that a number of gods in remote parts of the world referred to a (for lack of a better term) deity that they related to Jesus Christ, except of course having a different name (but sometimes remarkably similar). Some of the gods on your list may be included. There have been (for lack of a better term) stories of redemption that coincide remarkably with the Gospel message.

And of course this brings up the question of whether or not there's a universal concept of an ultimate creator? And if so, can one communicate with this one ultimate creator/God? If one were to seek the Creator, and the Creator responds, what would/will be the Creator's message to that individual?

 

[Mars Man]

Hello again, AquaLung. I very much appreciate your getting back quite timely, and with considerable effort to expand on, and amplify, your line of argumentation. I do find, however, that there is a very high degee of error involved, and wish to help correct for that. Of course, we both will know that folks will tend to balk against correction--it's just a natural given--but taking that we are both educated and learned adults, both with good intentions, I wish to motion that we both that this most seriously, and, as the old philosophical maxim goes, 'follow the argument, not the man.' My intention, as well as and equal to, my heartfelt hope, is to further the accuracy and correctness which a proper and well-balanced (and as fully informed as possible) learning process will consist of. I do honestly hope to encourage your following the logic and facts closely here; please.

The point I'm attempting to make is that your desire to interpret religion more accurately is not really the issue at hand concerning this thread. To interpret religion, or attempt to provide better detail would require that I know how others interpret religion...including the author of said book.

Here we have a need to investigate some basics. This is true in that we find an illogical proposition involving linguistical concepts which are quite standard, very fixed, and which evident no great pragmatic need for alterations--in fact, there is greater need for emphasis on the clarity which adherence to the more accurate and better attested to standard amounts to! First, then, the facts.

1. We are communicating in English, therefore we follow English standards as accurately and correctly as allowed and/or demanded.

2. English words have definitions which are most usually quite set. Definitions provided by the better of English dictionaries (lexicons) provide samples in the form of short descriptive passages, for each entry. Additionally, each entry's definition will provide for the range of common and/or standard definition sense ranges, and syntax-decided usage per contextual setting. This is done with both the objective to be prescriptive and descriptive.

3. The English common noun 'religion,' has a set, common and standard definition sense range, which includes all standard, common usage and sense meanings. By verifying usage, it is found that this represents a very sharp bell curve--that is to say, one, or two, sense ranges make up a very high percentage of overall usage. An overview of several good English dictionaries provides the following:

Oxford English Dictionary (p 410): Religion 1. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church
2. A particular monastic or religious order or rule; a religious house. Now rare
3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, revernce for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this
4. A particular system of faith and worship

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. (p 1210): religion n. 1a) belief in a divine ord superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe b) expression of such belief in conduct and ritual
2a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy [the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc. ] b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethetical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to, such a system [humanism as a religion]
3 the state or way of life of a person in a monastery, convent, etc.
4 any object of conscientious regard and pursuit

Collins Concise Dictionary (p1249): religion n 1 belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2 any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3 the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4 the state of monks and nuns (RC Church)
5 something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (p 1918): religion n -s 1: the personal commitement to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers, and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers
2: the state of religious <retire into ~> <the nun died in her thirteenth year of ~>
3a: one of the systems of faith and worship : a religious faith <monotheistic ~s> <tolerant of ~s>
b the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances, and social practices found within a given cultural context the ~ of this primitive people>

Longman Advanced English Dictionary (p 1215): religion 1 a belief in the life of the spirit and usually in one or more gods : my beliefs about abortion are not influenced by religion
2[c] a particular system of this belief and all the ceremonies and duties that are related to it : the Muslim religion / people of all religions
​

4. To define a word is not to interpret a word. To interpret a word, in any stricter sense, is to translate a word into a different language. We do not interpret what the word religion means, we define the word, and thus understand its meaning in the context in which the word appears. ​

Based on a careful, logical analysis of these facts, AquaLung, we find the secure conclusion that the defintion of the word religion can be confusing unless used in proper contextual alignment. We find that many are not careful to first point out their term definitions, nor to maintain a more properly restricted contextually applicable usage. This makes problems in communication. To alleviate the possibilites of confusion and misunderstanding, we are required to do something a little more. The better choice is to use the wording 'theist-involved religious belief system' when we are talking about, for example, either Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism, and so on.

What is also signified and determined by careful consideration, is the fact that each and every theist-involved religious belief system (religion) will define itself by its own information source (documentation, oral tradition, and body of doctrine over all). Each system thus distinguishes itself from others, by that very means. In this way, we can clearly distinguish, identify, and classify almost each and every theist-involved religious belief system mankind has ever come up with. This is a fact, and due to its being fact, correction is needed in your above post. I'd like to encourage that. (I mean, afterall, we want to at least be as accurate and correct as we can, right?)

I did of course decide to quote this. Again, anti-theist is merely a popular term some have embraced. It's not something I wish, or can, define.

While the first sentence is of course correct, the second expression of the second sentence is simply altogether false. The English word 'theist' does in fact have a standard, common defintion which all can know. Again, many are hopeless careless, and almost never crack any number of ood dictionaries and do their homework, but we do not want to be in that camp, right?! Whether one wishes to open the dictionaries and acknowledge the facts of definition sense ranges, or not, is a different story, but who, really, or rather, what kind of person would openly want to admit to such laziness? I hold you, AquaLung to not be such a person, and thus wish to cheer you on with good research habits.

If I don't believe that Dagon is an existing entity, and someone wishes to suggest that I'm an anti-theist (which they probably would if they truly believed Dagon existed), I wouldn't necessarily object.

There is a problem here with logical coherence. It is most clear, that a person who would be labeled 'anti-theist' (again, because there is a definition of this term), would be a person who holds a position against all gods. That a worshiper of Yahweh had denounce Dagon as having been nothing more than the imaginative creation of some silly humans, and thus were not an actual, existing god, that person might be said to have been an 'anti-Dagonist,' but by no means an 'anti-theist,' because Yahweh is as every much a god as Dagon is. This is not only fact, it is correct usage and application of terms.

However, a famous missionary, who also studied the findings from other missionaries, has concluded that a number of gods in remote parts of the world referred to a (for lack of a better term) deity that they related to Jesus Christ, except of course having a different name (but sometimes remarkably similar). Some of the gods on your list may be included. There have been (for lack of a better term) stories of redemption that coincide remarkably with the Gospel message.

The conclusion which that writer may have reached (and I have no idea who he, or she had been) is so incorrect and false, that what you seem to want to conclude is worthless. Now, I cannot provide the full argumentation for that here, in this post, or, even, in this thread, but I can provide it if you were interested in seeing that. Do you happen to have on hand, or recall, the writer's name? Additionally, I wish to point out here that it is a false assertion (and statement) to say that the character Jesus, as per the gospel narratives, was portrayed as being a god.

And of course this brings up the question of whether or not there's a universal concept of an ultimate creator? And if so, can one communicate with this one ultimate creator/God? If one were to seek the Creator, and the Creator responds, what would/will be the Creator's message to that individual?

Nope, there isn't. That is a fact too. That the concept of a god is universal, is a given, of course. That the notion of a goddess is universal to a large degree, too, is a given. Not all gods, and not all goddess, were considered creators of everything (including other gods and goddesses), but a number were. Each creator god, or goddess, differs enough from each other creator god, or goddess, that we can conclude with a very high degree of accuracy that none of them are the same and one described beings.

I wish here, then, to do one prime thing first. I wish to very much encourage you to take the time to ascertain, then maintain, accurate and correct usage of English defintions, and the words which such give meaning to, and to clarify carefully, by such, what is specifically being talked about within the proper contextual setting. I do not mean to belittle. I do not mean to condemn. I do mean to help out. I do mean to encourage you to self-correct.

 

[AquaLung]

Hello again, AquaLung. I very much appreciate your getting back quite timely, and with considerable effort to expand on, and amplify, your line of argumentation. I do find, however, that there is a very high degee of error involved, and wish to help correct for that. Of course, we both will know that folks will tend to balk against correction--it's just a natural given--but taking that we are both educated and learned adults, both with good intentions, I wish to motion that we both that this most seriously, and, as the old philosophical maxim goes, 'follow the argument, not the man.' My intention, as well as and equal to, my heartfelt hope, is to further the accuracy and correctness which a proper and well-balanced (and as fully informed as possible) learning process will consist of. I do honestly hope to encourage your following the logic and facts closely here; please.


Here we have a need to investigate some basics. This is true in that we find an illogical proposition involving linguistical concepts which are quite standard, very fixed, and which evident no great pragmatic need for alterations--in fact, there is greater need for emphasis on the clarity which adherence to the more accurate and better attested to standard amounts to! First, then, the facts.

1. We are communicating in English, therefore we follow English standards as accurately and correctly as allowed and/or demanded.

2. English words have definitions which are most usually quite set. Definitions provided by the better of English dictionaries (lexicons) provide samples in the form of short descriptive passages, for each entry. Additionally, each entry's definition will provide for the range of common and/or standard definition sense ranges, and syntax-decided usage per contextual setting. This is done with both the objective to be prescriptive and descriptive.

3. The English common noun 'religion,' has a set, common and standard definition sense range, which includes all standard, common usage and sense meanings. By verifying usage, it is found that this represents a very sharp bell curve--that is to say, one, or two, sense ranges make up a very high percentage of overall usage. An overview of several good English dictionaries provides the following:

Oxford English Dictionary (p 410): Religion 1. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church
2. A particular monastic or religious order or rule; a religious house. Now rare
3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, revernce for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this
4. A particular system of faith and worship

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. (p 1210): religion n. 1a) belief in a divine ord superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe b) expression of such belief in conduct and ritual
2a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy [the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc. ] b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethetical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to, such a system [humanism as a religion]
3 the state or way of life of a person in a monastery, convent, etc.
4 any object of conscientious regard and pursuit

Collins Concise Dictionary (p1249): religion n 1 belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2 any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3 the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4 the state of monks and nuns (RC Church)
5 something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (p 1918): religion n -s 1: the personal commitement to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers, and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers
2: the state of religious <retire into ~> <the nun died in her thirteenth year of ~>
3a: one of the systems of faith and worship : a religious faith <monotheistic ~s> <tolerant of ~s>
b the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances, and social practices found within a given cultural context the ~ of this primitive people>

Longman Advanced English Dictionary (p 1215): religion 1 a belief in the life of the spirit and usually in one or more gods : my beliefs about abortion are not influenced by religion
2[c] a particular system of this belief and all the ceremonies and duties that are related to it : the Muslim religion / people of all religions
​

4. To define a word is not to interpret a word. To interpret a word, in any stricter sense, is to translate a word into a different language. We do not interpret what the word religion means, we define the word, and thus understand its meaning in the context in which the word appears. ​

Based on a careful, logical analysis of these facts, AquaLung, we find the secure conclusion that the defintion of the word religion can be confusing unless used in proper contextual alignment. We find that many are not careful to first point out their term definitions, nor to maintain a more properly restricted contextually applicable usage. This makes problems in communication. To alleviate the possibilites of confusion and misunderstanding, we are required to do something a little more. The better choice is to use the wording 'theist-involved religious belief system' when we are talking about, for example, either Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism, and so on.

What is also signified and determined by careful consideration, is the fact that each and every theist-involved religious belief system (religion) will define itself by its own information source (documentation, oral tradition, and body of doctrine over all). Each system thus distinguishes itself from others, by that very means. In this way, we can clearly distinguish, identify, and classify almost each and every theist-involved religious belief system mankind has ever come up with. This is a fact, and due to its being fact, correction is needed in your above post. I'd like to encourage that. (I mean, afterall, we want to at least be as accurate and correct as we can, right?)

While the first sentence is of course correct, the second expression of the second sentence is simply altogether false. The English word 'theist' does in fact have a standard, common defintion which all can know. Again, many are hopeless careless, and almost never crack any number of ood dictionaries and do their homework, but we do not want to be in that camp, right?! Whether one wishes to open the dictionaries and acknowledge the facts of definition sense ranges, or not, is a different story, but who, really, or rather, what kind of person would openly want to admit to such laziness? I hold you, AquaLung to not be such a person, and thus wish to cheer you on with good research habits.

There is a problem here with logical coherence. It is most clear, that a person who would be labeled 'anti-theist' (again, because there is a definition of this term), would be a person who holds a position against all gods. That a worshiper of Yahweh had denounce Dagon as having been nothing more than the imaginative creation of some silly humans, and thus were not an actual, existing god, that person might be said to have been an 'anti-Dagonist,' but by no means an 'anti-theist,' because Yahweh is as every much a god as Dagon is. This is not only fact, it is correct usage and application of terms.

Hello Mars Man!

I am not at all against correction, and by all means continue to do so. I am most certainly not beyond correction. I agree with a number of things you state, but I also disagree. I don't argue the fact that these various words have set definitions, but I don't think it's always necessary to abide by strict rules without allowing for common language, common usage of words, hyperbole, or even a bit of slang/street lingo. As an example, if I were to confront someone making the same basic assertions as the author of the book in the OP concerning set definitions, it may help to some degree. It may put the person in a corner, sort of forcing them to be more linguistically conscientious. But it may merely cause us to go around in circles, veering away from the real issue at hand. It may place them in the awkward position of having to compromise their position to fit their sentiment's outlook on what they are actually targeting as a/the problem. They may, by pressure, rephrase their reference to religion with 'theist-involved religious belief system'. But in reality they are probably only thinking of one specific religion. They are only forced to sort of include certain non-Christian religions for instance that are theist-based. In my opinion, the common usage in the west for the word religion is merely a way of avoiding the appearance of prejudice. The simpler thing, if one is confident enough to feel they already know what given individuals mean/are referring to, is to address them from that stand-point. And if the confronting person happens to be wrong, the confronted can make necessary corrections. You see, in the west, and even in the more western dominant aspect of the global internet, when someone refers to religion, you can almost eliminate anything other than Christianity, unless they are also specifically addressing other religions to begin with. And even then, including other religions may merely be a sort of smoke screen.

Here's an example of a clue to my notion. Discussions on religion in the U.S. (including arguments/debates) will often end up bringing the issue of Separation Of Church And State into the discussion. Now when this specific issue is brought up, there's no alternative but to refer to Christianity only. The clue to this is that there are no references made anywhere that I know of (in the U.S.) that read Separation Of Synagogue And State, Separation Of Temple And State, Separation Of Mosque And State, etc. The term religion in the early years of American history seemed to refer more to denominations than world religions. Today, we tend to clump denominations into the term Christianity.

I also appreciate your differentiation of the words definition and translation. However I have to disagree (to some degree) when we allow for (for lack-of-a-better-term) street lingo. As an example, if someone makes a statement in the English language that one feels has underlying meanings/implications; another person may state (often sarcastically) what that statement translates into when getting to the more blunt meaning. And that can be for a statement involving a sentence, or just one specific word. Or, another rule many break is to use the term/acronym "AKA". That term originally is nothing more than an acronym to refer to another name/nickname someone may be identified as; "John Smith (aka Meat Head)". But many, it appears (myself included) have used the acronym to suggest a hidden meaning in a statement. A translation of a quote from what was stated in the English language, to what the suggesting party thinks is really being said; "I want to study at Northern University instead of Southern University" (AKA...I want to associate with rich White people).

So at times I may say something in reference to what another says by saying something like "Religion=Christianity", or "Religion translates into/when translated means Christianity". I'm breaking common rules that are often (I think) understood. But when not understood, I can always explain my meaning.

The conclusion which that writer may have reached (and I have no idea who he, or she had been) is so incorrect and false, that what you seem to want to conclude is worthless. Now, I cannot provide the full argumentation for that here, in this post, or, even, in this thread, but I can provide it if you were interested in seeing that. Do you happen to have on hand, or recall, the writer's name? Additionally, I wish to point out here that it is a false assertion (and statement) to say that the character Jesus, as per the gospel narratives, was portrayed as being a god.

Nope, there isn't. That is a fact too. That the concept of a god is universal, is a given, of course. That the notion of a goddess is universal to a large degree, too, is a given. Not all gods, and not all goddess, were considered creators of everything (including other gods and goddesses), but a number were. Each creator god, or goddess, differs enough from each other creator god, or goddess, that we can conclude with a very high degree of accuracy that none of them are the same and one described beings.

I wish here, then, to do one prime thing first. I wish to very much encourage you to take the time to ascertain, then maintain, accurate and correct usage of English defintions, and the words which such give meaning to, and to clarify carefully, by such, what is specifically being talked about within the proper contextual setting. I do not mean to belittle. I do not mean to condemn. I do mean to help out. I do mean to encourage you to self-correct.

Yes, the author's name is Don Richardson. He is also a missionary. Or at least a former missionary, famous for his work with the Sawi peoples of Irian Jaya. His studies refer to redemptive analogies that various missionaries have found within various tribal and ancient peoples that have lead to conversions to Christianity. These redemptive analogies, and conversions are very real. Even if one is unwilling to accept that far removed peoples from Middle-Eastern, and Biblical history have expressed having a concept of Jesus Christ, there's no denying the conversions in association with redemptive analogies.

 

[Mars Man]

Hello Mars Man!

Hello !

I am not at all against correction, and by all means continue to do so. I am most certainly not beyond correction. I agree with a number of things you state, but I also disagree. I don't argue the fact that these various words have set definitions, but I don't think it's always necessary to abide by strict rules without allowing for common language, common usage of words, hyperbole, or even a bit of slang/street lingo.

It looks as though you have contradicted yourself here--to go into a little embedding for the purpose of getting things straightened out. As far as the matter of standard, common definitions go, if all adhered to them by clear contextual usage, there would be no problem at all. This is a fact of life, right? You have said that you both agree and disagree. That can only mean that there is some element which you do agree with, and some other element that you do not agree with. Or, it might mean that you agree with an element on one level of analysis, or application within a certain circumstance, but not on another level of analysis using the very same element, or another and different circumstance.

However that may be, it is a fact that we have standard, common usage of words, and you seem to have agreed that is so--and of course, it is--but yet seem to wish to deny that one has to adhere to the standard common usage simply because it is standard, common usage. Am I reading you wrongly here somewhere?

As an example, if I were to confront someone making the same basic assertions as the author of the book in the OP concerning set definitions, it may help to some degree. It may put the person in a corner, sort of forcing them to be more linguistically conscientious.

Yes, that is the whole point. Let's all get on the same page from the get go. That will save a whole bunch of sloppiness and waste of time talking past others, believe me.

They may, by pressure, rephrase their reference to religion with 'theist-involved religious belief system'.

There is an error here already, however. An uncountable collective noun does not fill in for an articulated countable noun in the singular form, or the plural form. It is a fact by definition that a religion is a theist-involved religious belief system when, and only when, that belief system involves a god, or a goddess, or any number of them, with ritual and doctrine. I don't care who it is; when a person is communicating in English, they will have either of the two major definition senses in mind, and they can specify that with accurate wording, and should!

But in reality they are probably only thinking of one specific religion.

Yes, that is the whole point, essentially. If a person is talking about Christianity, they would best use that word. If there were talking about Islam, then they should say, or write, that. If there were talking about all of the whole shebang, then they should pluralize the word 'religion' to get religions. Not doing this is what causes the confusion, and still causes it. It leads to a whole bunch of mess which just shouldn't be there in the first place.

In my opinion, the common usage in the west for the word religion is merely a way of avoiding the appearance of prejudice. The simpler thing, if one is confident enough to feel they already know what given individuals mean/are referring to, is to address them from that stand-point. And if the confronting person happens to be wrong, the confronted can make necessary corrections. You see, in the west, and even in the more western dominant aspect of the global internet, when someone refers to religion, you can almost eliminate anything other than Christianity, unless they are also specifically addressing other religions to begin with. And even then, including other religions may merely be a sort of smoke screen.

I understand what you are saying here, of course, that is no problem. That that is what is often happening, is the very reason for my pushing this. That is because, again, it is creating unnecessary confusion and messiness. That PC police have overrun much of (at least) the USA, is a source for that, I argue. Western (as opposed to Oriental) means nothing, here; accuracy, set and standard common word definition sense maintenance is what is at hand. The purpose is to reduce confusion, waste, and miscommunication as much as possible in this particular field.

Here's an example of a clue to my notion. Discussions on religion in the U.S. (including arguments/debates) will often end up bringing the issue of Separation Of Church And State into the discussion. Now when this specific issue is brought up, there's no alternative but to refer to Christianity only. The clue to this is that there are no references made anywhere that I know of (in the U.S.) that read Separation Of Synagogue And State, Separation Of Temple And State, Separation Of Mosque And State, etc. The term religion in the early years of American history seemed to refer more to denominations than world religions. Today, we tend to clump denominations into the term Christianity.

Yes, quite. That is a good example. It points out the chronological development of things locked in history. When the Puritans were in the Plymouth area, we can be sure there were no Jewish among them, much less Muslem or Hindus. Christain bias is seen from the very get go in the USA.

I also appreciate your differentiation of the words definition and translation. However I have to disagree (to some degree) when we allow for (for lack-of-a-better-term) street lingo.

Are you arguing that there is benefit to be gained in dumbing down education? I don't know about you, but I say let's help all of us come to better understandings, better education, and better efficiency in communication--as much as can possibly done, and on a person-by-person basis !

As an example, if someone makes a statement in the English language that one feels has underlying meanings/implications; another person may state (often sarcastically) what that statement translates into when getting to the more blunt meaning.

Yes, that is as I had presented. Statments can be interpreted, and one could think of that as a kind of translating, in a way, but most technically, it is not--unless the lingo is non-English that it is as good as a different language.

But many, it appears (myself included) have used the acronym to suggest a hidden meaning in a statement. A translation of a quote from what was stated in the English language, to what the suggesting party thinks is really being said; "I want to study at Northern University instead of Southern University" (AKA...I want to associate with rich White people).

I understand. This, however, is a different class. It is not what I have been talking about.

So at times I may say something in reference to what another says by saying something like "Religion=Christianity", or "Religion translates into/when translated means Christianity". I'm breaking common rules that are often (I think) understood. But when not understood, I can always explain my meaning.

I don't fully follow the logic here. At any rate, the forumal 'religion=Christianity' is false. Christianity is a religion. Religion equals the definitions provided earlier. There are many religions in the world, Christianity simply being one among them.

Yes, the author's name is Don Richardson. He is also a missionary. Or at least a former missionary, famous for his work with the Sawi peoples of Irian Jaya. His studies refer to redemptive analogies that various missionaries have found within various tribal and ancient peoples that have lead to conversions to Christianity.

I see. Thanks for filling me on that. I'll see if I can check it out. I am familar, of course, with 'redemptive stategy analogy' work. Of course, I am also familar of the ease at which over reading can occur--as may be the case of that writer. I'll check it out.

These redemptive analogies, and conversions are very real. Even if one is unwilling to accept that far removed peoples from Middle-Eastern, and Biblical history have expressed having a concept of Jesus Christ, there's no denying the conversions in association with redemptive analogies.

The first sentence is of course correct. It's simple fact that redemption-like traditions are contained in a number of theist-involved religious belief systems. We are, after all, all human with brain build/state singularities. I know, however, that is it also a fact that non-Christian redemption doctrine had not been built on the Christian model which is based around the Jesus character of the gospel narratives. You wording, at least, is completely in error. They did noty have a concept of Jesus, they had a concept of a redemption via a superhuman being of sorts.

 

[AquaLung]

Hello !

It looks as though you have contradicted yourself here--to go into a little embedding for the purpose of getting things straightened out. As far as the matter of standard, common definitions go, if all adhered to them by clear contextual usage, there would be no problem at all. This is a fact of life, right? You have said that you both agree and disagree. That can only mean that there is some element which you do agree with, and some other element that you do not agree with. Or, it might mean that you agree with an element on one level of analysis, or application within a certain circumstance, but not on another level of analysis using the very same element, or another and different circumstance.

However that may be, it is a fact that we have standard, common usage of words, and you seem to have agreed that is so--and of course, it is--but yet seem to wish to deny that one has to adhere to the standard common usage simply because it is standard, common usage. Am I reading you wrongly here somewhere?


Yes, that is the whole point. Let's all get on the same page from the get go. That will save a whole bunch of sloppiness and waste of time talking past others, believe me.

There is an error here already, however. An uncountable collective noun does not fill in for an articulated countable noun in the singular form, or the plural form. It is a fact by definition that a religion is a theist-involved religious belief system when, and only when, that belief system involves a god, or a goddess, or any number of them, with ritual and doctrine. I don't care who it is; when a person is communicating in English, they will have either of the two major definition senses in mind, and they can specify that with accurate wording, and should!

Yes, that is the whole point, essentially. If a person is talking about Christianity, they would best use that word. If there were talking about Islam, then they should say, or write, that. If there were talking about all of the whole shebang, then they should pluralize the word 'religion' to get religions. Not doing this is what causes the confusion, and still causes it. It leads to a whole bunch of mess which just shouldn't be there in the first place.

I understand what you are saying here, of course, that is no problem. That that is what is often happening, is the very reason for my pushing this. That is because, again, it is creating unnecessary confusion and messiness. That PC police have overrun much of (at least) the USA, is a source for that, I argue. Western (as opposed to Oriental) means nothing, here; accuracy, set and standard common word definition sense maintenance is what is at hand. The purpose is to reduce confusion, waste, and miscommunication as much as possible in this particular field.

In a nutshell, wouldn't you agree that the burden of proper definition lie on the one making given claims (i.e., the author of the book, person starting thread, one who supports/agrees with the given claimant)?

I agree that it would be great if everyone would be more accurate/specific as far as their references to religion. It would make things easier if many of these claimants would just say Christianity, or fundamentalist Christianity is the problem. But it's probably not going to happen often. The usage of the word religion one of the, or the main politically correct word to use. No one wishes to appear as if they are targeting a specific people group.

I would suggest to anyone to experiment the next time they see a similar type of thread referring to religion as being a detriment to society. Right off the bat, start defending Buddhism (or any religion that remains noticeably absent in these discussions), and watch the direction the discussion takes. Then defend Christianity/fundamentalist Christianity and watch the direction the discussion takes. I think one will get the sense that they are all of a sudden getting on the right track.

Yes, quite. That is a good example. It points out the chronological development of things locked in history. When the Puritans were in the Plymouth area, we can be sure there were no Jewish among them, much less Muslem or Hindus. Christain bias is seen from the very get go in the USA.

It also shows that the meaning of religion has changed/changes over time. At some point a dictionary description was developed. The problem with the dictionary description is that it suggests just about anything could be classified a religion. If one wanted to truly see religion removed, including everything that can be considered to be within it's definition, they would want human thought removed from society.

Are you arguing that there is benefit to be gained in dumbing down education?

No, I don't think we can benefit by dumbing down education. However, I think somethings that are already dumbed down can be brought back up by progression.

I don't know about you, but I say let's help all of us come to better understandings, better education, and better efficiency in communication--as much as can possibly done, and on a person-by-person basis

Street lingo may not be the proper term for me to have used. I guess we could say internet lingo. I think there is some lingo that is extremely annoying (lol, lmao, rotflmao, pwned, def: an apparent shortening of "definitely", peeps: an apparent alternative to "people", and many others). Rather than either creating a huge barrier by communicating proper English/word definitions, or ignoring the individual, a progressive format may be profitable, meeting them half-way, and possibly going upwards from there.

Yes, that is as I had presented. Statments can be interpreted, and one could think of that as a kind of translating, in a way, but most technically, it is not--unless the lingo is non-English that it is as good as a different language.

I think the word "translate/translation/translating" can be a bit of an hyperbole.

I understand. This, however, is a different class. It is not what I have been talking about.

I don't fully follow the logic here. At any rate, the forumal 'religion=Christianity' is false. Christianity is a religion. Religion equals the definitions provided earlier. There are many religions in the world, Christianity simply being one among them.

I'm not implying that religion literally equals Christianity. When I construct a sentence using the phrase religion=Christianity, it's in the context of clarifying what another person is equating religion with.

I see. Thanks for filling me on that. I'll see if I can check it out. I am familar, of course, with 'redemptive stategy analogy' work. Of course, I am also familar of the ease at which over reading can occur--as may be the case of that writer. I'll check it out.

The first sentence is of course correct. It's simple fact that redemption-like traditions are contained in a number of theist-involved religious belief systems. We are, after all, all human with brain build/state singularities. I know, however, that is it also a fact that non-Christian redemption doctrine had not been built on the Christian model which is based around the Jesus character of the gospel narratives. You wording, at least, is completely in error. They did noty have a concept of Jesus, they had a concept of a redemption via a superhuman being of sorts.

How would you know that? Wouldn't this be based on the assumption that Jesus Christ is not a spiritual being (setting aside the "Jesus is God" issue for now)?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I can think of a lot of reasons why atheists should be angrier than they are. Here are a few:

1. People swallow any sort of crazy nonsense in the name of religion. There are Christian sects that postulate that if you are good, you will become a god (equivalent to THE God) in the afterlife and have your own planet to rule. See, e.g., Mormonism.

Other sects, under charismatic leaders (Jim Jones, David Koresh), have led followers into mass suicide. People will even kill or sacrifice their own children (see, e.g., Abraham).

Or how is this for sheer paranoid schizophrenia? "God loves you. . . but if you don't accept a certain prophet as your savior, God will torture you for eternity after you die."

2. Believers keep trying to spread their virus to innocent people. It wouldn't be so bad if people believing their nonsense would just keep it to themselves. But no, their infection compels them to infect others. Some don't seem able to stop themselves.

3. Religion has undue influence over politics. Even now in the 21st Century, you could not become a candidate for major public office in the US if you denied belief in the supernatural (i.e., religion). In fact, go admit to being any sort of non-Christian and see how many votes you get.

In the Republican party, you couldn't be a candidate unless you wear your Christianity on your sleeve, and proclaim how much religion will govern your public policy decisions. Think about that one a minute, and you'll see why we have so many problems today. We're electing people who expressly promise to ignore reality and base decisions on unverifiable "facts" and superstition. People who deny evolution on Congressional science committees!

4. Discrimination. Go somewhere -- anywhere in America -- and admit you're an atheist. You'll quickly find yourself shunned. . . or else the target of relentless proselytizing. Or go anywhere and admit to being a Muslim these days. . . .

5. Believers will conveniently change their religious doctrine without batting an eye. I've never received any sensible response to this example, so I'll repeat it. Jesus says that if you divorce and re-marry, you're committing adultery. Yet most modern Christian churches will conduct second (third, fourth, etc.) marriages without batting an eye. So when did God change His mind? And why didn't He announce it publicly, instead of (apparently) secretly to select church leaders?

The Bible calls for adulterers (along with a host of other sinners, including people who disrespect their parents) to be stoned to death. AGAIN, WHEN DID GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?

 

[Mars Man]

In a nutshell, wouldn't you agree that the burden of proper definition lie on the one making given claims (i.e., the author of the book, person starting thread, one who supports/agrees with the given claimant)?

If you intend to imply that each and every speaker and/or writer ought to have a right to define any word they use, in any way that they so desire, then my response is negative. That would lead to chaos. If your intention is to imply that each and every speaker and/or writer has an obligation to identify--either by clear and consistent contextual aggreement, or by specifically identifying the particular sense definition of a term being used, that my response would be positive. In fact, as I trust you will be well aware of, at the opening of any well-developed argument or presentation, one will usually set the working definitions as they will be used by the item in which they follow. Sadly (as you have hinted at) far too many do not do that so well, when it comes to this specific area of inquiry.

I agree that it would be great if everyone would be more accurate/specific as far as their references to religion. It would make things easier if many of these claimants would just say Christianity, or fundamentalist Christianity is the problem. But it's probably not going to happen often.

Well put, indeed! Yes, I have wrestled with this for a while, from earlier on, and arrived at the conclusion from direct experience that it is going to save a lot of 'talking past others,' as well as misunderstanding, confusion, and messiness if we clarify our terms more carefully, and more strictly adhere to them within a given contextual setting. I am aware that it is something that would in no way happen overnight by any means or miracle. I wish to heartfully encourage that here in our discussions, and to encourage all to 'spread the better habit.'

The usage of the word religion one of the, or the main politically correct word to use. No one wishes to appear as if they are targeting a specific people group.

I understand. THIS PC overkill is part of the BIG problem here... as well as with some other postmoderism bullshit.

It also shows that the meaning of religion has changed/changes over time. At some point a dictionary description was developed. The problem with the dictionary description is that it suggests just about anything could be classified a religion. If one wanted to truly see religion removed, including everything that can be considered to be within it's definition, they would want human thought removed from society.

This is probably missing the point to too large of an extent, I reason. The meaning of the word 'religion' has not changed that much since the late 15th century. We have usage of it on record and can verify that. What has happened, is that usage has evolved. With a greater application of the noun (usage) towards activities, or frames of mind, which presented an imagery of the previous theist-involved religious belief system ritualistic and activity-based frame of mind, the term 'religion' took up a humorous usage too. 'Badminton court set up is a religion to me,' for example, is just a humorous way to conceive of the seriousness and ritualistic-like focus that I put into lining the court and setting the net in the consistent and persistent way that I do. That means we have an additional definition sense. Context always demonstrates (or should, wehn correctly adhered to) the definition sense being used.

Please keep in mind, again, that the dictionary is both descriptive and prescriptive.

No, I don't think we can benefit by dumbing down education. However, I think somethings that are already dumbed down can be brought back up by progression.

Agreed. That progression, of course will best be substantiated through reasonable, realistic and empirically demonstrated understandings, as best as can be done for a particular area of inquiry.

Street lingo may not be the proper term for me to have used. I guess we could say internet lingo. I think there is some lingo that is extremely annoying (lol, lmao, rotflmao, pwned, def: an apparent shortening of "definitely", peeps: an apparent alternative to "people", and many others). Rather than either creating a huge barrier by communicating proper English/word definitions, or ignoring the individual, a progressive format may be profitable, meeting them half-way, and possibly going upwards from there.

Yes, I understand. Here, I would tend to see that contextual considerations will have be made use of. Also, what has just been said immediately above, will play a role too. 'Over lingoing' everything would be dumbing down in probably more cases than need be.

I think the word "translate/translation/translating" can be a bit of an hyperbole.

I am not so sure about that.

I'm not implying that religion literally equals Christianity. When I construct a sentence using the phrase religion=Christianity, it's in the context of clarifying what another person is equating religion with.

Yes, that I generally understood. It is that equation which needs to be eliminated.

How would you know that? Wouldn't this be based on the assumption that Jesus Christ is not a spiritual being (setting aside the "Jesus is God" issue for now)?

I am not sure of exactly which point in that which you had quoted, had been singled out here... or, if you are asking about the whole paragraph there. I also have noticed that I did a very poor job at proof-reading that post. I fully apologize for that. I'll have to be more careful. (I am occasionally rushed in posting, and this PC at the uni, for whatever reason, does not automatically paragraph on the screen...)

However, regarding the 'spiritual being' matter, there are probably a number of things that need to be clarified, or worked out. The concept of spiritual beings goes way back in H. sapiens' history. That fact does not in and of itself prove anything other than that--that steeped in ignorance, and with run away emotional drive, imagination worked up great and fantastic structures. When looking at what one will usually mean when they use the term 'spiritual being,' we will find that a circumstance which has no way of being known about, or of, is presented. That falls flat on its face. That's one point.

Another one is regarding the character Jesus as painted by the gospel narratives. It is known that the character does not historically, accurately, describe an actual Jewish male who lived and taught in the first decades of the first century CE. For that reason, we cannot really say that much after all about the actual historical person. The figure in the narratives, of course, is largely a fictional figure for the puporse of storytelling and didactic goals. Thus, we can make no statements about that either. That's another point. (Although this kind of goes off topic, the OP did, actually, talk about the matter of God, as opposed to anything else, per se.)

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Roland's last post is to the point and easy to read. I agree with it except for this:

2. Believers keep trying to spread their virus to innocent people. It wouldn't be so bad if people believing their nonsense would just keep it to themselves. But no, their infection compels them to infect others. Some don't seem able to stop themselves.

I don't think this is fair. Its basically a good thing to spread information. We cannot fault people for trying to spread what they think is the truth. Of course it would be nice if people would spread ONLY the truth, but that cannot happen since there is no universal agreement.

So I do not fault religious believers for trying to spread their faith. That said, I do take exception to them knocking on my door. So I put a sign out to ward them off, and it usually worked. The old one got sun bleached and looked horrible though, so I need to make a new one. To be fair, I guess the onus is on me to tell them not to come. When they do, I tell them politely I am not interested and sometimes to not come back.

Anyway, I have to ask you Roland, are you quite sure its the spreading of the message that bothers you rather than the message itself? Because even I, a near hermit who really does not like strangers bothering me, has the bigger problem with the message only.

Plus part of my purpose here is to spread infomation and what I see as the truth, even though some people really hate my messages.

 

[BrianLewis]

The Bible calls for adulterers (along with a host of other sinners, including people who disrespect their parents) to be stoned to death. AGAIN, WHEN DID GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?

You forgot the "if." I am paraphrasing from memory, but it is along the lines of "if you stone adulterers and others see it, it will cease to happen among you." So, why does adultery seem acceptable today? Simply because no one enforces it's punishment. You may say that it is severe or unfair, but you need to remember that you have the perspective of someone that has lived a life where it has never been enforced, even mildly. You are right to say that God never changed his mind, humans are simply weak willed and end up messing everything up by not following the rules.

I don't see how you can label religion as bad just by citing examples of bad or incompetent religious individuals. I wouldn't call science a joke citing Myth Busters and their flawed attempts at experiments.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"However, regarding the 'spiritual being' matter, there are probably a number of things that need to be clarified, or worked out. The concept of spiritual beings goes way back in H. sapiens' history. That fact does not in and of itself prove anything other than that--that steeped in ignorance, and with run away emotional drive, imagination worked up great and fantastic structures. When looking at what one will usually mean when they use the term 'spiritual being,' we will find that a circumstance which has no way of being known about, or of, is presented. That falls flat on its face."

Interesting thoughts. I won't dispute any of that, but will head off on a tangent you suggest here.

Human beings seem to have an instinctive need to provide explanations where none are readily observable and testable. The most convenient explanation has often been the supernatural. Primitive humans see lightning in the sky, don't know what it is, and conclude the gods are angry. Just because humans want to be able to explain it. People today can't find the explanation for the origin of life, so some say that God must have done it.

But notice that every culture has its own variance in religious history and tenets. What we ought to see, if there were an actual deity, is a substantial similarity in religious doctrine, whether Christian, Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, or Scientology. Wouldn't any rational and just god transmit the same message to every culture, particularly if that message allowed entry into heaven or nirvana?

Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha aren't interchangeable characters, nor can they be the same character with different names. Why would God tell one culture about one character, another about a different character, and so on? Especially when belief in the right one of these characters is supposed to confer eternal life? ("Two men claim to be Jesus, one of them must be wrong." - Mark Knopfler). Is God just playing a game, picking the lucky-cultural winners on a whim?

Instead of an omnipotent god with truth to tell to humans, a survey of the world's religions would show exactly what we'd expect to find if we postulate human imagination combined with random chance: an assortment of supernatural explanations for lightning, life, and life after death.

Zorro, my patience with the proselytizers varies according to how recently some of them have gratuitously volunteered that I'm to be dammed for eternity. . . just because I'm not playing the game right. I tell them that sure, I'll believe in God. . . after I'm dead and find myself before the heavenly throne. I'll tell Him, "Yes sir, Lord, I believe in you and accept you as my savior." I'll grovel. I'll do whatever it takes to save my ***.

But these earthly messengers of heavenly truth always get mad when I say that. They insist I have to convert will still alive -- and with not a shred of evidence before me. As we used to say out in the country, they want me to buy a pig in a poke.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

You forgot the "if." I am paraphrasing from memory, but it is along the lines of "if you stone adulterers and others see it, it will cease to happen among you." So, why does adultery seem acceptable today? Simply because no one enforces it's punishment. You may say that it is severe or unfair, but you need to remember that you have the perspective of someone that has lived a life where it has never been enforced, even mildly. You are right to say that God never changed his mind, humans are simply weak willed and end up messing everything up by not following the rules.

I don't see how you can label religion as bad just by citing examples of bad or incompetent religious individuals. I wouldn't call science a joke citing Myth Busters and their flawed attempts at experiments.

A quick Google yielded these gems:

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the *****, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

Or how about this puzzling prescription:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Question for you, Mr. Lewis: Does God change culture, or does culture change God?

 

[Mars Man]

Some good posts here which call out for good posts in return--done correctly and with detailed accounting for statements involved. I cannot do that just now, but will get back over a couple of posts or so, over the next 3 days. As for the Hebrew portion of the Bible, there is occasionally a real need to know the Hebrew. For the NT, there is occasionally a need to know the Greek--I can help there. I'll be back. And just to answer the final question in post number 46 above, I will firstly correct the wording, then answer here.

In stricter terms, thus more accurately and by better standard usage, God is a proper noun. It is the name plugged-in to substitute for Yahweh in especially the KJV. The American Standard protected the better translation methodology by transliterating proper nouns, rather than falling prey to old and silly Jewish religious leaders' superstition. Of course, much of the Gentile Christian movement, had never been working with the Hebrew texts, but rather with the LXX. Some copies had evidently (as found among the Qumran scrolls) maintain the Tetragrammaton, but most substituted other forms, or the word kyrios to mimic the Hebrew vowel adjustments.

Then came Augustine (and a few others) who essentially plaster their take of Christian doctrine over the walls of their Neo-Platonic house, and with Plato's good, and divine stuff, the whole name of the Jewish god was lost to post-third century Christian leadership. By the time the medieval philosophers had gotten ahold of it, and nothing but Christian focus and bias was to be found, the whole fact of the history of it got lost.

Yahweh was created by a single cultural sub-in-group. Earlier early Christianity worshiped Yahweh. The god model of later early Christianity (that of today, largely) is God. The muslim deity, when spoken of by an English speaker, could possibly be identified by that same word, God, but I would strongly urge that such be stopped--for clarity's sake. The transliteration of the Arabic word for a god should be used.

Therefore, while God does not change with culture, since God is time-locked in the information source that tells us about that deity, cultures do alter their gods, slightly over time, in various degrees. However, while it is all a continuum, we can see clear enough of a block-step graph in differences, that we line out a new system of doctrine--and thus, for example, we have two Christian systems with two god models; the pre-fifth decade of the second century Christian god model, and that of the later second century, to date, god model.

 

[AquaLung]

I am not sure of exactly which point in that which you had quoted, had been singled out here... or, if you are asking about the whole paragraph there. I also have noticed that I did a very poor job at proof-reading that post. I fully apologize for that. I'll have to be more careful. (I am occasionally rushed in posting, and this PC at the uni, for whatever reason, does not automatically paragraph on the screen...)

However, regarding the 'spiritual being' matter, there are probably a number of things that need to be clarified, or worked out. The concept of spiritual beings goes way back in H. sapiens' history. That fact does not in and of itself prove anything other than that--that steeped in ignorance, and with run away emotional drive, imagination worked up great and fantastic structures. When looking at what one will usually mean when they use the term 'spiritual being,' we will find that a circumstance which has no way of being known about, or of, is presented. That falls flat on its face. That's one point.

Another one is regarding the character Jesus as painted by the gospel narratives. It is known that the character does not historically, accurately, describe an actual Jewish male who lived and taught in the first decades of the first century CE. For that reason, we cannot really say that much after all about the actual historical person. The figure in the narratives, of course, is largely a fictional figure for the puporse of storytelling and didactic goals. Thus, we can make no statements about that either. That's another point. (Although this kind of goes off topic, the OP did, actually, talk about the matter of God, as opposed to anything else, per se.)

I think you bring up (actually have brought up in a few posts) an interesting topic concerning God, gods, deities. I agree with you that imagination does play a role in the subject of gods and deities. However, God, I would place in a completely separate category, simply because we are not talking about something entirely fantastic, out of the question, etc. Imagination, and fantasy would play a role in religion just like it does in the media-entertainment world. Even fantasy oriented themes (books, movies, etc,) are viewed as having comparative possibilities (inter-planetary governments, etc..). But we need to identify the difference between God...a Creator, vs. the god/goddess of sexual pleasure, the god/goddess of the rivers (or a river), the god/goddess of hailstorms, etc. Like you said, not all gods are creators. In fact, probably the majority are not. For instance, one has to dig rather deep to find a Creator figure in the religion of Shintoism from my personal investigation. The Creator in Shintoism, from what I can tell, is relegated to one particular sect or division of Shintoism (I could of course be wrong as I'm not an expert on Eastern Religions).

When we view the Universe and all of it's complexities, a Creator, with immeasurable intelligence is not out of the question. It's not fantasy. And this would explain the famous deists throughout history like Thomas Paine. But to claim there is a god who tosses a thunderbolt down to Earth whenever we see a lightening storm is another story.

One of the tendencies of ancient nations/kingdoms was to establish a particular god who represented their people. The ancient Israelites, who had a tendency to want to mimic, so to speak, the surrounding nations, showed evidence of wanting to follow that same pattern when they in essence rejected God, the Creator for a symbolic manufactured god (the golden calf). We kind of see this rallying to create communal energy in team sporting events who have a symbolic mascot.

What I think tends to happen is, some will suggest that because there has been/is that fantasy/imagination element in religion, mind-created deities, that a God who is a creator must fall into that same category of man's imagination as does the god who makes ocean waves by treading water.

 

[BrianLewis]

Wouldn't any rational and just god transmit the same message to every culture, particularly if that message allowed entry into heaven or nirvana?

Are books not available world wide? I just got some books in today from Hawaii for pretty cheap.

Is God just playing a game, picking the lucky-cultural winners on a whim?

Your assuming that God created all these legends. You can easily in this age compare and contrast by studying, but the vast majority of people don't even bother. So, let's say if God exists, would he be impressed with someone that didn't even bother to look into something that could potentially define his eternal existence?

after I'm dead and find myself before the heavenly throne. I'll tell Him, "Yes sir, Lord, I believe in you and accept you as my savior." I'll grovel. I'll do whatever it takes to save my ***.

Actually that works. Any preacher or noobie in Christianity that tells you that you are going to hell for not believing now is wrong. No man has the right to judge a person's soul, and that's quite biblical. It just has to be a disappointment to him that you don't care now. I mean, theoretically speaking, is checking facebook anywhere near as potentially important? I should add that it is said that your "works" follow you (either good or bad), so don't expect to get a blank check. People can get pretty zealous because they see it as an opportunity to relieve someone of their burdens.

Science tests the observable, if one cannot observe the unobservable does it not exist, or is science just limited in that aspect?

Question for you, Mr. Lewis: Does God change culture, or does culture change God?

Free will. Can you expect love from a computer? You can think of culture being a distortion over time from man's unwillingness to adhere to sound rules and regulations. Every successive generation would then take what they are surrounded with at face value and consider it "how we are," without considering what is right or just.

 

[Mars Man]

I think you bring up (actually have brought up in a few posts) an interesting topic concerning God, gods, deities. I agree with you that imagination does play a role in the subject of gods and deities. However, God, I would place in a completely separate category, simply because we are not talking about something entirely fantastic, out of the question, etc.

The burden of soundly and validily subtantiating this statement, made in absolute positive modus, is on you, then. To make things very, very short, the evidence most clearly and with soundness and validity denies the statement which you have made here. In other words, AquaLung, you are making a false claim to know--however, I wish to give you the opportunity to support that. I will challenge any point which has no or little evidence for it, of for which 'provided' evidence itself is in error, and, I will suppy sound and valid enough evidence and data to demonstrate the opposite. I would do wish to let you know, out of fairness, however (and with no other intent here, honestly) that I have been researching this for some 15 years, and at a level which you may not have been, so please do be prepared for that. Let's have a good go of it !! (In the essence and mode of good scholarship and gentlemenly discussion and debate.)

But we need to identify the difference between God...a Creator, vs. the god/goddess of sexual pleasure, the god/goddess of the rivers (or a river), the god/goddess of hailstorms, etc. Like you said, not all gods are creators. In fact, probably the majority are not. For instance, one has to dig rather deep to find a Creator figure in the religion of Shintoism from my personal investigation. The Creator in Shintoism, from what I can tell, is relegated to one particular sect or division of Shintoism (I could of course be wrong as I'm not an expert on Eastern Religions).

Yes, there are not that many specific creator gods or goddesses out there--be that in Shintoism or otherwise. However, it is a fact that there are supreme creator gods out there--even prior to the Jewish system's Yahweh. Therefore, even that much, even if there were only one other creator god in the entiry known history of human-created theist-involved religious belief systems, it is enough to refute the assertion that Yahweh has to be considered differently simply because it his being a supreme creator. This is true. Do you understand this logical line?

When we view the Universe and all of it's complexities, a Creator, with immeasurable intelligence is not out of the question. It's not fantasy. And this would explain the famous deists throughout history like Thomas Paine. But to claim there is a god who tosses a thunderbolt down to Earth whenever we see a lightening storm is another story.

How well have you studied the Jewish documents?

One of the tendencies of ancient nations/kingdoms was to establish a particular god who represented their people. The ancient Israelites, who had a tendency to want to mimic, so to speak, the surrounding nations, showed evidence of wanting to follow that same pattern when they in essence rejected God, the Creator for a symbolic manufactured god (the golden calf). We kind of see this rallying to create communal energy in team sporting events who have a symbolic mascot.How well have you studied early Isrealite history?

What I think tends to happen is, some will suggest that because there has been/is that fantasy/imagination element in religion, mind-created deities, that a God who is a creator must fall into that same category of man's imagination as does the god who makes ocean waves by treading water.

Please take note of my first paragraphs above. This assertion is false. I hope to have a good discussion, and, this is very much in line with the topic of this thread... but only going into deeper embedding so as to establish points made at the level of the OP. I look forward to this !