[Michael] All I'm saying is "god or gods" does NOT mean "God."
[Arlo] That's the kind of absurd redefinition I've been talking about. [Michael] But there is a linguistic distinction between Theism and Deism for a reason, yes? [Arlo] Deism posits a "god" that is no longer involved directly in the cosmos it created (other than sustaining creation), theism posits a god that interacts directly, or has involvement, with its creation. The distinction is important, but not relevant here. Both agree there exists a deity (or deities), it is only a matter of how man experiences "god or the gods" that separate them. [Michael] If you are going to claim it is, you'll need to defend it historically. [Arlo] Theism is a subset of Zen that relies on "theoretical knowledge" and religious texts to describe a god (or gods) that exist in a separate realm from human experience. Zen sees theistic responses as shortsighted (I agree) and instead posits not a "god or gods" but a transcendence in everyday lived experience. Zen realizes that all theistic responses miss the forest for the trees (miss the Void for their g*d). But Zen is primary, as it describes the actual human experience that has given rise to the fabrication of theism's narratives. That is, everyone experiences Zen, but a few seek to isolate and constrain that experience into theism. [Michael] Wikipedia is a site with no true editors, just opinionators who fight over the definitions, and the nastiest one or the most persistent deleter wins. [Arlo] Its dialogic nature makes it more reliable, in my opinion, certainly more reliable that flipping through some one-line "definitions" until you find one that suits your needs. If you think Wikipedia is so easily molded, by all means try editing the entry. And if you think that the "behind the scenes" at dictionary publishers is any less combative, think again. Its just that here you have no option but to accept the edict of the publisher (or find another dictionary). If you prefer credited sites, let's go with the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. "Theism is the belief in the existence of a supernatural force or forces, understood to have a personal nature. The term is often used synonymously with monotheism. Taken generically, however, theism should include a broad variety of metaphysical positions that are opposed to atheism: polytheism (the belief in many gods), monotheism (the belief in a single God), deism (the belief in a creator God who does not have any subsequent influence upon the world), and panentheism (the belief that the world is within God, although God is also more than the world). Theism contrasts with nonpersonal understandings of ultimate reality, such as the law of karma or the principle of emptiness in Buddhism. Theistic beliefs can set the stage for the science-religion dialogue because these beliefs are not contained within contemporary scientific theories and may stand in prima facie tension with them." Or the Encyclopedia Britannica. "Theism is the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms. ... Theism’s view of God can be clarified by contrasting it with that of deism, of pantheism, and of mysticism." How about the Encyclopedia of Religion? "THEISM is the philosophical worldview that perceives the orders of existence (physical things, organisms, persons) as dependent for their being and continuance on one self-existent God, who alone is worthy of worship." [Michael] The very fact that they use "deity" presupposes a face on the God. [Arlo] The word "God" (or gods, or g*d) presupposes a face (or faces) on the Void. [Michael] Theism does NOT have to have that face to remain a valid word. If it does, then there needs to be *another* word, because you *cannot* argue that one *must* put a face to their g*d to be able to simply believe. [Arlo] The other word is "Zen". A nice word since it grounds everything back in the emanations of human experiential activity. [Michael] but link to a Mirriam Webster definition which DOES NOT USE IT: [Arlo] And we all know Merrian Webster is the unquestable authority. By the way, since you are going to great lengths to say "belief in a deity" and "belief in a god or gods" are completely different, and you're using MW as the sole arbiter here, I looked up "deity" in MW. Here is what YOUR source says. 1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity bcapitalized : god 1 , supreme being 2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful [Michael] If atheism can use the most inclusive definition of "god or gods" (the one I insist is legitimate) when defining itself in opposition to theism, why do you insist theism cannot? Atheism exists only by theism, so if atheism can do it, theism *MUST* do it by default. [Arlo] I dont recall you asking me this. But I don't see the issue. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
