Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You exaggerate a lot.
In all fairness I can't be exaggerating because heres were I explain the difference.
Originally posted by DeadlineTake the Norse gods . The Norse gods were born, and they die. They did not create the universe they were created by the universe and played a part in creating it. Just like humans. Norse gods are not all-powerful, ominpresent or ominpotent and neither are humans.
[/B]
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does everyone always disagree with you, and misunderstand you? If so...
Nope.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
By any definition that does exist, humans cannot be defined as gods. A half human and half god is a demigod.
But in heathenism whole tribes have called themselves gods. The word god comes from the old norse goth it evolved into god the same way Othin evolved into Odin.
Originally posted by Deadline
In all fairness I can't be exaggerating because heres were I explain the difference.Nope.
But in heathenism whole tribes have called themselves gods. The word god comes from the old norse goth it evolved into god the same way Othin evolved into Odin.
However, all gods have one thing in common: they are considered to be more powerful then humans. To say that humans are gods is to diminish this basic definition. Even where cultures have deified a person, that person was given powers greater then all other humans.
In the past, it may have been common to deify a leader, but today that is cultural taboo. Definitions change, as humans change. Therefore, to say humans can be considered gods is not acceptable under a modern definition.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, all gods have one thing in common: they are considered to be more powerful then humans. To say that humans are gods is to diminish this basic definition. Even where cultures have deified a person, that person was given powers greater then all other humans.
Ok but I think we went over this. Its relative that still doesn't mean that humans can't fit the defintion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the past, it may have been common to deify a leader, but today that is cultural taboo. Definitions change, as humans change. Therefore, to say humans can be considered gods is not acceptable under a modern definition.
I once called myself svartgoth meaning black god. No heathens freaked out.
Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but I think we went over this. Its relative that still doesn't mean that humans can't fit the defintion.
Humans do not fit the current definition of a god. If you are going to use archaic definitions, then I can use Buddhist definitions, and therefore, gods do not exist.
Originally posted by Deadline
I once called myself svartgoth meaning black god. No heathens freaked out.
I got freaked out. I didn't know why at the time, but now... 😆
Originally posted by Deadline
Current defintion according to who? The Christian defintion should not the only one referred to.
Most of the time I would zing you for using popularity to support your claim, but definitions are the one time that popularity counts.
Originally posted by Deadline
Are you telling me that the heathen definition of a god is inccorrect? Of course not its a matter of opinion.
I'm telling you that all gods are just a part of mythology, and not real.
Originally posted by Deadline
Uhhhhhh. Lets be adult about this.
I've done that for most of my life. I'm tired of it. 😉
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most of the time I would zing you for using popularity to support your claim, but definitions are the one time that popularity counts.
and lots of people think that gods are just extremely powerful beings and not neccesarily supernatural. Even if you look at the defintion of what supernatural is one of the defintions is that it seems to break the laws of nature.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm telling you that all gods are just a part of mythology, and not real.
Yeah but I explained this to you already. No offence this is another point you didn't get, im not trying to be a jerk here. As I said fiction is often a creation for what is plausible.
Originally posted by Deadline
and lots of people think that gods are just extremely powerful beings and not neccesarily supernatural. Even if you look at the defintion of what supernatural is one of the defintions is that it seems to break the laws of nature.
That would be a reasonable definition.
Originally posted by Deadline
Yeah but I explained this to you already. No offence this is another point you didn't get, im not trying to be a jerk here. As I said fiction is often a creation for what is plausible.
You asked me what I was telling you. I am not going to tell you something I do not believe. I truly believe that gods are part of mythology, and not real. In other words, all god are equal in that they are all products of the mind.
Originally posted by Deadline
Stop pretending thats the only correct defintion and im making shit up.
And stop attacking words I've never said. I never claimed to have the only correct definition for a god. In fact, I went out of my way to state that the definition I used was only my opinion, no one else's. In fact, that's part of the hilarity of our debate here: there's as many definitions of God and gods as there are people to believe in them. Anything could be a god, or nothing could be. But everything in the universe exists in a causal world dictated by our physical laws. Call the different aspects of it what you will, but that much remains.
You insist on reiterating that something with no evidence is not only possible but plausible. And I'm not talking about your alien pagan gods, but things like a higher entity being the cause of earthquakes instead of plate tectonics, which is an example you brought up, not I. Possible, sure. Plausible, hell no. But fine, whatever. You're unequivocally wrong. That's my strident opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no headway is being made.
Everything else you're saying is relatively reasonable, if needlessly obtuse. If you focus on the common ground with others instead of trying to make every point contentious, you'd at least be able to come to an understanding with us instead of acting like "we just don't get it" as you've repeatedly claimed.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would be a reasonable definition.
Which is my defintion of a god, which is the defintion of a pagan god or any god small g.
Originally posted by Digi
And stop attacking words I've never said. I never claimed to have the only correct definition for a god. In fact, I went out of my way to state that the definition I used was only my opinion, no one else's. In fact, that's part of the hilarity of our debate here: there's as many definitions of God and gods as there are people to believe in them. Anything could be a god, or nothing could be. But everything in the universe exists in a causal world dictated by our physical laws. Call the different aspects of it what you will, but that much remains.
No theres nothing hilarious. Let me elaborate. Lets say we are discussing the defintion of good, we both agree that Ghandi and Martin Luther King are good people. I then decide that Stalin and Marqus de Sade fit the defintion of what good is. Obvoulsy at that point you would start questioning what my defintion of good is wouldn't you? You wouldn't question my defintion if I put Ghandi in there.
Some how you seem to think that what your defintion of a god is the acceptable one but using my definition is somehow redefining the word. Not at all. Interestingly enough a common deintion of the word supernatural is something that seems to break the laws of nature. Also when were talking about gods (small g), the Christian defintion of what a god is has no place in this debate. Most people when discussing a god would expect it not to be neccesarily omnipotent, so im not redefining anything.
No where have a seen a defintion of god in the dictionary being the universe.
Originally posted by Digi
You insist on reiterating that something with no evidence is not only possible but plausible. And I'm not talking about your alien pagan gods, but things like a higher entity being the cause of earthquakes instead of plate tectonics, which is an example you brought up, not I. Possible, sure. Plausible, hell no. But fine, whatever. You're unequivocally wrong. That's my strident opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no headway is being made.
Um Digi. What I consider to be plausible and possible is my "alien pagan gods" and I think its plausible for beings like that to cause earthquakes and I define them as a highier entity...you don't.
Originally posted by Digi
Everything else you're saying is relatively reasonable, if needlessly obtuse. If you focus on the common ground with others instead of trying to make every point contentious, you'd at least be able to come to an understanding with us instead of acting like "we just don't get it" as you've repeatedly claimed.
Nope you're not and you proved it again. It might be how im explaing myself but Shaky pretty much proved at one point at least he clearly missed a point I clearly specified.
Originally posted by Deadline
Which is my defintion of a god, which is the defintion of a pagan god or any god small g...
But what's more interestion is what kind of god do you use a capital G?
The term paga god was coined by the Christians.
I use small g for all gods, and capital G for the Mystic Law.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But what's more interestion is what kind of god do you use a capital G?
Monotheistic god eg Islam, Christanity and Judaism. There is only one god.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The term paga god was coined by the Christians.I use small g for all gods, and capital G for the Mystic Law.
I don't know what your point is. Everybody knows who Thor, Odin, and Zeus are. Everybody knows that before Christanity there were pagan gods and they were essentially powerful beings. You don't even have to call them pagan gods they're just gods.
Originally posted by Deadline
Monotheistic god eg Islam, Christanity and Judaism. There is only one god.
You just named 3 gods there. If you are going to say those 3 different gods are really the same god, then you need to include Ra, the other Monotheistic god.
Originally posted by Deadline
I don't know what your point is. Everybody knows who Thor, Odin, and Zeus are. Everybody knows that before Christanity there were pagan gods and they were essentially powerful beings. You don't even have to call them pagan gods they're just gods.
Thor, Odin, and Zeus have something in common with the gods of Islam, Christanity and Judaism: they are all man made.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You just named 3 gods there. If you are going to say those 3 different gods are really the same god, then you need to include Ra, the other Monotheistic god.
Why do I need to include Ra im just giving you an example of a monotheistic god. I could have included Shiva as well.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thor, Odin, and Zeus have something in common with the gods of Islam, Christanity and Judaism: they are all man made.
Whats your point? Just because Odin is fictional doesn't mean god are.
Originally posted by Deadline
...Whats your point? Just because Odin is fictional doesn't mean god are.
Sure it does. Think about Zeus. There was an entire civilization that believed in Zeus. They didn't just think it was a good story; they believed it. They spent a lot of their time and money building temples out of stone to Zeus. They structured their society around this god, and he was not real.
Fast forward to today. We have an entire civilization that believes in YHWH (the Christian god). They don't just think it was a good story; they believe it. They spend a lot of their time and money building Churches out of stone to YHWH. We have structured our society around this god, and he is no more real then Zeus was.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure it does. Think about Zeus. There was an entire civilization that believed in Zeus. They didn't just think it was a good story; they believed it. They spent a lot of their time and money building temples out of stone to Zeus. They structured their society around this god, and he was not real.Fast forward to today. We have an entire civilization that believes in YHWH (the Christian god). They don't just think it was a good story; they believe it. They spend a lot of their time and money building Churches out of stone to YHWH. We have structured our society around this god, and he is no more real then Zeus was.
That statement doesn't prove anything. That just you saying that they're not real, what exactly does your post prove?
By the way that was supposed to be gods not god in my last post.