Polygamy and Polyandry

[Gatekeeper]

Now, polygamy and the natural nurturing aspect of … or we can just call it an extended family unit who enjoy together what, well … I'd think what most humans enjoy. It would help with nannies and childcare expenses too. No kidding … it just makes sense. Then again, I'm flat broke 23 cents in my bank account, and great difficulty getting my career started again, so I may just have to go it alone from here on out.

 

[wil]

By definition 'supernatural' is that which lies beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature, so 'God' is logically 'supernatural' or 'metanatural' or whatever ...

Absolutely... And over the years science slowly has explained many if the miracles and plagues formerly attributed to gods and moved a lot of stuff from the supernatural realm to the natural realm.

The debate today is whether it will all move eventually...

 

[Gatekeeper]

Absolutely... And over the years science slowly has explained many if the miracles and plagues formerly attributed to gods and moved a lot of stuff from the supernatural realm to the natural realm.

The debate today is whether it will all move eventually...

All move? I'm not sure the reasoning behind that statement or question. Move from supernatural to natural, or the idea of anything being supernatural at all, on to where all things truly are … Natural. Except for things like new species introduced into areas that aren't accustomed or suited for them, but then that's not super natural. It's more like trying to make a dirt sandwich taste good to a human who is accustomed to the finest and most delicious cuisine., or like trying to force a mouse to fight an elephant. Sooner or later the mouse is gonna end up flat … and likely unintentionally.

 

[Thomas]

Absolutely... And over the years science slowly has explained many if the miracles and plagues formerly attributed to gods and moved a lot of stuff from the supernatural realm to the natural realm.

There's a lot attributed to the past that today we view as questionable, and often its down to the post-Enlightenment 'educated' white man's interpretation of the beliefs of, in their eyes, primitive peoples. I mean, thunder as the anger of the gods, etc. Did people actually believe that? Sailing off the end of the world, no-one believed that, and yet it was a popular myth ...

... and today we actually do have have flat earthers ... who'd have thunk it?

But generally I agree, there's a lot, thanks to science, that has moved from the unknown to the known.

And yet the idea of God was pretty well established before the birth of science and the empirical method, and has remained pretty constant and consistent ever since, so despite the march of science, it's done nothing to explain, or explain away, the idea of God.

The debate today is whether it will all move eventually...

Usually mostly by those who unquestioningly embrace scientism with the same eyes-wide shut faith that people embrace religion?

Amongst scientists themselves, the question devolves to whether or not you're an atheist. If you are, then there you go, if you're not, then God remains in the picture.

This on wiki:

Supporters of supernatural explanations believe that past, present, and future complexities and mysteries of the universe cannot be explained solely by naturalistic means and argue that it is reasonable to assume that a non-natural entity or entities resolve the unexplained.
In contrast, detractors appeal to empiricism as a counter, using historical examples of mysteries that had been supposed by some to require supernatural attribution later explained through naturalistic means.

 

[Thomas]

Move from supernatural to natural, or the idea of anything being supernatural at all, on to where all things truly are … Natural.

I'm not sure of the reasoning of that. It could be atheism, pantheism, materialism ...

 

[Gatekeeper]

I'm not sure of the reasoning of that. It could be atheism, pantheism, materialism ...

Maybe … It could be a different understanding than your own too, which is much more likely. Like panentheism, which is what I am, and yet I'm likewise a monotheist. How's that possible? Think about it more than just a little bit.

 

[wil]

There's a lot attributed to the past that today we view as questionable,

Yup! When you write the metaohirical, metaphysical, mythological Bible explaining away the plagues, flood, turning water into wine, raising the dead etc. I'll be like Gideon and put it in every hotel room drawer for our evangelicals and book thumpers.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yup! When you write the metaohirical, metaphysical, mythological Bible explaining away the plagues, flood, turning water into wine, raising the dead etc. I'll be like Gideon and put it in every hotel room drawer for our evangelicals and book thumpers.

We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against ...

 

[Gatekeeper]

Rulers make bad lovers by the way.

 

[wil]

Rulers make bad lovers by the way.

My tongue bleeds.when straight lines like this are delivered.

 

[Gatekeeper]

My tongue bleeds.when straight lines like this are delivered.

I guess I don't know what you mean. Rulers make bad lovers … I agree with the sentiment. I do enjoy a nice balance though along with respect and consideration and understanding.

 

[wil]

My mind is just warped, no worries.

 

[RJM]

Rulers make bad lovers …

I often think that highly driven men (I don't know about women) seem to have a sex drive to match? Take JFK, Mick Jagger, our Boris, even old Trumpie -- many others?

 

[Thomas]

Yup! When you write the metaohirical, metaphysical, mythological Bible explaining away the plagues, flood, turning water into wine, raising the dead etc...

Yup, when its read literally, without any consideration of milieu, context, etc., then it does seem fanciful and naive. And yes, when the debate is drowned out by the crowing of literal fundamentalists, I can understand your pain! But really, we've come a long way on from that, and that argument no longer holds water, really.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe … It could be a different understanding than your own too... How's that possible?

Oh, that's easily possible!

But with regard to panentheism, the Abrahamics encompass qualified panentheist ideas, which have to be expressed with some precision to avoid an overt pantheism.

St Paul's "In Him we live and are" (Acts 17:28) says it all ...

Panentheism is usually refuted in the Catholic West, for historical reasons, while the response is more nuanced in the Orthodox East. But modern movements, like Process Theology are somewhat panentheistic.

In Christian panentheism, creation is not considered as 'made of God', its substance is created, not divine, and the cosmos displays none of the qualities attributed to the divine. God is immanent in and to the cosmos, but is essentially distinct from it — transcendent.

While the cosmos is other than God, it is not wholly separated from God, because existence is an act of the divine will.

The Cosmos is brought into being by God, but not of God ... it is not an act of the trickle-down effect of emanationism that underpins some Platonic schools, for instance.

Both Judaism and Islam hold certain panentheist ideas.

If the panentheist holds the material cosmos to be part of God however, then s/he and traditional Abrahamics part company, and from the traditional point of view, that notion poses a number of questions that need to be answered to render the belief logical and coherent.

 

[wil]

I often think that highly driven men (I don't know about women) seem to have a sex drive to match? Take JFK, Mick Jagger, our Boris, even old Trumpie -- many others?

Idk if there is any evidence of that.

They may get a lot of sex, maybe great lotharios, but I haven't seen any rave reviews that they were fantastic in bed. (Of course that is very subjective).

When you have power or fame ya get a lot of groupies and gold diggers to take advantage of.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I often think that highly driven men (I don't know about women) seem to have a sex drive to match? Take JFK, Mick Jagger, our Boris, even old Trumpie -- many others?

I have no Idea about Kennedy or Trump or Jagger … Motivation … Highly driven as in how? Driven by??? I'm not a ruler, don't claim to be, don't want to be, and pray God I never will be. Here's the thing about my idea of being a ruler "my way", which is a far cry from I need to control others type. I need my self control, to employ my own free will choices, to be myself, honest, true, and faithful to who I am. That's the stuff dreams and heaven and paradise are made of … Truth, honesty, and being true to who we are inherently as living creatures.

 

[RJM]

Oh, that's easily possible!

But with regard to panentheism, the Abrahamics encompass qualified panentheist ideas, which have to be expressed with some precision to avoid an overt pantheism.

St Paul's "In Him we live and are" (Acts 17:28) says it all ...

Panentheism is usually refuted in the Catholic West, for historical reasons, while the response is more nuanced in the Orthodox East. But modern movements, like Process Theology are somewhat panentheistic.

In Christian panentheism, creation is not considered as 'made of God', its substance is created, not divine, and the cosmos displays none of the qualities attributed to the divine. God is immanent in and to the cosmos, but is essentially distinct from it — transcendent.

While the cosmos is other than God, it is not wholly separated from God, because existence is an act of the divine will.

The Cosmos is brought into being by God, but not of God ... it is not an act of the trickle-down effect of emanationism that underpins some Platonic schools, for instance.

Both Judaism and Islam hold certain panentheist ideas.

If the panentheist holds the material cosmos to be part of God however, then s/he and traditional Abrahamics part company, and from the traditional point of view, that notion poses a number of questions that need to be answered to render the belief logical and coherent.

This was today's reading at Mass:

Book of Wisdom 13:1-9

"Anyone who does not know God is simply foolish. Such people look at the good things around them and still fail to see the living God. They have studied the things he made, but they have not recognized the one who made them.

Instead, they suppose that the gods who rule the world are fire or wind or storm or the circling stars or rushing water or the heavenly bodies. People were so delighted with the beauty of these things that they thought they must be gods, but they should have realized that these things have a master and that he is much greater than all of them, for he is the creator of beauty, and he created them.

Since people are amazed at the power of these things, and how they behave, they ought to learn from them that their maker is far more powerful. When we realize how vast and beautiful the creation is, we are learning about the Creator at the same time.

But maybe we are too harsh with these people. After all, they may have really wanted to find God, but couldn't. Surrounded by God's works, they keep on looking at them, until they are finally convinced that because the things they see are so beautiful, they must be gods. But still, these people really have no excuse. If they had enough intelligence to speculate about the nature of the universe, why did they never find the Lord of all things?"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom+13:1-9&version=GNT

 

[Gatekeeper]

The other kind of ruler mindset I want nothing to do with … I'm not one. that type anyway.

 

[wil]

I'll agree with some...

But always love how people want to say what others believe when they don't know squat.

Instead, they suppose that the gods who rule the world are fire or wind or storm or the circling stars or rushing water or the heavenly bodies

Nope I don't read the horoscopes or pray to Poseidon... Lol

But much of it has a dose of validity.