Spirituality
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse my feer when I read yer post I blinked; back in 2011 we had a similar conversation at your thread "No Truth in ANY religion", and I will post again my answer to our Taoman, our friend that is not anymore participating in RHP:
Yep, that is the bottom line. But in modern religion "modern' meaning anything in the last 5000 years or so, they are all scams, 100% made up by men, mostly men, I would say 99% male dominated since that is what the effect is in any of the Abrahamic religions, where it is oh so co-incidental that men are just accidentally in charge of almost everything incl ...[text shortened]... born. SURE, it could happen, a being that powerful actually JEALOUS of humans?
What a laugh.
Methinks theoplacia alone is the cause of the birth of any religion. There is no such a thing as a specific religious concept that came into reality out of a non pre-existing idea; ignorance alone turned the people into religionists in first place, and these religionists stayed as ignorant as before although they had at last “the answer”. Whatever it was impossible to be answered, it was an “action of God” or “God’s message”…
It never occurred in the universal history of the religions a pure theoplacia that brought up a single religion that was not based on the field of ignorance or on pure fantasy. Every new religion is a metalaxis or an exelixis of a previous one, even when both of them have a quite different moral axis; this is, for example, the reason why from the model of Dionyssos we came to the model of Jesus: although the two personas are quite different, the latter is a meta-concept of the former. In addition, Christianity could never consolidate its authority if it was not based on previous theoplacia’s concepts. In fact, for the fundamental Christian (regardless of denomination) everything that represents the pro-Christian religious beliefs (and the beliefs of religions that emerged after Christianity, ie Islam), is supposed to be evil, it is supposed that it “derives from Satan”.
So I see no such a thing as a religious gene; and I do not rely on gods. I just see the endless agony of the mankind during its struggle to find something solid to stand on firmly. But there is nothing solid; just
Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy
😵
16 Feb 16
Originally posted by googlefudge"And, for God's sake, don't stand between me and the mirror."
[hidden] [Speaking as the thread suggests for myself and without claiming my views as anything other than my own personal views with no claim to speak for anyone else] [/hidden]
'Unbelievers' is such a clunky [and indeed pejorative term]... 'Atheists' will do. [hidden] [capitalised only at the start of a sentence] [/hidden] ...[text shortened]... ut doesn't represent some fundamental or isolatable physical process or 'force of nature'.
[/i]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Feb 16
Originally posted by black beetleThis. Absolutely this.
Sonhouse my feer when I read yer post I blinked; back in 2011 we had a similar conversation at your thread "No Truth in ANY religion", and I will post again my answer to our Taoman, our friend that is not anymore participating in RHP:
Methinks theoplacia alone is the cause of the birth of any religion. There is no such a thing as a specific religious ...[text shortened]... solid to stand on firmly. But there is nothing solid; just
Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy
😵
16 Feb 16
Originally posted by black beetleI couldn't find a reference to 'theoplacia' except for RHP pieces. What is the definition of that term?
Sonhouse my feer when I read yer post I blinked; back in 2011 we had a similar conversation at your thread "No Truth in ANY religion", and I will post again my answer to our Taoman, our friend that is not anymore participating in RHP:
Methinks theoplacia alone is the cause of the birth of any religion. There is no such a thing as a specific religious ...[text shortened]... solid to stand on firmly. But there is nothing solid; just
Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy
😵
Originally posted by josephwI said forum, not thread.
As of your post there are only four posts you must be referring to. Three of which seem to denounce God as merely the figment of the imagination.
Aside from the other three posts, how is my declaration that God is the creator sanctimonious? After all, I'm not the author of such a claim, but merely one who believes in it. Assuming you are referring to me, ...[text shortened]... nk you are admittedly better educated, and I wouldn't stand a chance debating with you.[/hidden]
Originally posted by sonhouse“Theoplacia” [Theoplacia > Theos + plastis (Greek) = God + creator hence the action of creating God theories/ religions, as is the case regarding Mythoplacia > Mythoplacy (Mythos – Myth + plastis – creator hence the action of creating myths) is a Greek word I ‘ve seen years ago in Grivas’ Sociological Lexicon; Grivas describes and analyzes the term theoplacy (Theoplacia) starting from the point of view of Xenophanes, the Pre-Socratic who attacked the anthropomorphic descriptions of the divine deities claiming that the image of the differ gods is relative to the region and the culture of the persons that expressed these beliefs. According to Grivas, theoplacia/ -y is a specific form of mythoplacia/ -y and the core of the creation of the religious concepts regarding the image of gods; the term is accepted by Greek sociologists.
I couldn't find a reference to 'theoplacia' except for RHP pieces. What is the definition of that term?
I don’t have the Lexicon right now in my office but at home, so if you need further details about this Greek publication and the theoplacy concept I can relay them to you later or tomorrow.
Anyway, back in 2009, Mar. 6, at the thread “The God Machine” I answered to our FabianFnas using bits and pieces from Grivas’s two pages analysis;
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/the-god-machine.109384
😵
17 Feb 16
Originally posted by black beetleSounds like old Xeno was a smart guy. So here we have the exact same thing going on with the Abrahamic religions and most of the rest. One can see why one would assign human attributes to a newly minted religion but the actuality of it, really stupid but the duped ones just don't go there, besotted with the new religion and all.
“Theoplacia” [Theoplacia > Theos + plastis (Greek) = God + creator hence the action of creating God theories/ religions, as is the case regarding Mythoplacia > Mythoplacy (Mythos – Myth + plastis – creator hence the action of creating myths) is a Greek word I ‘ve seen years ago in Grivas’ Sociological Lexicon; Grivas describes and analyzes the term theo ...[text shortened]... as’s two pages analysis;
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/the-god-machine.109384
😵
How dumb do they think people are when they come up with crap like 'I am a jealous god'? What that does is in the minds of the duped, to elevate humans to some kind of plane they think putting humans closer to some hypothetical godhood when in fact all it does is expose the originators as charlatans if anyone actually thought about it but of course that is the LAST thing the originators want, actual critical thinking about their alleged deity.
