Page 4 of 22

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:33 am
by BlacKStaR
crazymonkie_ wrote:Blackstar, just give me this answer: Is there anything else besides that which is 'spiritual' that cannot be measured or experienced, directly or indirectly? And as a follow-up: Does it seem likely that it may just be made-up, if that's the case?


Very simple. I would suggest you to read . Start with, " The autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahamsa Yogananda" This is a very important book that changed many thousands of people's perception towards spirituality. It can be found in any bookstore.

To be frank with you, my personal feelings towards god is more like friendship. I see god in everything and every form. From a little worm to the largest mountain. Hinduism clearly states, if you want to see god, you have to start seeing the things around you. The spirit of god is in everything. Hindus dont have a god sitting in the heavens eating grapes and drinking wine and offering 72 virgins for anyone who died for him.

Thats simply not the way we see god. I can't guarantee you if god is made up as you said. But I can guarantee you, I have a deep rooted belief in " Spirituality" as been handed down by the sages for the past 8000 years.

While Spirituality is a personal self discipline, science helps to improve our lives day by day.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:40 am
by crazymonkie_
BlacKStaR wrote: :roflmao: What would you know??? Have you tried the simlest tool of them all? its called Meditation.

Oh gee, I guess me being a godless a-hole and all, I've *never* meditated before.

That's not a tool to get closer to the 'divine.' It's a really great thing, and it does help the brain a lot, but that only proves that people tried some things that felt good until they found something that worked for them. Then they tacked on the spiritual aspect.

Read my posting from the manu smirti. The first 10 lines. Hindus dont define god to a " Limited Finite" being.

When did I ever say you did? My point was that definitions of the supernatural *always* include 'that which cannot be measured or quantified, directly or indirectly.' Which puts it in the same category of imagination. That there are many people who believe it only speaks to the social nature of human beings.

Not good enough. You suffer, therefore you are.and so forth all beings in the cycle of life. You thoughts are not important to the extent until you say " I think, therefore I am". I am least interested on your personal thoughts.

Uh... yeah 'good enough.' You don't need to tack on 'suffering' or rebirth; we are because we cogitate. If we don't work through this axiom, ALL information is suspect, at best. That was my point- that without 'cogito ergo sum,' there's no point to knowing about anything, because it all could just be fake.

What is pointless to your small unimportant meaningless existence is a great quest of spiritualists.

Uh huh. There have been thousands of 'answers.' Each contradictory, each with its own roughly equivalent proofs. If one was actually true, there would be no contest. That there is no clear 'winner' speaks volumes for the 'truthfulness'

Hindu sages seek to answer these questions in the most acceptable manner.I would suggest you to start reading the ancient vedic texts. Perhaps your world view would spell a small change.

I would be surprised if it did. It, like all religious texts, is speculation sans evidence- beyond personal experience, which, being non-repeatable (generally), highly subjective and prone to human error, doesn't exactly weigh heavily on my mind as 'evidence.'

That said, there's a lot of amazing stuff in there anyway. Only in the 'it's fun to think about' category, though. Like the works of Charles Fort or something like that.

Study buddhism. It addresses suffering perfectly.

Have. Got two volumes of the Pali Canon. Love it. I actually consider myself a bit of a materialist Buddhist, if you can imagine that. :wink:

Your idea of penis and vagina is superficial. The thoughts and makings of a perfect mohammedan. Where if you dont procreate, allah will punish you in his eternal oven.

Ouch. Look- my point was that it's MORE than that, that at this point, the ONLY requirement is that the genitalia be working. And I REALLY disagree with that; that was my point. We need some sort of way to weed out the breeding people who lack foresight, that's all I'm saying. And no, I don't mean eugenics or anything like that. Just some tests. Like DMV-level tests.

Science is limited to its own category. Spirituality and mysticism is a completely different ballgame. Dont make the fundamental mistake of including science into the equation. Spiritualists do not use your scientific findings in their equations. They dont have the time to do so.

AARRGH!!! Look: If spiritual people want to have empirical-minded people accept their 'findings,' they need to have the same amount of rigor as empiricists do. Otherwise, we just keep running in circles:
Empiricist: "Show me a supernatural being."
Spiritualist: "I can't, it's beyond our universe."
E: "But everything we know is in the universe. How can that be."
S: "Because I *know* it's true! Don't bring your science into this!"
E: "How do you know that you're not beginning from false assumptions, or that you're not in error when it comes to what you believe?"
S: "Because I know."
Etc.

If you want to stop talking in circles, get out of the circle. If there's nothing outside the universe beyond what can be measured (even if it hasn't been yet) then maybe, just maybe, spirituality is a collection of best guesses and assumptions about how the world 'really is.'

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:55 am
by crazymonkie_
BlacKStaR wrote:Very simple. I would suggest you to read . Start with, " The autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahamsa Yogananda" This is a very important book that changed many thousands of people's perception towards spirituality. It can be found in any bookstore.

Thanks. I'll check that out. Seriously- not being sarcastic here. I might even have it on this DVD-ROM I've got... probably not, since most of it's stuff where the copyright lapsed or expired.

To be frank with you, my personal feelings towards god is more like friendship. I see god in everything and every form. From a little worm to the largest mountain.

That's... an odd and interesting mix of personalism and pantheism.

Hinduism clearly states, if you want to see god, you have to start seeing the things around you. The spirit of god is in everything. Hindus dont have a god sitting in the heavens eating grapes and drinking wine and offering 72 virgins for anyone who died for him.

Oh i know Hinduism doesn't have ideas of gods like that. Not most of it, anyway. Most monotheists (save Muslims) don't believe in that either- and they'll be at pains to say so, even while referring to their god as 'him' (for no apparent reason.)

Still- it sounds more like Hinduism has rather extraneous supernatural beliefs. If one can say 'god/the gods are everywhere and in every thing' then that means we need not act differently. We can just be ourselves and not worry about the gods.

I quote here one of the best phrases I've ever read on the subject of gods and justice. From Marcus Aurelius, Stoic philosopher later in life (and ferocious bastard earlier in life, sort of like Asoka): "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

I can't guarantee you if god is made up as you said. But I can guarantee you, I have a deep rooted belief in " Spirituality" as been handed down by the sages for the past 8000 years.

Fair enough. As long as you're not forming committees to change laws and move society backward decades or centuries, it doesn't really matter to me.

While Spirituality is a personal self discipline, science helps to improve our lives day by day.

Oh, I'd say science can be a hell of a self-discipline as well. Just gathering data in a scientific fashion is a preservance-building activity; peer review is out-and-out harsh.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:59 am
by BlacKStaR
crazymonkie_ wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote: :roflmao: What would you know??? Have you tried the simlest tool of them all? its called Meditation.

Oh gee, I guess me being a godless a-hole and all, I've *never* meditated before.

That's not a tool to get closer to the 'divine.' It's a really great thing, and it does help the brain a lot, but that only proves that people tried some things that felt good until they found something that worked for them. Then they tacked on the spiritual aspect.

Read my posting from the manu smirti. The first 10 lines. Hindus dont define god to a " Limited Finite" being.

When did I ever say you did? My point was that definitions of the supernatural *always* include 'that which cannot be measured or quantified, directly or indirectly.' Which puts it in the same category of imagination. That there are many people who believe it only speaks to the social nature of human beings.

Not good enough. You suffer, therefore you are.and so forth all beings in the cycle of life. You thoughts are not important to the extent until you say " I think, therefore I am". I am least interested on your personal thoughts.

Uh... yeah 'good enough.' You don't need to tack on 'suffering' or rebirth; we are because we cogitate. If we don't work through this axiom, ALL information is suspect, at best. That was my point- that without 'cogito ergo sum,' there's no point to knowing about anything, because it all could just be fake.

What is pointless to your small unimportant meaningless existence is a great quest of spiritualists.

Uh huh. There have been thousands of 'answers.' Each contradictory, each with its own roughly equivalent proofs. If one was actually true, there would be no contest. That there is no clear 'winner' speaks volumes for the 'truthfulness'

Hindu sages seek to answer these questions in the most acceptable manner.I would suggest you to start reading the ancient vedic texts. Perhaps your world view would spell a small change.

I would be surprised if it did. It, like all religious texts, is speculation sans evidence- beyond personal experience, which, being non-repeatable (generally), highly subjective and prone to human error, doesn't exactly weigh heavily on my mind as 'evidence.'

That said, there's a lot of amazing stuff in there anyway. Only in the 'it's fun to think about' category, though. Like the works of Charles Fort or something like that.

Study buddhism. It addresses suffering perfectly.

Have. Got two volumes of the Pali Canon. Love it. I actually consider myself a bit of a materialist Buddhist, if you can imagine that. :wink:

Your idea of penis and vagina is superficial. The thoughts and makings of a perfect mohammedan. Where if you dont procreate, allah will punish you in his eternal oven.

Ouch. Look- my point was that it's MORE than that, that at this point, the ONLY requirement is that the genitalia be working. And I REALLY disagree with that; that was my point. We need some sort of way to weed out the breeding people who lack foresight, that's all I'm saying. And no, I don't mean eugenics or anything like that. Just some tests. Like DMV-level tests.

Science is limited to its own category. Spirituality and mysticism is a completely different ballgame. Dont make the fundamental mistake of including science into the equation. Spiritualists do not use your scientific findings in their equations. They dont have the time to do so.

AARRGH!!! Look: If spiritual people want to have empirical-minded people accept their 'findings,' they need to have the same amount of rigor as empiricists do. Otherwise, we just keep running in circles:
Empiricist: "Show me a supernatural being."
Spiritualist: "I can't, it's beyond our universe."
E: "But everything we know is in the universe. How can that be."
S: "Because I *know* it's true! Don't bring your science into this!"
E: "How do you know that you're not beginning from false assumptions, or that you're not in error when it comes to what you believe?"
S: "Because I know."
Etc.

If you want to stop talking in circles, get out of the circle. If there's nothing outside the universe beyond what can be measured (even if it hasn't been yet) then maybe, just maybe, spirituality is a collection of best guesses and assumptions about how the world 'really is.'



RIGHT NOW? AS i see it, it is you who is talking in circles. Ranting about the same things again and again. Get over it. Spiritualists are different. Accept it. You cant win any argument if you keep asking to prove something that is not related to each another. Spirituality is just way different from anything else.

I rarely whip out scriptures, but in this instance i did and as usual you are still barking at the same tree. Read my post. Understand the perspective of how the sages think.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:05 am
by debunker
@ CM

Oh i know Hinduism doesn't have ideas of gods like that. Not most of it, anyway. Most monotheists (save Muslims) don't believe in that either- and they'll be at pains to say so, even while referring to their god as 'him' (for no apparent reason.)


I have been reading this without feeling the urge to comment until misconception about Islam started to pop up.

First. God of the Quran never said that if you don't use your genatalia to procreate you will burn in Hell like BlackStar said.

Second, it is a great blasphemy in Islam to claim that God eats or drinks! I know in the Bible He used to eat and enjoy visits to Earth and dine with His prophets, but the same cannot be said about God of the Quran.

@ BlackStar
I don't see how bashing Abrahmic religions can help you in your arguments against CM and guptsu when they are atheists!

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:15 am
by gupsfu
BlacKStaR wrote:Why do you still dispute things? I already told you, Spirituality thinks differently. You cant dispute who is right or wrong. I already told you I am pro science. BUT at the same time i am also a spiritualist.

I'm disputing your assertion that spirituality can answer questions that science cannot. Why can't I dispute that?

Answers that don't come with supporting evidence are as good as answers that are arbitrarily made up. You need to refrain from claiming that you have answers when that's the only kind of "answers" you have.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:22 am
by Aksel Ankersen
Hello Cute Coot, nice to see you back.

CuteCoot wrote:
Aksel Ankersen wrote:In later henotheistic systems each god represented an attribute or virtue of the One God that people strived for, sometime taken as a patron deity or spirit.

One could readily argue that the ninety-nine names of Allah represent 99 attributes, aspects, virtues or what might be seen metaphorically as 99 faces or persons within the One God. The Christians content themselves with three, but the Muslims go all the way to 99.

Christian Trinity has an important difference, in that Jesus = God, YHWH = God, Holy Spirit = God but Jesus ≠ YHWH ≠ Holy Spirit. I.e. three people are God but those three people are not each other.

The many names of Allah cannot be different people, but just different ways of looking at the same being, facets if you like. See Sura Ikhlas:

Say: 'He is God, One
God, the Everlasting Refuge,
who has not begotten, and has not been begotten,
There is no one equal to Him.

You see, the phrase "Allahu Alssamadu" in verse two means "He, Allah, is As-Samad". Note that Allah is As-Samad rather than a distinct person as in Trinatarian Christianity.


Cute Coot wrote:Just as a single person, just one individual, can be conflicted so too can God. One aspect may be at odds with another. For example, Allah is seen as both compassionate and powerful. In a given situation, it might be better, more moral or virtuous, to exercise one's power. In another, to exercise compassion. In most cases, there will be a conflict there. Some of Allah's attributes are even direct opposites, such as "The Abaser" and "The Exalter".

No real contradiction here, Allah is partisan in his favors, he abases some and exalts others. Hence another name for Allah is al-Hakim, i.e. "The Judge".


Cute Coot wrote:It may be more realistic to accept the basically conflictual nature of the human psyche and of the divine universe that has been imagined to represent it. Whether this acceptance takes the form of a strict polytheism or of a multi-faceted monotheism may not be too important.

It shouldn't be too important, but the arrogance of certain religious people leads them to try and advance their version of God at the cost of all others.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:26 am
by Aksel Ankersen
BlacKStaR wrote:
Aksel Ankersen wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:So you mean to say, that in this planet, rich with many diverse life forms, so sophisticated and complex in physical terms from the most tinniest to the largest..HAS NO CREATOR FOR IT????????????????????????? SO THESE LIFE FORMS CAME OUT FROM NOWHERE????????????????? :prop:

Thats why you atheists are such losers in life. You dont think above your capabilities. While many many scientists are embracing religion today, atheists are becoming more threatened that their non existent intelligence too becoming extinct.

Could you make your point without insulting other members? This thread has been (unusually for FFI) civil so far.



Shutup Aksel.

No, I won't.

You show contempt and disrespect for Christians and Muslims (here for instance) and atheists (this thread) and yet you promote Hinduism as the be all and end all of spirituality.

I must say your arrogance in this matter would make you a very good Islamist, the only real difference being the letter and not the spirit of your beliefs.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:02 am
by crazymonkie_
BlacKStaR wrote:RIGHT NOW? AS i see it, it is you who is talking in circles. Ranting about the same things again and again.

Only because I haven't gotten any straight answers on my points. I'm not saying "I win" or anything, but if you want me to stop saying the same things, point out exactly where I'm wrong.

Get over it. Spiritualists are different.

That's actually incorrect: Spiritualists' evidentiary claims are different. We're all the same sub-species. It's just that some of us don't accept personal experience or what's in a book, or what someone says about a book, to be truth.

Accept it. You cant win any argument if you keep asking to prove something that is not related to each another. Spirituality is just way different from anything else.

I'll quit harping on it if you can show me how spirituality isn't a series of best guesses or baseless speculation.

I rarely whip out scriptures, but in this instance i did and as usual you are still barking at the same tree. Read my post. Understand the perspective of how the sages think.

See, the thing is: I *know* what various sages think. I mean, I might not know the painfully small details, but I know in broad strokes what most are about. You and I just focus in on different sages, really. My focus tends to be on really early Christian apologists, later Stoics (wish we had earlier Stoics), the Nag Hammadi 'Gnostic' writings, the remainders of the Epicureans, some Buddhism, a teensy bit of Jainism, and that's about it.

That each of these has interesting ideas is undeniable. That there is some moral goodness to be found in almost all (except some apologists- I'm looking at you, Justin Martyr *shudder*) is also undeniable. But that they had some sort of greater piece of truth? I dispute that. They had good guesses, based upon intuition, but not truth. For that, you need empirical evidence.

*edit*
Damn. And we were doing so well.

No, I won't.

You show contempt and disrespect for Christians and Muslims (here for instance) and atheists (this thread) and yet you promote Hinduism as the be all and end all of spirituality.

I must say your arrogance in this matter would make you a very good Islamist, the only real difference being the letter and not the spirit of your beliefs.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:12 am
by debunker
Hello Aksel,

al-Hakim means the wise, al-Hakem means the ruler and al-Hakam means the judge.

By the way, how come you know so much Arabic? And are you interested in Arabic because of Islam or just because you like to learm other languages?

If you are interested in Arabic just because you are interested in the language itself then make sure to learn it from the Lebanese. They are the best who can speak Classical Arabic without the effect of their local accent.

For example, if someone is speaking Classical Arabic on radio, I immediately know whether they were an Egyptian or a Moroccan or a Kuwaiti, etc. Only the Lebanese can speak the purest Classical Arabic.

Here's an old Lebanese song in Classical Arabic (singing the "spirtuality" of mother nature)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hf1IZBAvns


@ Blackstar

Don't blame the atheists for not believing in God.

Imagine yourself traveling back in time a 1000 years. And then you started preaching to the people that the earth is round... do you think they would believe you? They will ask you for evidence!

Same here with atheists, they demand evidence for God.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:21 am
by CuteCoot
Aksel Ankersen wrote:Christian Trinity has an important difference, in that Jesus = God, YHWH = God, Holy Spirit = God but Jesus ≠ YHWH ≠ Holy Spirit. I.e. three people are God but those three people are not each other.

All I'm saying is that "The Abaser" = Allah and "The Exalter" = Allah but "The Abaser" ≠ "The Exalter". I.e. two facets are Allah but are not equal or equivalent.

The many names of Allah cannot be different people, but just different ways of looking at the same being, facets if you like.

Facets are frequently represented by faces as in the classical two-faced Janus. I don't accept that the three "persons" of the Christian trinity are people like you and me. They are clearly faces or facets of deity. In the strict monotheism of Islam it is highly sinful to conceive of - let alone publicly suggest that there might be - an essential multiplicity within God's unity. Giving God many names is the nearest Muslims came to acknowledging the truth of "the other side".

See Sura Ikhlas:

Sorry, but your point that Allah is As-Samad made no sense to me, probably because Arabic generally doesn't.

No real contradiction here, Allah is partisan in his favors, he abases some and exalts others. Hence another name for Allah is al-Hakim, i.e. "The Judge".

Of course the two names represent opposites. Hot and cold are opposites but if you put icy cold hands in luke warm water it feels hot. If it's a hot day the same water will feel cool and refreshing when poured over your head. Because the same thing is hot here and cold there doesn't alter the quality of oppositeness of hot and cold. And if you notice carefully how people - even devout people - talk about God/Allah, you will see that He is constantly being judged. So God is both "Judge" and "Judged". I'm talking reality here, not pretense or wishful thinking.

It shouldn't be too important, but the arrogance of certain religious people leads them to try and advance their version of God at the cost of all others.

This kind of behaviour is mere tribalism. You see it in atheists as much as in religious people.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:23 am
by Quills
BlacKStaR wrote:RIGHT NOW? AS i see it, it is you who is talking in circles. Ranting about the same things again and again. Get over it. Spiritualists are different. Accept it. You cant win any argument if you keep asking to prove something that is not related to each another. Spirituality is just way different from anything else.



:clap: :clap:

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:24 am
by crazymonkie_
debunker wrote:Don't blame the atheists for not believing in God.

Imagine yourself traveling back in time a 1000 years. And then you started preaching to the people that the earth is round... do you think they would believe you? They will ask you for evidence!

Same here with atheists, they demand evidence for God.


Difference being- one was actually backed by evidence, and the other was backed by... well, nothing really. It was just asserted.

Oh, and, at least in the West, theistic believe retarded scientific progress. This was based on its problematic anti-logical stance towards things 'of this world,' something they inherited from the Neoplatonists. Though they're hardly unique in the anti-logical sense. Leninism/Stalinism, for instance, is RIFE with the stuff. Ironic, considering that they were the inheritors of a neo-Aristotelian worldview which generally demanded epistemological evidence (Hegelianism).

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:35 am
by debunker
Well, please don't forget that the religion in the west (Christianity) does NOT allow Christians to interfere with the affairs of the world. Only hypocritical Christians do. In other words, if Christians were truly Christians they wouldn't have interfered with science even if they didn't like it.

As for the evidence for God, let's wait and see, maybe there will be new scientific advances that make this evidence stronger than it already is or maybe you will wait until you die and burn in hell :) then you will certainly believe :)

P.S. Don't worry, if Jehova Witnesses are correct, then you won't go to hell, you'll just die and cease to exist :) and you'll miss on the evidence forever! Ask Quills about it.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:50 am
by crazymonkie_
debunker wrote:Well, please don't forget that the religion in the west (Christianity) does NOT allow Christians to interfere with the affairs of the world.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Man, you're just *on* tonight.

Um... Catholic Church? Orthodox Church in the Eastern Roman Empire? Charlegmagne's Holy Roman Empire? John Calvin's Geneva?

But hey... if you want to make the case that *every* Christian nation from the start of Christian hegemony weren't 'real' Christian nations, be my guest. Just remember- you've got 'Render unto Caesar.' They've got lots of other verses.

In other words, if Christians were truly Christians they wouldn't have interfered with science even if they didn't like it.

Oh, not true at all. See, the reason why Christians involved themselves with early scientists (they were still, at best, half and half pseudo- and real scientists, BTW; Kepler claimed to have visions, Bacon and Newton were practicing alchemists, etc.) was that these people were looking into forbidden matters or seeing something that contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible. This made them TRUE Christians in the most thorough sense. They KNEW that god created the earth and surrounded it by the stars, the sun and the moon. That the universe, as more was discovered, required more epicycles to work didn't bother them terribly. What did was the idea that the Earth was not the center of creation.

Nowadays, however, some will claim it wasn't such a big deal. Or that a 'real' Christian wouldn't have stood for it. The historical reality, and the reality of theology at the times I'm talking about (a broad range of times/places from Italy to the collapsing Holy Roman Empire to England; from the 16th to the 18th centuries) refute these assertions.

As for the evidence for God, let's wait and see, maybe there will be new scientific advances that make this evidence stronger than it already is or maybe you will wait until you die and burn in hell. then you will certainly believe.

Maybe, maybe. I actually do always hold out hope for this- just in the same way I hold out hope that psychic powers will be scientifically proven. Thus far, no such luck though.

P.S. Don't worry, if Jehova Witnesses are correct, then you won't go to hell, you'll just die and cease to exist and you'll miss on the evidence forever!

And if the Jews are correct, I'll spend some time in the Underworld sloughing off my sins before joining everyone else in the 'real' afterlife.

And if the Hindus, Jaina, Buddhists or Sikhs are right, I'll be tied to the karmic wheel again.

Really, the only groups nowadays to be worried about the afterlife are Protestant Christians and Catholics (mostly.) The latter because they denied that purgatory was a church doctrine, saying it was only a theory. A REALLY POPULAR THEORY. Though, the interesting thing is that they base this claim upon the idea that it was never 'ex cathedra' doctrine, which is funny, because ex cathedra wasn't defined as doctrine itself until 1870! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_cathedra

And the only ex cathedra doctrine that's been used, so far, has been the Assumption of Mary (Mary taken up to Heaven bodily after her death.)

*edit* Debunker, I want to clarify things a bit here. I'm not against what you said about Christianity not wanting to get involved in governing and so on.

I'm just saying that the history of Christianity certainly gives far fewer examples of those who stuck to that (very reasonable, IMO) command. Or dictum. Whatevz.

So I do agree with you in principle, and I'd wish more Christians also would.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:04 am
by debunker
Well, the only true Christians (as per the Bible) are Jehova Witnesses, all the others are hypocrites. No offense.

By the way, since you seem to know a lot about Christianity, I wanted to ask you something:

In a French novel "Tristan et Isolde", a queen, Isolde is accused of adultery and to save herself she performed a ritual in front of her people. The ritual says that she must swear by the name of the Lord that she's inncocent 3 times and I guess the 4th time she should ask God to curse her if she was lying... .my question is: does this ritual exist in the Bible? Bcause, I couldn't find it in the Bible but it is there in the Quran, which is truly curious don't you think?

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:12 am
by crazymonkie_
debunker wrote:In a French novel "Tristan et Isolde", a queen, Isolde is accused of adultery an to save herself she followed a ritual. The ritual says that she must swear by the name of the Lord that she's inncocent 3 times I guess an the 4th time she should ask God to curse her if she was lying... .my question is: does this ritual exist in the Bible? Bcause, I couldn't find it in the Bible but t is in the Quran, which is truly curious don't you think?

Hmm. It really depends on which version you're reading. The story streches way, way back to the Welsh period- pre-Roman Britain. Quite old.

Really it's got more to do with the old Celtic obsession with threes. Hence the (probably borrowed) way of St. Patrick explaining the Trinity to the unconverted Irish. Though it ties in with Peter's three-time denial of Jesus (BTW- one hell of a guy to be the 'rock' upon which one's church is built.) That might be the Biblical connection. That's about all I can think of, though. Except for the (probably inserted) Trinitarian stuff, the Gospels/Epistles aren't terribly *big* on threes.

Zonked. Going to bed now (2 am here.) See you around.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:16 am
by debunker
Well, I read the novel (in French) about 10 years ago. One of the reasons I read it was to better my french. The novel was re-written in intermediate level French.

Anyway, I really didn't like the novel but I can still remeber it for the striking similarity between the ritual performed by the queen to prove her innocense and the ritual in the Quran!

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:07 am
by Aksel Ankersen
crazymonkie_ wrote:*edit*
Damn. And we were doing so well.

...(my post)...

Was your comment adressed to me?

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:11 am
by Aksel Ankersen
debunker wrote:Hello Aksel,

al-Hakim means the wise, al-Hakem means the ruler and al-Hakam means the judge.

By the way, how come you know so much Arabic? And are you interested in Arabic because of Islam or just because you like to learm other languages?

I like to learn languages, to improve my mind, although I know only a bit of Arabic. A religion and the language it was first articulated in are intertwined... It's the nature of language that visionary ideas don't always bear translation from their native language.

Thanks for the link.