God & godless alike.... choose respect first ?

[VonNoble]

14 minutes ago, mererdog said:

A spiritual being of a specific religion would not always be a proper noun. Shinto has yōkai, as an example. While specific to Shinto, they are not a singular thing within Shinto (note the "they"). 

By sheer dumb luck..... I did not know enough to even remotely goof that up.... nonetheless.... your point is well made and I thank you.

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

Believe it or not....I gave this some time to sink in

 

So..... I am wondering if the terminology chosen is more lax ....perhaps because God/Supreme Being is not relative to me?

 

Or perhaps ..... it is more critical than I realized till now..... because it matters to the listener?   Therefore I am obliged to reduce confusion....maybe

 

I avoid this topic often because it’s a bit like Loch Ness monster theories (or so it seems).....I am okay with Nessie being real... but fully expect it is not.

 

Run this invisible assumptions by me one more time.... please AND THANK YOU!

von

 

 

 

Invisible assumptions are a body of belief that we accept without realizing it.  That is, the assumptions are invisible to us.  Like an iceberg.  We can see the tip of it with our minds easily.  The body of thought is submerged in our minds.  We don't realize that this mass of idea is there, beneath the surface.  It is invisible.  This can be subtle or gross.

 

How do we describe the Universe?  If we say, "Creation" -- that is one set of assumptions about God.  If we say, "Existence" -- we are not making those assumptions.

 

How do we describe our planet?  Is it "God's footstool"?  "Is it "God's Green Earth"?  Or an expression of natural forces?  Maybe "Mother Earth"?  "Third Rock from the Sun"?  "The Big Blue Marble"?  "Home"?    It all evokes something different.  Different ideas.  Different associations.  A different belief structure.  

 

What are the stars?  Are they distant suns?  Or are they the Host of Heaven?

 

If you like, I can go on.  The point is -- I think what we call things does matter.  

 

Let's magnify things.  Let's make some big invisible assumptions.  What is the purpose of religion?  To get our souls into Heaven.

 

Look at all the invisible assumptions that we just made.  We have made statements of belief about the purpose of religion; Heaven; Hell; souls; etc.  If we actually dissect all the assumptions we just made -- we could end up with a major work of theology.  All based on invisible assumptions.  We have, for instance, asserted that we have souls -- that we want to get our souls into Heaven.  Is Heaven a place?  Like Texas?  That we want to get into?  What do we actually know about Heaven?  Or souls?  How do we know this?  How do we think that we know any of this?  Based on what?

 

When we actually examine what we think we know -- what do we really know?  How do we know it?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Invisible assumptions are a body of belief that we accept without realizing it.  That is, the assumptions are invisible to us.  Like an iceberg.  We can see the tip of it with our minds easily.  The body of thought is submerged in our minds.  We don't realize that this mass of idea is there, beneath the surface.  It is invisible.  This can be subtle or gross.

 

How do we describe the Universe?  If we say, "Creation" -- that is one set of assumptions about God.  If we say, "Existence" -- we are not making those assumptions.

 

How do we describe our planet?  Is it "God's footstool"?  "Is it "God's Green Earth"?  Or an expression of natural forces?  Maybe "Mother Earth"?  "Third Rock from the Sun"?  "The Big Blue Marble"?  "Home"?    It all evokes something different.  Different ideas.  Different associations.  A different belief structure.  

 

What are the stars?  Are they distant suns?  Or are they the Host of Heaven?

 

If you like, I can go on.  The point is -- I think what we call things does matter.  

 

Let's magnify things.  Let's make some big invisible assumptions.  What is the purpose of religion?  To get our souls into Heaven.

 

Look at all the invisible assumptions that we just made.  We have made statements of belief about the purpose of religion; Heaven; Hell; souls; etc.  If we actually dissect all the assumptions we just made -- we could end up with a major work of theology.  All based on invisible assumptions.  We have, for instance, asserted that we have souls -- that we want to get our souls into Heaven.  Is Heaven a place?  Like Texas?  That we want to get into?  What do we actually know about Heaven?  Or souls?  How do we know this?  How do we think that we know any of this?  Based on what?

 

When we actually examine what we think we know -- what do we really know?  How do we know it?

 

 

 

 

It boggles my mind......

I do appreciate the more detailed walk through.   This requires a bit more work on my part.

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, VonNoble said:

It boggles my mind......

I do appreciate the more detailed walk through.   This requires a bit more work on my part.

von

 

 

 

You thought the Agnostic Way lacked substance.          

Edited March 27, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 It all evokes something different. 

You speak of Mother Earth. Let me ask you, is a mother a figure of nurturing kindness, or of overbearing control? Is a mother a thing to be longed for or a thing to be feared? Should we seek to connect with it, or to free ourselves from it?

 

The invisible assumptions you speak of are not built into the language. They are carried into the language by those who use it.

 

Two people will use the same words to mean completely different things. Two people will hear the same words and take them to mean completely different things. All based on each individual's personal assumptions about how people talk.

 

Rthym forms tone. Accent forms dialect. Familiarity forms expectation. 

 

To understand any use of language requires the answering of basic questions.

Is the use literal? Figurative? Ironic? Sardonic?  Is this idiom or jargon? Is it an unfamiliar mode of expression, or simply an overdressed word salad?

Edited March 27, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

You speak of Mother Earth. Let me ask you, is a mother a figure of nurturing kindness, or of overbearing control? Is a mother a thing to be longed for or a thing to be feared? Should we seek to connect with it, or to free ourselves from it?

 

The invisible assumptions you speak of are not built into the language. They are carried into the language by those who use it.

 

Two people will use the same words to mean completely different things. Two people will hear the same words and take them to mean completely different things. All based on each individual's personal assumptions about how people talk.

 

Rthym forms tone. Accent forms dialect. Familiarity forms expectation. 

 

To understand any use of language requires the answering of basic questions.

Is the use literal? Figurative? Ironic? Sardonic?  Is this idiom or jargon? Is it an unfamiliar mode of expression, or simply an overdressed word salad?

 

Since you raise the question, the answer is yes.  Mother is many things, exemplified by the ancient goddesses.  Consider Sekhmet, the lion headed goddess of Egypt.  She is a healing deity.  She is also a blood thirsty terror.  To her children, she is a fierce guardian.  To others, she is death incarnate.  

 

Of course, the male gods are also complicated.  (Present tense.  The old gods still have followings.)