Theism = Personification of phenomena?

[Pae]

Right? Isn't that what theism is?

Good feelings or experiences: Good deity's will.

Bad feelings or experiences: Evil deity's will.

Also sometimes one deity is responsible for both good and evil, but I think you get my point.

It seems some people personify reality and phenomena, and we call these people ''theists''.

 

[Pae]

Too add: Some people could personify phenomena without viewing the enity as a god thus not making them a theist.

 

[elliotfc]

Right? Isn't that what theism is?

Good feelings or experiences: Good deity's will.

Bad feelings or experiences: Evil deity's will.

Also sometimes one deity is responsible for both good and evil, but I think you get my point.

It seems some people personify reality and phenomena, and we call these people ''theists''.

I'll bite with an aside.

Many self-called theists do *not* personify God. They view God as a cause, a reason, something beyond our reality. Phenonema is relegated to the natural order, of which God is distinct.

I think the self-chosen label of theist is done for either the above reason, or, to get closer to the above reason as do all of the other theists...who don't call themselves theists, but choose another more specific title.

Of course I reckon that it is *natural* to have a personification of God...or gods...so natural that God caved and gave us Jesus.

-Elliot

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Many self-called theists do *not* personify God. They view God as a cause, a reason, something beyond our reality. Phenonema is relegated to the natural order, of which God is distinct.

That must be the reason why so many people talk to "Him."

 

[blutoski]

Right? Isn't that what theism is?

Good feelings or experiences: Good deity's will.

Bad feelings or experiences: Evil deity's will.

Also sometimes one deity is responsible for both good and evil, but I think you get my point.

It seems some people personify reality and phenomena, and we call these people ''theists''.

I have a half-baked idea of my own that I'd like to hoist up the flagpole to see who salutes: that belief in the monotheistic God is a response to the recognition that there is no justice in this lifetime, and inventing eternal justice to compensate.

In other words: it's the anthropomorphization of the universe to provide it with the intelligence and morals to consistently execute human justice.

 

[This Guy]

I'm of the opinion that it's a combination of the above, plus an unwillingness to accept that we will, at some point, simply die, and be no more.

I suspect that initially Gods were created to explain things that could not be explained any other way.

Somewhere along the line the idea that those that escape judgment in this life would be punished in some later (or after) life came along.

And, if your gonna judge and punish folks after they die, then surely there must be a reward for those that did good.

These last two also provide for the continuation of our "spirit". Which allows us to believe that our spirit (which I believe is a term evolved from our initially limited understanding of our consciousness) will go on living after our bodies have stopped functioning.

I tend to believe that many otherwise skeptical folks would shed their belief in a god, if they could accept that when they die, they die. I believe that is a hard concept for many folks to accept.

While these are my opinions, they are not based on any great study. They are based on what I've seen/heard/felt over the years. And as with most of my opinions, they are subject to change should evidence suggest otherwise.

And of course I'm also of the opinion that opinions are like A-Holes. Everyone has one, and they all stink

 

[Pae]

I'll bite with an aside.

Many self-called theists do *not* personify God. They view God as a cause, a reason, something beyond our reality. Phenonema is relegated to the natural order, of which God is distinct.

I don't care whether you call it a god, a cause, or both. My point is, ''it'' has human qualities.

 

[slingblade]

I don't care whether you call it a god, a cause, or both. My point is why does ''it'' have human qualities?

Because sentience has two flavors, as far as we know: human and not.
There may be other flavors out there, but we haven't tasted them yet. And we can't seem to bear the elevation of something non-human to a place above us in the hierarchy, so......human, but just a little bit better than human: superhuman.

God. Mah Heavenly Father, mah King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Alpha and Omega.

Who will not let me win the lottery.

 

[Bikewer]

I just read through a big encyclopedia of mythology, and it's apparent that most all early "gods" were personifications of natural phenomena that our primitive ancestors found hard to explain.
Thunder and lightning, annual flooding, earthquakes, even the fecundity of domestic animals and the bounty of agriculture.

This I'm sure would have risen (along with human culture) from previous notions of Animism, in which nearly everything in nature had it's corresponding "spirit".

All of these early gods were anthromorphic; even up to the pantheons of the Greeks gods were decidedly human in terms of wants, desires, and activities.

 

[elliotfc]

I don't care whether you call it a god, a cause, or both. My point is, ''it'' has human qualities.

And my point is/was that some theists would reject that God has human qualities.

Again, when we say theist, we're usually talking about people distinct from the established religions. Meaning, you could think theist is the general category, and all other religions are sub-categories, but self-proclaimed theists typically reject, specifically, many dogmas of established religion, and when they define their ideas, they are in contrast to those of religions. Anthropomorphism being one point of differentiation.

I'd say that *believer in God* is the general category, and theist is a subcategory.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I have a half-baked idea of my own that I'd like to hoist up the flagpole to see who salutes: that belief in the monotheistic God is a response to the recognition that there is no justice in this lifetime, and inventing eternal justice to compensate.

In other words: it's the anthropomorphization of the universe to provide it with the intelligence and morals to consistently execute human justice.

It's a reasonable idea! So reasonable that...well, you know.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I'm of the opinion that it's a combination of the above, plus an unwillingness to accept that we will, at some point, simply die, and be no more.

I think that others are unwilling to accept that we will, at some point, not simply die, and not be no more.

I think that some people's reaction to God will be just that. "Can't you just let me die? Can't I choose oblivion as opposed to the other two options?"

-Elliot