Post Reply
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View A discussion of Malthiesm vs. Malism-From "Some Questions" at the old site.
6 years ago  ::  Mar 16, 2008 - 10:43PM #31
whichone
Posts: 1,084
I had forgotten that this thread existed.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2008 - 5:59PM #32
ftlman123
Posts: 16
I did not forget that this thread existed. Maybe it's too bad that you didn't really forget that this thread existed, whichone. I am sure that you wouldn't worry about why ,you believe, I need to prove Maltheism wrong if you had done so.

As for how soon, soon is, in relation to ones life, three to six months is quite some time. Sorry, I am, and have been preoccupied.  I will comment, If you care, in the future on some of the things you have said. I will have to start from scratch however for I have misplaced my notes. (Again)

I hope you all had as good a time as you could have this past new year season, and I hope that any good continues.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 3:27AM #33
whichone
Posts: 1,084
ftlman,

I don't understand your post.  Mohancous mentioned the time thing......I just assumed that you had a life and were busy with it.  This particular thread had dropped from my awareness.  I don't think this thread is related to my "Why prove maltheism wrong thread?".  I interpreted your negative comments about maltheists and maltheism on our old community forum along with your reluctance to write your criticism in the debate forum instead of our community forum as being driven by a desire to disprove or discredit maltheism.  Is that interpretation wrong?  If yes, why is that interpretation wrong?  If that interpretation is correct?  Would you answer the questions in the my "Why prove Maltheism wrong thread"?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2008 - 3:27AM #34
whichone
Posts: 1,084
ftlman,

I don't understand your post.  Mohancous mentioned the time thing......I just assumed that you had a life and were busy with it.  This particular thread had dropped from my awareness.  I don't think this thread is related to my "Why prove maltheism wrong thread?".  I interpreted your negative comments about maltheists and maltheism on our old community forum along with your reluctance to write your criticism in the debate forum instead of our community forum as being driven by a desire to disprove or discredit maltheism.  Is that interpretation wrong?  If yes, why is that interpretation wrong?  If that interpretation is correct?  Would you answer the questions in the my "Why prove Maltheism wrong thread"?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2008 - 7:34PM #35
ftlman123
Posts: 16
“I don't understand your post.”

It's ok whichone.

“I interpreted your negative comments about maltheists and maltheism on our old community forum along with your reluctance to write your criticism in the debate forum instead of our community forum as being driven by a desire to disprove or discredit maltheism.”

I have few negative comments about Maltheists, and they address specific people in most cases, and specific actions by those people. My number of negative comments about Maltheism is also relatively low and to points like it's pessimistic view of existence, for one example. My reluctance to use a generic debate board had more to do with the founder of the Maltheism boards stated and implied rules of his board and his own actions in using his board, than your perception of my drive or desire.

“Would you answer the questions in the my "Why prove Maltheism wrong thread"?”

I will not answer your question because, besides other reasons, I have said repeatedly that you can think and feel God is evil, there is nothing wrong with that. I have also said that I think that what most Malthiests ( people that call themselves that ) believe isn't really a theism.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2008 - 4:11AM #36
whichone
Posts: 1,084
ftlman,

That seems like a reasonable answer.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2008 - 9:44PM #37
ftlman123
Posts: 16
I hope to take three or four of your statements and answer them, and go from there slowly, keeping the posts relatively short, and trying to catch up on the discussion.

"Who besides you says that a god has to have authority over anything?"

I think you know that there are many people besides me that say that exact thing. Why you asked this question might have more to do with your feelings on the subject (of Gods authority) than a objective view of most of the information. I know that you may agree with Malisms position that people are just fools, and they are giving something that isn't a god authority. I say that whether or not people are fools a real God has authority whether or not people give it. But because we humans have been calling on God for help for ages, his sovereignty over nature is something that defines what a God is.

"You essentially equate "god" with "supreme being," with no support for that interpretation."

We all have theories and ideas. We all have experience reading and living life and accumulating knowledge. Weren't you the one that said thanks a lot God for shitting on me once again. Tell me how exactly was he able to arrange all those times in your case, and then explain how he had control of everybody else's circumstances who are in the same boat as you. That should include just about everybody else on the planet. What caused it (pick whatever it you like, in your life). What caused that event. What was the cause of that one, and so on. You know, the best theory out there for the existence of the universe has at the very beginning (from what they can tell) a singularity.

"Admittedly, however, most maltheists do not believe in a supreme being. Why? Because common sense demands skepticism when confronted with extremely doubtful concepts such as that of a causeless, invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful being."

Common sense has come up with an idea that says everything we can see was one thing.

"When you are talking about beings that created and controlled everything, . . .  you are just plain wrong."

I was including the creation parts of the mythologies in my statement, and of course the humans writing the stories would refer to types of control and influence they would be familiar with in the world, it doesn't convey they didn't have the authority to exercise the methods that they did. It's not as plain as you seem to be saying. The myths are just images. The Bible is a book of metaphors.

"We are not intolerant by any reasonable definition of the word."
"Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Do you think that the definition above is reasonable for intolerant?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 07, 2008 - 10:23PM #38
ftlman123
Posts: 16
"We do not, as maltheists, proselytize, harass, name-call or do violence to those that disagree with us, nor do we advocate these behaviors."


"To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith."
t"o lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind:"
"To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty"

In the Malists efforts to have a forum and explain what they believe, and as they write, educate the world about what a monster God really is, they are proselytizing.

Since they hate God and think of him in so negative a way and call him names and then call his followers God-lovers that is the Malists denigrating way to address those people. Its not hey fatty, its hey godlover. Hey theophile.

And finally let me explain just how Malists do violence to those that don't want to kill God. If the Malists really believe in God, if there really is a God that everyone else believes in and has a relationship with, the Malists want to KILL God. If the Malist is exerting him or herself in an effort to deny other people their right of free association by rough and immoderate feelings and language, damaging and altering the common view of God. That is a violent behavior. If the Malist is denigrating, belittling and disparaging people that say don't try to kill God, that is also an attacking, violent way to behave.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 18, 2008 - 8:44PM #39
mohanchous
Posts: 231
[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]"We do not, as maltheists, proselytize, harass, name-call or do violence to those that disagree with us, nor do we advocate these behaviors."[/QUOTE]

I stand by this.

I assume these next statements are definitions of "proselytize" pulled from various unnamed sources. Let's look at them:

[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]"To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith."[/QUOTE]

At least here you have the decency to quote the primary definition from a respectable source (Merriam-Webster). Maltheists as a group do not fit this definition (I cannot speak for individuals).

Let me illustrate the difference. People do not become Christians out of the blue. In order to become a Christian, one must understand and accept to peculiar concepts of Christianity (Jehovah, sin, judgment, Heaven, Hell, perdition, salvation, repentance, Jesus Christ, etc). This can only happen if one is introduced to these concepts by a Christian, that is, evangelized. Indeed, the Bible says "for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Hence, proselytizing is the Christian's duty, indeed, Christianity would evaporate without it.

On the other hand, maltheism is a natural and recurrent belief without the aid of proselytizing. Some concept of God, in one form or another, has existed in just about every culture (which we believe happens because an evil spirit called God keeps resurrecting the idea in the weak-minded in order to garner worship). And wherever God has been worshipped, there have been those who have recognized that God is cruel, unjust and evil. These people are maltheists. We don't proselytize because we don't need to, the maltheists are already out there. They just need to know that there is a camp to join. If someone converts to maltheism because we express (not teach) our beliefs, so much the better, but that's not the goal.

[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]"to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind:"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]"To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty"[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you dug up these supposed definitions of "proselytize", but you are clearly very uncritical of the sources you accept. These definitions are way too broad, as they fail to convey that proselytizing is aimed at gaining converts to a religious or ideological movement. Maltheists would be proselytizers by this defintions, but so would school teachers. They are incorrect definitions.

[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]In the Malists efforts to have a forum and explain what they believe, and as they write, educate the world about what a monster God really is, they are proselytizing.[/QUOTE]

It's not malist, it's maltheist, where the -the- refers to the God you worship. Education is not proselytization, since we do not attempt to persuade anyone that our views our correct. Indeed, we recognize that many people will not agree with us. We do, however, reserve the right to defend our beliefs against other beliefs that are no better founded, such as Christianity.

[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]Since they hate God and think of him in so negative a way and call him names and then call his followers God-lovers that is the Malists denigrating way to address those people. Its not hey fatty, its hey godlover. Hey theophile.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we hate God. Yes, we call him names, deservedly so. Yes, we call those who believe God is good eutheists, and those who love God theophiles, because those are the etymologically correct terms. Whatever term we use, correct or otherwise, you are certain to find it denigrating. One might surmise the you yourself are ashamed of loving God, otherwise you would own the label theophile with pride. On the other hand, you coined the etymologically incorrect term Malist specifically to imply that we hate our figment of God as opposed the real God, despite our unanswered arguments to the contrary, and I find that denigrating.

[QUOTE=ftlman123;676191]And finally let me explain just how Malists do violence to those that don't want to kill God. If the Malists really believe in God, if there really is a God that everyone else believes in and has a relationship with, the Malists want to KILL God. If the Malist is exerting him or herself in an effort to deny other people their right of free association by rough and immoderate feelings and language, damaging and altering the common view of God. That is a violent behavior. If the Malist is denigrating, belittling and disparaging people that say don't try to kill God, that is also an attacking, violent way to behave.[/QUOTE]

And finally, let me explain that if God is as you claim, the idea of killing him is ridiculous. We do not know how to kill God, we just observe that God seems to be very desirous of worship, and we would like to see him deprived of it. That should be no problem for a mighty God. But I would sooner think that if God's worshipers evaporated (that is, moved on to more productive pursuits), God would likewise evaporate. But believe as you will, we are not in the business of changing your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 11, 2008 - 9:05PM #40
whichone
Posts: 1,084

ftlman123 wrote:


In the Malists efforts to have a forum and explain what they believe, and as they write, educate the world about what a monster God really is, they are proselytizing. ....

And finally let me explain just how Malists do violence to those that don't want to kill God. If the Malists really believe in God, if there really is a God that everyone else believes in and has a relationship with, the Malists want to KILL God. If the Malist is exerting him or herself in an effort to deny other people their right of free association by rough and immoderate feelings and language, damaging and altering the common view of God. That is a violent behavior. If the Malist is denigrating, belittling and disparaging people that say don't try to kill God, that is also an attacking, violent way to behave.



ftlman,

By your definition just having an opinion and expressing it, is proselytizing.  Are you suggesting that we stop having different opinions and expressing them?   Every single religion that has a website must be proselytizing in your opinion. I do not see Hindus or Jews as proselytizers though they have forums explaining their beliefs on this website. Proselytizers hand out flyers, knock on your door, they search you out to change your mind about your religion. The Maltheism community is for like minded people to find. We don't advertise it in anyway. I have never knocked on a door, handed out a flyer, or told anyone about maltheism till they expressed maltheist feelings themselves. When my friend Bill, "Said I hate God, I am tired of people shoving the idea he is good down my throat." I told him, "If you would like some relief from that you can go to the maltheism forum on beliefnet." He asked me a few questions. He seemed interested, but I have never seen a post from him, so I have no idea if he ever bothered to check it out. Now if I were a proselytizer, I would have nagged him to check it out.....but since he expressed a similar belief to mine, I just let him know it existed.

By your definition of violence, anyone who holds an opinion or belief different than yours and actually dares to express it, is doing violence to you. Its like a McCain supporter thinking, I am doing violence to him because I voted for Obama and explained why I voted for Obama. The only way we could be non-violent according to your unique definition of violence is if we agreed with everything that you believe. I believe God is evil. I don't really care what other people believe as long as they don't force me to go along with their beliefs. I don't care that Shia women volunteer to follow their faith wearing burkas, as long as I am not murdered or beaten for refusing to wear one. I don't care if people pray to God as long as I am not denied a job because I refuse to pray with my coworkers on the job. I don't care that Jewish people don't eat port as long as I am free to eat all the bacon that I want to. Am I doing voilence to Muslims and Jews because I enjoy eating port products? I would be if I force fed pork to them or denied them their civil rights for not eating pork......but otherwise saying I am commiting voilence against them is kind of a stretch. Am I doing violence to vegans because I like animal products......many animal rights activists would definitely say yes. Do you eat pork or meat.......if yes you had better stop it because you are doing violence to non-pork eaters and vegans.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook