Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
Another thread says the gods/spirits/what have you don't give a damn. What attitude DO posters here want, I ask? I mean we have a spectrum running from divine bridegroom as gushes a St. Theresa of Avila, all the way to the casual hostility of the Lovecraftian universe's gods. So, where do your expectations fall? Personally I get along fine with treatment like Wotan's---sometimes paying attention, others ignoring me, and sometimes playing me. Often inconvenient, but plenty of elbow room left for me.
If there are such things as 'Gods' at all (which I personally have serious doubts about) then I didn't make them & they didn't make me so we're quits on that score. By definition, a 'God' must be both omniscient & omnipotent - otherwise they cannot possibly be anything remotely resembling a 'supreme being', and I see no signs at all of any omniscient creatures in this world at all - and don't get onto the whole 'free will' thing either, as that's a red herring.
What I do see signs of are other intelligences that seem to exist on a different plane to us (and I am not referring to anything modern physicists term the 'Multiverse' as that is utter BS) - we can only 'see' a tiny portion of the spectrum of light and it is highly likely there are creatures all around us that we cannot percieve any more than most of them are able to precieve us but that is no argument to go around 'believing' in them.
Can they be contacted? Almost certainly YES - but therein lies a dilemma that should be obvious to all.
What attitude do I want to see here? Above all else, honesty!
If you genuinely believe in an actual God, then that's perfectly okay with me - just because I don't accept that idea does not make me right (and I will always reserve the right to change any of my opinions if presented with suitable evidence) any more than an absolute belief in any Gods makes the believer right. We could all be wrong - after all, is it not written ' There are more things in Heaven & Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy'?
I really hate the idea that you have to propiate the gods by means of regular offerings, I might as well go to church every Sunday espousing that attitude. Like Terry Pratchett said, such behaviour only encourages them. I'm mostly RHP because I was born a goody two-shoes but I must say I'm impressed with that Lucifer myth according to which he said to the Big Guy: "Non serviam - I will not serve!" No experience with gods so far but I don't intend to prostrate myself before them.
Nevertheless, there might be something to the devotional approach some people are so fond of. I read somewhere that God doesn't get anything out of our prayers - he's omniscient so he knows exactly what we're going to say, and he's omnipotent, so our praise is just empty flattery to him. Prayers are for the person praying, not for God, you open yourself up to God; might be useful prelude to invocation/evocation. That's the theory at least, I have not had the opportunity to put it into practice yet.
You won't get any argument from me on most of the above, although it is amusing that you can think of an alien species being 'more intelligent' than an allegedly 'Supreme Being' (which is what a 'God' is supposed to be). What happened to Omniscience & Omnipotence? I shudder to think of how bad a stupid 'God' could make things, but I digress.
As for the Alien species, they are definitely out there. I would agree that we are being visited too, but as to their intent - who can say.
Certainly not me.
Now we're talking - although as you already said this has nothing to do with Gods, which was kinda my point too.
The purpose of the Universe is to create and to grow - despite what modern physicists try to tell us, the end result will never be a state of Entropy, as the longer & further we look the more complex things seem to be and the general trend seems to be increasing complexity, not a gradual 'running down' but then again what do we expect from a cosmology that has it's roots in Genesis 1:1 with it's insane concept of 'Big Bangs' - to borrow a quote from Pratchett again 'In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded'.
for me its simple. i noticed some in the world see me as goddess in their lives. at first i found that strange and tried to help, but learned fast that doing such a thing is detriment to my own life. i had to make some changes and the few who are worthy somehow i have shown im human and that they need to realign and learn. others i had to learn to let go and let them live their own lives and last but not least i had to learn to accept im more then most humans. i also had set myself as goal to learn to enjoy life and smile. that took me a while, but with friends from other paradigms i learned it can be fun how other perceive you. now im learning to not give a damn while giving a damn.
in the vampire lane i had to made known that not only worship tastes disgusting, it is also bad juju. what others do or like is not my problem, this is how i be.
godhead is a way of acting that i cant explain, i am.
I was taught growing up that one should ONLY have a personal relationship with Jehovah, presented as "the only true God and creator of all things." By prayer and personal sacrifice, I think there's a tiny bit of magic in that egregore "according to His Will." Of course, I wasn't taught Cabbala in my youth, only a rather Protestant, literal understanding of much of the Bible with some parts reserved for "interpretation."
My current expectations fall somewhere along the lines of Voodoo. There is a Creator god that is far off and is respected, but no one deals directly with it. Instead, one deals with a small pantheon of deities, not unlike those of the Greeks and Romans. This is the long term established pattern of humanity. As with any relationship, you get out of it what you put into it. Voodoo includes the dead, something which I think we in the West have a problem with due to the extreme beliefs of Christianity. I wouldn't call it ancestor "worship," but a recognition that our ancestors are deserving of respect. They can become our strongest allies. I think the goal of an occultist is to contact and develop relationships with as broad a spectrum of the spirit world as possible. One can have a "best friend" among the spirits. That shouldn't preclude getting to know others.
This works for me too. In any first approach I follow the default for any new relationship, which to me is respect. It seems that separation and social strata managed to transform respect into worship, mostly with the convenient (for whoever has the upper hand) addition of fear.
I won't include fear in my default. And if I am ever required to be afraid of the other, I will just move on. Perhaps here we hit semantics and degrees between respect, veneration and worship, but regardless... what I'd want from the gods in principle is not that different from what I'd want from anyone else. Some authenticity, and readiness to communicate and exchange. And if we meet and it works, great. And if not, it can't be helped.
Of course I'm aware that, even staying paradigm agnostic, gods are entities that function in a different order of reality. Higher, deeper, older or whatever adjective every paradigm likes. But rather than tripping over something that perhaps cannot be named, I'd approach them like an ancient elder shared by a lot of folks, and see how communication goes. In my experience there is at least a connection between ancestors are gods, so I also could say that
Anton Parks introduces the concept of Life Designers. Apparently these are profound beings that move around the universe generating new life forms
A possible example is the hemoglobin molecule that has an iron atom at its center. The chlorophyll molecule is almost identical except that it has a magnesium molecule at its center.
What a lot of design effort that saves.
The Sumerian gods that bred the Earth humans as slaves are much less profound. They mixed their own genetics with that of a hominid already on the planet. How crude is that?
How was it that the hominid had compatible genetics? Had the Life Designers passed through millions of years before?
If there are such things as 'Gods' at all (which I personally have serious doubts about) then I didn't make them & they didn't make me so we're quits on that score. By definition, a 'God' must be both omniscient & omnipotent - otherwise they cannot possibly be anything remotely resembling a 'supreme being', and I see no signs at all of any omniscient creatures in this world at all - and don't get onto the whole 'free will' thing either, as that's a red herring.
What I do see signs of are other intelligences that seem to exist on a different plane to us (and I am not referring to anything modern physicists term the 'Multiverse' as that is utter BS) - we can only 'see' a tiny portion of the spectrum of light and it is highly likely there are creatures all around us that we cannot percieve any more than most of them are able to precieve us but that is no argument to go around 'believing' in them.
Can they be contacted? Almost certainly YES - but therein lies a dilemma that should be obvious to all.
What attitude do I want to see here? Above all else, honesty!
If you genuinely believe in an actual God, then that's perfectly okay with me - just because I don't accept that idea does not make me right (and I will always reserve the right to change any of my opinions if presented with suitable evidence) any more than an absolute belief in any Gods makes the believer right. We could all be wrong - after all, is it not written ' There are more things in Heaven & Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy'?
Actually the notion of a god as omniscient, all powerful etc. is fairly recent. It was unknown to the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Celts, Teutons...(I can go on.) I think the big event was when Christian/Jew/Muslim theologians got drunk on Greek philosophy.
Peter Carroll wrote that whether you're looking at a god, a demon, spirit, a force depends a great deal on the belief system standing in. The Cambridge dictionary is pretty modest. A god is, "a
Quite so. There is part of the standard human that is
Post automatically merged:
Anton Parks introduces the concept of Life Designers. Apparently these are profound beings that move around the universe generating new life forms
A possible example is the hemoglobin molecule that has an iron atom at its center. The chlorophyll molecule is almost identical except that it has a magnesium molecule at its center.
What a lot of design effort that saves.
The Sumerian gods that bred the Earth humans as slaves are much less profound. They mixed their own genetics with that of a hominid already on the planet. How crude is that?
How was it that the hominid had compatible genetics? Had the Life Designers passed through millions of years before?
Crude? I dunno. Genesis actually sounds passably poetic: "The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were good in appearance; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men of old, men of renown." (Gen 6:2-4)
This works for me too. In any first approach I follow the default for any new relationship, which to me is respect. It seems that separation and social strata managed to transform respect into worship, mostly with the convenient (for whoever has the upper hand) addition of fear.
I won't include fear in my default. And if I am ever required to be afraid of the other, I will just move on. Perhaps here we hit semantics and degrees between respect, veneration and worship, but regardless... what I'd want from the gods in principle is not that different from what I'd want from anyone else. Some authenticity, and readiness to communicate and exchange. And if we meet and it works, great. And if not, it can't be helped.
Of course I'm aware that, even staying paradigm agnostic, gods are entities that function in a different order of reality. Higher, deeper, older or whatever adjective every paradigm likes. But rather than tripping over something that perhaps cannot be named, I'd approach them like an ancient elder shared by a lot of folks, and see how communication goes. In my experience there is at least a connection between ancestors are gods, so I also could say that
Yes, quite so. The suck-up stance turned me off of an otherwise impeccable brand of Satanism I was looking into. Where Christians bent the knee to their semite saivour, the Satanists preached strength and independence...and then sucked up to their eidolon using the same fawning, toadying verbiage. WTF the fekk says I, having egressed the nearest exit.
Yes, quite so. The suck-up stance turned me off of an otherwise impeccable brand of Satanism I was looking into. Where Christians bent the knee to their semite saivour, the Satanists preached strength and independence...and then sucked up to their eidolon using the same fawning, toadying verbiage. WTF the fekk says I, having egressed the nearest exit.
I haven't had any experience in non-christian groups like the one you mention. But it would seem that it boils down to which kinds of relationship people have had with authority, right? With either mundane or transcendent authority. Changing the relationship mechanics at their core seems much more difficult than just turning the doctrine upside down.
Actually the notion of a god as omniscient, all powerful etc. is fairly recent. It was unknown to the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Celts, Teutons...(I can go on.) I think the big event was when Christian/Jew/Muslim theologians got drunk on Greek philosophy.
Peter Carroll wrote that whether you're looking at a god, a demon, spirit, a force depends a great deal on the belief system standing in. The Cambridge dictionary is pretty modest. A god is, "a
I like your turn of phrase there and plan to plagiarize it.
Post automatically merged:
Crude? I dunno. Genesis actually sounds passably poetic: "The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were good in appearance; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men of old, men of renown." (Gen 6:2-4)
Post automatically merged:
Yes, quite so. The suck-up stance turned me off of an otherwise impeccable brand of Satanism I was looking into. Where Christians bent the knee to their semite saivour, the Satanists preached strength and independence...and then sucked up to their eidolon using the same fawning, toadying verbiage. WTF the fekk says I, having egressed the nearest exit.
Some odd ideas of what constitutes a 'God' there!
The Genesis quote I would have to agree with Sitchin and say that this sounds like flesh & blood creatures to me, not any sort of God - even with the modern somewhat fast & loose definition offered by the Cambridge Dictionary. By those definitions, political leaders are 'Gods' because they have control over the lives of ordinary citizens - like policemen as well. So I am really, truly sorry buit I cannot accept those definitions - they are not 'Gods' even though a lot of them seem to think they are these days.
What I suspect we have is a case of other intelligences, be they from a different plane or a different location in our universe (or on our plane) pretending to be gods, using religion as a means of control. It's a time-honoured tactic, after all.
Humans that feel they lack spiritual authority may find comfort in believing in a greater power that will save/benefit them - if they follow the rules or worship enough.
My own observation of relatives/friends after death is that their situation is nothing like I was taught in Christianity
Humans that feel they lack spiritual authority may find comfort in believing in a greater power that will save/benefit them - if they follow the rules or worship enough.
My own observation of relatives/friends after death is that their situation is nothing like I was taught in Christianity
That's the issue I have with all forms of organized religion - the obvious extension is that if you don't follow the rules or worship enough then nothing happens & it's all your fault and the blame game moves to a new level when you add in the fear of failure to the 'faithful'.
The Abrahamic religions are all a grift, pure & simple - and most of the fringe ones are too (and I only say 'most' because I have not studied all of them so don't know for sure). It's basically saying that 'if you obey my rules & worship me I will give meaning to your life'.
I am sure there are those who honestly believe that their chosen religion has helped them in some way, and I wish nothing but good luck & long life to all of them, whatever the chosen belief system is. If it helps you, then who am I to say it's wrong.
Where I do start to have issues is with creatures that pretend to be Gods in order to obtain power over their believers.
Some odd ideas of what constitutes a 'God' there!
The Genesis quote I would have to agree with Sitchin and say that this sounds like flesh & blood creatures to me, not any sort of God - even with the modern somewhat fast & loose definition offered by the Cambridge Dictionary. By those definitions, political leaders are 'Gods' because they have control over the lives of ordinary citizens - like policemen as well. So I am really, truly sorry buit I cannot accept those definitions - they are not 'Gods' even though a lot of them seem to think they are these days.
What I suspect we have is a case of other intelligences, be they from a different plane or a different location in our universe (or on our plane) pretending to be gods, using religion as a means of control. It's a time-honoured tactic, after all.
The Cambridge definition pretty well sums gods as traditionally construed throughout most of human history. Look at the Greek gods, fighting side by side with Homer's heroes. Look at the old Teutonic gods: Wotan, Thor, Tyr and others DIE at Ragnarork. Look at the gods of East Asia: it's hard in China and Japan to tell where gods shade off into ancestral or local spirits. Your insistence that gods have to trail a tail of omni--this, that, and the other thing is really highly parochial, being a prejudice of Middle Eastern provenance with perversions of Greek philosophy. If you want to use that conception, fine. But, as just stated, it's an upstart notion and Johnny-come-lately theology, being highly localized and with a few thousand years' pedigree at best.
The Cambridge definition pretty well sums gods as traditionally construed throughout most of human history. Look at the Greek gods, fighting side by side with Homer's heroes. Look at the old Teutonic gods: Wotan, Thor, Tyr and others DIE at Ragnarork. Look at the gods of East Asia: it's hard in China and Japan to tell where gods shade off into ancestral or local spirits. Your insistence that gods have to trail a tail of omni--this, that, and the other thing is really highly parochial, being a prejudice of Middle Eastern provenance with perversions of Greek philosophy. If you want to use that conception, fine. But, as just stated, it's an upstart notion and Johnny-come-lately theology, being highly localized and with a few thousand years' pedigree at best.
You're almost making my point for me here - the quoted examples seem more like flesh & blood living, thinking creatures - not 'Gods'.
This can of course depend on your interpretation of the meaning of the word - there are several, and there are 2 different, distinct spellings as well - it makes a difference whether or not we are using upper case G or lower case g:
With lower-case, spelled 'god' we get these definitions:
1 - a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force: Related adjective: divine
2 - an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3 - any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god
4 - a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men
With Upper case, spelled 'God' we get a different, theological meaning:
1 - the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
All this is still relatively new, though and I suspect a lot has been changed in translation - just look at the Christian/Jewish Bible, where the prophecy of the Messiah in Isiah being 'Born of a Virgin' is a nonsensical mistranslation of the original word 'Almah', which meant concubine, handmaiden - anything BUT 'Virgin' and I really doubt that the Ancient Greeks thought of 'Gods' in the same way that is colloquially meant in these times.
Original usage seems to have always referred to physical beings. Not Immortal, Supernatural Deities. (and FWIW, I hate the word 'Supernatural' - it is an oxymoron)
You're almost making my point for me here - the quoted examples seem more like flesh & blood living, thinking creatures - not 'Gods'.
This can of course depend on your interpretation of the meaning of the word - there are several, and there are 2 different, distinct spellings as well - it makes a difference whether or not we are using upper case G or lower case g:
With lower-case, spelled 'god' we get these definitions:
1 - a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force: Related adjective: divine
2 - an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3 - any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god
4 - a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men
With Upper case, spelled 'God' we get a different, theological meaning:
1 - the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
All this is still relatively new, though and I suspect a lot has been changed in translation - just look at the Christian/Jewish Bible, where the prophecy of the Messiah in Isiah being 'Born of a Virgin' is a nonsensical mistranslation of the original word 'Almah', which meant concubine, handmaiden - anything BUT 'Virgin' and I really doubt that the Ancient Greeks thought of 'Gods' in the same way that is colloquially meant in these times.
Original usage seems to have always referred to physical beings. Not Immortal, Supernatural Deities. (and FWIW, I hate the word 'Supernatural' - it is an oxymoron)
In my post I used the lower case "g" to cast the god net as widely as possible. I can scarcely be taken to the woodshed for not catering to the tastes a congregation I never undertook to preach to.
As for the upper case God being omnipotent etc, etc, there is a strain of modern theology that denies this. Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne's "process theology" argues at great length that one is nowise constrained to attribute the omni's to God.
Likewise, the late John Lawry argued pretty persuasively that the Old Testament God, while a creator, is scarcely omnipotent. If I recall my Hebrew, "El-Shaddai" means "the destroyer" or "the overpowering," not the "Almighty."
I haven't had any experience in non-christian groups like the one you mention. But it would seem that it boils down to which kinds of relationship people have had with authority, right? With either mundane or transcendent authority. Changing the relationship mechanics at their core seems much more difficult than just turning the doctrine upside down.
To be fair, most Satanists do make a valiant effort at changing relationship mechanics. It's just that, when they want to wax lyrical, a certain number channel their childhood memories of the Reverend Billy Joe Tolliver at the Primitive Babtist Brethren Tabernacle in Backwater, Texas. With, as noted, the needful substitution of names.
