Post Reply
Page 2 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  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 4:57AM #11
whichone
Posts: 1,084
LOL......Yes, cavewoman is slow.  The link to the old beliefnet archive is actually very easy to find if you know where to find it.

When you click on Beliefnet Forums it is between Teen Talk and What is going on.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 2:17PM #12
ftlman123
Posts: 16
"ftlman, how, uh, good to see you back after you said several times you were not coming back."

Where did I say I was not coming back?

". . . , claiming maltheism is reprehensible."

It was not me that claimed Maltheism was reprehensible, I simply didn't disagree with others who made that claim, and I criticised aspects of what a number of Malists claimed was Maltheism. I said a long time ago that it was not unreasonable for people to come to the conclusion that God was evil. But that "conclusion" is just an opinion. And how convenient for you to neglect to be more accurate.

"mohanchous
10/13/2007 2:20 PM 121 out of 122

And now, whichone, I hope you understand that the only answer you are ever going to get to your simple question as to why some people feel compelled to attack maltheism boils down to: "maltheism is reprehensible and dangerous because our fictitious supreme being says it is for reasons neither he nor we feel obligated to explain, and we uncritically accept anything our supreme being says, not matter how ludicrous or morally repugnant it may be"."

Malism is what I have been disscussing for some time now. It is what I call what you describe as what you believe. You say you are a theist that doesn't believe in the concept of god. I know you believe in your concept of "God" the beings name, but thats not the same as the concept of what the being is, a god, or the Gods, Father and Son. So I criticize. And there are many points that I disagree with Malism on. Like stating a believe in God, while saying others are as foolish, as what God is said to be (ludicrous), to believe in a god. Like inferring that anyone who believes in this mythical-real entity has to be as morally repugnant as malism says "it" is.

"In previous debate, ftlman has never answered our challenges to the existence of a benevolent supreme being, specifically, the problem of evil. Until he does, he cannot presume the existence or speak of the actions of a benevolent supreme being. We fought for and secured our own freedoms in the United States, God gave us nothing."

I haven't put forward the view of a benevolent supreme being. I have said that I thought God was good. The words are synonyms of each other, but the word benevolent contains an obliging connotation, where the word good starts out with morally excellent; virtuous; satisfactory; of high quality; exellent. Right; proper; fit. The problem of evil is not a problem it is a proof of what I have been saying in regards to these one sided conversations for years. God has caused us to experience evil, we experience it and learn many things and those who do not learn some of the lessons sooner will learn later along with everyone else. Malists and Maltheists know the difference between good and evil. Some Malists have said that, that is a good thing. I think God is responsible for that good thing. When it suits Malists arguments, they agree. I don't need to satisfy your challenges to state that I believe God is responsible for everything. For all the good and all the evil and all of existance. Malists are on a tiny piece of dust totally dependant on forces beyond their control for their very survival. They have limited information about what is going on down the street let alone accross the solor system, but they want to use their time to get everyone to stop worshipping something that they say isn't real except in the way they say it is.
There is nothing alien, everything is made of the same thing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 2:24PM #13
ftlman123
Posts: 16
"ftlman, how, uh, good to see you back after you said several times you were not coming back."

Where did I say I was not coming back?

". . . , claiming maltheism is reprehensible."

It was not me that claimed Maltheism was reprehensible, I simply didn't disagree with others who made that claim, and I criticized aspects of what a number of Malists claimed was Maltheism. I said a long time ago that it was not unreasonable for people to come to the conclusion that God was evil. But that "conclusion" is just an opinion. And how convenient for you to neglect to be more accurate.

"mohanchous
10/13/2007 2:20 PM 121 out of 122

And now, whichone, I hope you understand that the only answer you are ever going to get to your simple question as to why some people feel compelled to attack maltheism boils down to: "maltheism is reprehensible and dangerous because our fictitious supreme being says it is for reasons neither he nor we feel obligated to explain, and we uncritically accept anything our supreme being says, not matter how ludicrous or morally repugnant it may be"."

Malism is what I have been discussing for some time now. It is what I call what you describe as what you believe. You say you are a theist that doesn't believe in the concept of god. I know you believe in your concept of "God" the beings name, but that’s not the same as the concept of what the being is, a god, or the Gods, Father and Son. So I criticize. And there are many points that I disagree with Malism on. Like stating a believe in God, while saying others are as foolish, as what God is said to be (ludicrous), to believe in a god. Like inferring that anyone who believes in this mythical-real entity has to be as morally repugnant as malism says "it" is.

"In previous debate, ftlman has never answered our challenges to the existence of a benevolent supreme being, specifically, the problem of evil. Until he does, he cannot presume the existence or speak of the actions of a benevolent supreme being. We fought for and secured our own freedoms in the United States, God gave us nothing."

I haven't put forward the view of a benevolent supreme being. I have said that I thought God was good. The words are synonyms of each other, but the word benevolent contains an obliging connotation, where the word good starts out with morally excellent; virtuous; satisfactory; of high quality; excellent. Right; proper; fit. The problem of evil is not a problem it is a proof of what I have been saying in regards to these one sided conversations for years. God has caused us to experience evil, we experience it and learn many things and those who do not learn some of the lessons sooner will learn later along with everyone else. Malists and Maltheists know the difference between good and evil. Some Malists have said that, that is a good thing. I think God is responsible for that good thing. When it suits Malists arguments, they agree. I don't need to satisfy your challenges to state that I believe God is responsible for everything. For all the good and all the evil and all of existence. Malists are on a tiny piece of dust totally dependant on forces beyond their control for their very survival. They have limited information about what is going on down the street let alone across the solar system, but they want to use their time to get everyone to stop worshiping something that they say isn't real except in the way they say it is.
There is nothing alien, everything is made of the same thing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 2:32PM #14
ftlman123
Posts: 16
"The first post to this thread has no meaning. ftlman is pulling random quotes from my posts on an old thread on the old beliefnet site. All the posts he has copied here are completely out of context. They have a very different meaning in context."

Here is a context that everyone should know. You don't know a lot of "anti-Maltheists". Here is another context, you are asking a question and making your statement on Beliefnet. Here is one more context, the whole post (109) is comparing different people against the idea that, that anti-maltheist might not be malevolent, he might really be mentally ill. I say he because most if not all of the about 5 main people that have communicated in the old Maltheism board that you could consider to be anti-Maltheists I believe were men. Thank you for posting 109.

"I wrote about something completely unrelated to ftlmn. I like watching documentaries. I watched two documentaries about people that I judged would be anti-maltheists."

How is it unrelated to me someone you judge to be an anti-Maltheist to talk or write about other people you judge to be anti-Maltheist. I know you said you read and re-read your post, maybe you are protecting yourself from seeing the truth of the whole post and what it means. As far as I am concerned you don't have to see it. If it is ok with you don't comment on my really strange incomprehensible, contradictory, illogical weird sentence containing posts. Especially when you believe I may use any weirdness to be right, at all costs.
I'm sorry I just don't believe your explanations. Now you have said them here, so you have your word in, please stay out of this conversation and leave me alone. Show everyone that your better than all those evil Christians Malism (Maltheism) exposes, and honor my request.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 4:28PM #15
whichone
Posts: 1,084
ftlmn,
I am a maltheist.  I have a right to defend my right to choose a name for my beliefs.  People who disagree with others beliefs create all kinds of names.  People call Latter Day Saints, Mormons, devil worshipers, and other things, but they preferred to be called Latter Day Saints.  People can invent their own names for maltheists, but I prefer maltheist.  I find it offensive that someone who does not believe God is bad feels they have the right to impose their label on our beliefs.  You have come to debate Maltheism and I have a right to defend maltheism.  I am not going to stand aside while you try to end our right to exist just because you say so.  Make any judgment that you want of me.  If people judge me to be wrong when reading the whole context of the conversation that's fine.  I don't know why you felt a piecemeal cut and paste taking the entire conversation out of context would be more true than the entire context. 

For your information, I know a lot of people who are anti-maltheists.  My best friend is
anti-maltheist.  My friend, Jana who visited here last year is anti-malthiest.  The few friends that I have mentioned maltheism to have squacked loudly against it as soon as I just suggested the idea even existed.  I know hundreds and hundreds of anti-maltheists.  I could walk out the door of my house then declare God is bad then I am sure I would have at least a dozen people promptly try to convince me that God is good.  What I know few of are people who openly state that they believe God is bad.  I know maybe at most a dozen people who refer to themselves as maltheists. 

You have said several times on the old maltheism forum that you were not going to come back.  If it were easy to search your posts on the old forum, I would link to the exact posts were you told us that you were not coming back.  I can't remember the exact threads you posted on so I would have to open every one of them read them to find your posts stating you would not come back.  However, you have every right to criticize Maltheism and I believe it is every person's perogative to change their mind.   I applaud the fact that you have chosen the right forum to criticize and debate Maltheism.  I appreciate that you are no longer posting your criticisms and disagreements with maltheism on our community board.  Thank you.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 7:12PM #16
whichone
Posts: 1,084
I have seen critics on the following boards attempt to relabel the members as non-christian because they did not align with the critics definition of christian:
Latter Day Saints
Jehovah Witness
Seventh Day Adventist
Lutheran
Catholics
Etc Etc Etc.......there are a lot of christians willing declare people not of their particular denomination non-christians.  In all cases the believers of that religion objected to being relabeled by their critics.

Catholics, Lutherans, and Muslims are frequently told by critics on their debate (now called discuss) forums that they are in fact pagans or devil worshipers.  Catholics, Lutherans, and Muslims object to beginning called something other than what they call themselves.  Atheists are frequently told they really believe in God.  Religous people claim Atheism is a religon.  Atheist of course object to this relabeling.  In the same spirit of other defenders of the names they have taken for themselves, I being a maltheist defend my right to declare myself a maltheist and to defend my position that I am a theist.  I believe God exists and I believe that God is bad.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 7:36PM #17
whichone
Posts: 1,084
ftlmn,

Your definitions of God are not law.  We disagree on the definition of God, just as Catholics, Lutherans, Baptist, Jehova Witness, and Latter Day Saints differ on the definition of Christian.  Just as Baptists don't get to redefine Catholics and Muslims as pagan.  You don't get to redefine maltheists as non-theists.  We believe in God.  It just isn't your definition of God.  Just as Christians don't get to rename Unification Church members as Moonies or Atheists as Satan Worshipers.  You don't get to rename us Malist.  We have chosen our name.  We call ourselves Maltheists and we are going to defend that name.

I know why I focus my attention to defending maltheism.  I cherish deeply my right to say God is not good.  I like to have a community where I am not battered into saying God is good when I do not believe that.  The Maltheism forum is my little haven against the constant chant "God is good.  God is good.  All kneel to and trust in God."  My little corner is important to me.   What I can not understand ftlmn is why you focus on maltheism on beliefnet.  I have checked your discussion list in your profile many times, you always post against maltheism on the New Religious Movements Debate forum or in the Maltheism community forum.  I have never seen you visit another forum....Not even the entertainment or news forums.  I do not know why maltheism is a thorn in your side.  We are not an "evangelical" group.  We do not recruit members thus your focus on renaming us, denying we are theists, and declaring us reprehensive does not make sense.  Our maltheism forum is just passively on beliefnet to allow like minded people to gather and enjoy a little peace from the Good God Chant.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 8:11PM #18
ftlman123
Posts: 16
If you are going to agree with his statement, then you, the same as he, will have to prove that I wrote several times that I was not coming back.
Link away.

"We believe in God. It just isn't your definition of God."

What is your definition of God?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 10:26PM #19
whichone
Posts: 1,084
As usual, you answer none of our questions.  You completely miss the point of our posts.  I already told you that I am not going to read through a lot of the old posts on the old forum to link to where you said you were going to leave.  It doesn't matter to me because as I said you have a right to change your mind.  You thought you were going to leave.  You said you were going to leave.  You changed your mind. 

Maltheists do not have a doctrinal definition of God.  Probably every human being has a little different if not completely different definition of God from one another.  Do you think a Hindu's view of God is the same as yours?  Do you think a Muslim's view of God is the same as yours?  Maltheists are just people who believe God is bad.  How they think of God is probably completely different from one another, except for the he is bad idea.  You think the definition makes the difference.  You think if our definition doesn't fit yours then we don't have a right to believe what we believe.  My definition isn't necessarily anyone else's definition of God, so is unimportant to this conversation.  It is enough for me to say that I believe God exists.  I believe God is bad.

Explain to me why you did not answer any of our questions.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2007 - 2:51AM #20
mohanchous
Posts: 231
[QUOTE]Me: ftlman, how, uh, good to see you back after you said several times you were not coming back.[/QUOTE]

fltman, I apologize. I had you confused with JLB. I retract my statement.

[QUOTE]It was not me that claimed Maltheism was reprehensible.[/QUOTE]

No, you quoted JLB saying maltheism was reprehensible, which may be why I momentarily confused you with JLB. If you do not agree with the quote, praytell why did you dredge up this particular quote? Do you think maltheism is reprehensible?

[QUOTE]I said a long time ago that it was not unreasonable for people to come to the conclusion that God was evil.[/QUOTE]

So if you can empathize with our position, and cannot offer evidence against it apart from your own opinions and dubious ancient fairy tales, why can't you just agree to disagree with us and stop hounding us? What are you trying to achieve?

[QUOTE]Malism is what I have been discussing for some time now.[/QUOTE]

The word malism is a slur that you coined because you unjustifiably disagree with our view of God.

[QUOTE]You say you are a theist that doesn't believe in the concept of god.[/QUOTE]

I do believe in the concept of God, to wit, a supernatural entity that affects human affairs and inspired the Bible. I have talked to Christians who agree that this description applies uniquely to their God. After innumerable dilatory posts in which I was hopefully able to bring you up to speed on the current meanings of such plain English words as "supernatural", "theism", "affect" and "inspire", even you agreed that my description applied uniquely to your God. If we both agree that our respective Gods uniquely fit this description, it must be that we believe in the same God.

Regarding the concept of little-g god, you seem to want to equate a god with a supreme being. This equation does not work. Many past and present cultures worshipped gods that are not supreme beings. These include all polytheistic religions, such as the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Celts, Mayas, Incas, as well as modern Hindus, Native American tribes, and hundreds of other entire cultures. Why do we call them polytheists when they clearly did not worship what you would call gods? Maybe we should call them polyists? Even the Bible describes many gods, including Ashtoreth, Ba'al, Beelzebub, Bel, Chemosh, Dagon, Diana, Molech, Nebo, Rimmon, Tammuz &c. Were these supreme beings? If not, why does the Bible call them gods? When we look at the gods of history, we do not find supreme being, rather, we find fickle supernatural beings demanding worship, much like the maltheist concept of God.

ftlman's reasoning seems to be (1) God is a god [similar spellings] and (2) a god is a supreme being [ignoring pantheons of non-supreme gods], hence (3) God is a supreme being [valid syllogism, invalid premises], and since (4) maltheists do not believe in a supreme being [in fact, maltheism says nothing about supreme beings], it must be that (5) maltheists do not believe in God [even though we and ftlman believe in the same God], so (6) the slur "malist" is justified [if bigotry is the goal, bad reasoning is as good as any]. It might be a clever argument were it not completely bogus.

The standard model of God incorporates many wondrous qualities, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, inscrutability, immutability, omnificence, righteousness, etc. The idea that any entity could possess any of these qualities is, from a common sense standpoint, dubious to the point of utter silliness. If I said I were omnipotent, would you accept my claim without question? Would you not demand some sort of evidence? Yet literally millions of people uncritically attribute these fantastic qualities to God. The blind faith of the masses in God's superpowers speaks more to me about the powerful dimming effect of eutheistic religion on critical thinking than it does about the legitimacy of God's superpowers.

There is no compelling reason to think that God's nature is revealed in the sayings of a holy man, the opinion of the masses, or the writings in this dictionary or that holy book. Rather, we maltheists prefer to seek God's nature in his influence on the real world. We start with the premise that God is a supernatural entity that affects human affairs and inspired the holy books of various religions. We then observe the effects of God's presumed intermeddling in human affairs, and see that eutheistic religions stir up lots of needless confusion, bigotry and violence, while God himself fails to mitigate, and often seems to exacerbate, these negative effects. We conclude that God is unwilling or unable to control evil, a conclusion inconsistent with the concept of God as benevolent supreme being.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 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