Random Thread

[zompist]

Tangy take: When adults become devotees of a deity, their behavior resembles that of children with the deity as the parent figure. Authority figures prefer to interact with children instead of adults. This is why they tend to spread theism across the world.

(zompist seems to be more fond of the God-as-ruler metaphor, though.)

Yes, because it explains the contradictions of God's behavior: he's benign and necessary yet can kill you at will; he is powerful but demand adoration and sacrifice; he loves you but needs reminding of your specific needs; he demands morality but isn't bound by it himself. All these ideas transfer from kings.

At the same time, there are two other important strands. One is the metaphor of God as parent or lover. Historically you often get this far later than the king metaphor. (E.g. the Vedic gods are hard to love; devotion cults arose 2000 years later.)

The other is what we find in shamanism: the gods are there to give the individual powers and favors. These religions long precede kings and writing, so there's very little idea of morality, service, belief, or love. (There may be an idea of good and bad use of the powers, however.) Roman religion was a sophisticated survival of this strand.

Finally, these ideas are all ancient by now and don't have to appear in chronological order, and all three appear in any major religion.

[rotting bones]

Yes, because it explains the contradictions of God's behavior: he's benign and necessary yet can kill you at will; he is powerful but demand adoration and sacrifice; he loves you but needs reminding of your specific needs; he demands morality but isn't bound by it himself. All these ideas transfer from kings.

I think you underestimate the extent to which kids used to and probably still see their parents as givers of punishment. There have been societies where parents were allowed to kill their kids. Such temporal powers were often abrogated with reference to a "higher power".

At the same time, there are two other important strands. One is the metaphor of God as parent or lover. Historically you often get this far later than the king metaphor. (E.g. the Vedic gods are hard to love; devotion cults arose 2000 years later.)

The other is what we find in shamanism: the gods are there to give the individual powers and favors. These religions long precede kings and writing, so there's very little idea of morality, service, belief, or love. (There may be an idea of good and bad use of the powers, however.) Roman religion was a sophisticated survival of this strand.

I think the Vedic gods were shamanic. Shamanic gods are very different from the ones authorities have been bankrolling for centuries.

To generalize roughly over many different traditions, shamanic gods often have a metaphysical aspect and an anthropic aspect:

1. The metaphysical aspect is an attitude like "victory". This attitude is symbolized through animals (say, lion), plants (daffodil), colors (yellow) and other aspects of the natural world (sun).

2. The anthropic aspect of the shamanic god is represented as a priest who, through facial expressions, poses, ritual paraphernalia, drugs, etc, communes with the metaphysical attitude.

The human priest who communes with the attitude and the divine priest who is communed with are in a relationship that I can only describe as the relationship between Radha and Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

[rotting bones]

The Vedic god Agni is an example of a shamanic god. He is the fire and the priest of the sacrifice. IIRC he carries the sacrificial offerings consigned to the fire up to heaven, but I could be wrong about that.

I know of Krishna as a fully anthropomorphic god with a devotional cult who is not worshipped as a parent. He can be worshipped as one's friend, master, lover or child. There have been yogis who seek union with the divine by playing with a doll of Krishna, treating the divine as their child.

Kings have bankrolled Krishna too, though with limited success in the grand scheme of things.

PS. Personally, I think Hindutva has become pure idpol. The Hindus who take the Hindu gods seriously are vanishingly few.

[malloc]

I know of Krishna as a fully anthropomorphic god with a devotional cult who is not worshipped as a parent. He can be worshipped as one's friend, master, lover or child. There have been yogis who seek union with the divine by playing with a doll of Krishna, treating the divine as their child.

Surely any self-respecting god would recoil at worshipers casting them as a child. The relationship between a child and their parents ranges from doting dependency to groveling submission depending on the culture. If I were a god and someone addressed me with baby-talk or flogged me with a belt, I wouldn't grant them divine union but rather put them on the express lane to hell.

[zompist]

I think the Vedic gods were shamanic. Shamanic gods are very different from the ones authorities have been bankrolling for centuries.

To generalize roughly over many different traditions, shamanic gods often have a metaphysical aspect and an anthropic aspect:

1. The metaphysical aspect is an attitude like "victory". This attitude is symbolized through animals (say, lion), plants (daffodil), colors (yellow) and other aspects of the natural world (sun).

2. The anthropic aspect of the shamanic god is represented as a priest who, through facial expressions, poses, ritual paraphernalia, drugs, etc, communes with the metaphysical attitude.

The human priest who communes with the attitude and the divine priest who is communed with are in a relationship that I can only describe as the relationship between Radha and Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

You may be pointing to another strand of religion, but it's not shamanism. Shamans are not very interested in symbolism. They are intensely practical: they venture into the spirit world to find a cure, find game, find a personal vision or ability. This journey often manifests as 'possession'. Shamanism is typical of premodern, pre-agricultural religions, thus has no support from or for kings or even chiefs.

Shamanism can however turn into a ritualized religion where there's no trance and a class of priests working for the state. We can see this with the Vedas, the Shang, the Akkadians, and the Romans. Early Romans had a religion where the gods could say 'no'; classical Roman religion expects them to say yes like good patrons. (There's often an avenue, e.g. omens or oracles, for the gods to be more explicit— but the things they were expected to say were constrained.)

[Agni] is the fire and the priest of the sacrifice. IIRC he carries the sacrificial offerings consigned to the fire up to heaven, but I could be wrong about that.

Yeah, he's both the fire itself and the sacrifice-bearer.

[rotting bones]

Surely any self-respecting god would recoil at worshipers casting them as a child. The relationship between a child and their parents ranges from doting dependency to groveling submission depending on the culture. If I were a god and someone addressed me with baby-talk or flogged me with a belt, I wouldn't grant them divine union but rather put them on the express lane to hell.

Krishna wouldn't command respect as a parent. He has a trickster personality. As a child, he was a notorious butter thief. If you worship Krishna as your child, you can catch the Divine stealing your butter and punish him for it. This pastime (a technical term) creates a kind of intimacy that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike imagining the Divine as a lover.

If you want a father god, that's Shiva's job. Shiva is a notorious drunkard.

[zompist]

Surely any self-respecting god would recoil at worshipers casting them as a child.

Here's a rule of thumb, malloc: whenever you say "surely" you're about to say something completely uninformed.

There's a major world religion which involves worship of the deity in the form of a child. That religion is the one that surrounds you down there: Christianity.

[rotting bones]

You may be pointing to another strand of religion, but it's not shamanism. Shamans are not very interested in symbolism.

In Vodou and Santeria possession, the possession is triggered by the symbolism of the ritual environment and the drumming. The possession is enacted by ritual poses, gestures and expressions.

They are intensely practical: they venture into the spirit world to find a cure, find game, find a personal vision or ability.

My hypothetical shamanic god is wreathed in the symbolism of victory. I chose the most practical attitude I could think of. The purpose of communing with him could be to bring victory in war.

Usually, the attitude represented by the god is not so straightforward. There has to be some kind of a twist to make it a good story. The twist could just be an opaque cultural reference. Baron Saturday, was it?

This journey often manifests as 'possession'. Shamanism is typical of premodern, pre-agricultural religions, thus has no support from or for kings or even chiefs.

Yes, the human priest becoming one with the divine priest is the act of possession.

[malloc]

There's a major world religion which involves worship of the deity in the form of a child. That religion is the one that surrounds you down there: Christianity.

That certainly is one way to look at it, although not how I understood the situation when I still believed in Christianity (which admittedly was over twenty years ago at this point).

[rotting bones]

That certainly is one way to look at it, although not how I understood the situation when I still believed in Christianity (which admittedly was over twenty years ago at this point).

There are differences. My understanding is that the Christ child is not played with for intimacy like with Krishna. He is respected like a newborn prince.

[keenir]

. Since religion must have pointless mystification,

it must?

*shrugs*

as my anthropology teacher used to point out, socialism is also a religion.

[keenir]

If I were a god and someone addressed me with baby-talk or flogged me with a belt, I wouldn't grant them divine union but rather put them on the express lane to hell.

riiiiight. given your attitude towards Trump et al & AI, I see no evidence that you'd punish any worshippers who spanked you - you'd be more likely to reward them for their assaults.

[keenir]

That certainly is one way to look at it, although not how I understood the situation when I still believed in Christianity (which admittedly was over twenty years ago at this point).

There are differences. My understanding is that the Christ child is not played with for intimacy like with Krishna. He is respected like a newborn prince.

I don't know of anyone who treats Jesus like a prince...not in idols, artwork, or even Christmas Nativities. We speak of people coming to pay homage to him, yes, but we also speak of a community who lost track of him for at least a week...thats not "heir and spare", thats 323rd or further from the throne.

[malloc]

Even if you consider the conditions in 1984 incredibly unlikely to pass, they still feel more likely than the world improving at this point.

Well, if you have no desire to protest or to stop glooming, you could always vote with your feet...I hear the MacDonald Islands are in desperate need of a human to live there, so Trump won't slap the penguins with crippling tarrifs.

All mockery aside, I am genuinely curious about what it would take in practical terms to move to another country. It seems highly unlikely I would manage it given my current situation, but given the increasingly grim alternatives, I feel obligated to give it some serious consideration at least.

[Starbeam]

Trying to get a zero-key keyboard for writing accents. Thing is, i'm not sure how to add new keyboard input layouts for my computer. I have a new-ish Windows laptop and i can't find a setting for adding let alone making new keyboard inputs. Does anyone know what to do? Keep in mind, i'd rather not have to buy anything. Certainly not anything past twenty USD.

[rotting bones]

I don't know of anyone who treats Jesus like a prince...not in idols, artwork, or even Christmas Nativities. We speak of people coming to pay homage to him, yes, but we also speak of a community who lost track of him for at least a week...thats not "heir and spare", thats 323rd or further from the throne.

If you sing, "joy to the world; the lord is come" about a baby, the only human analogy I can think of is respectfully celebrating a newborn prince.

[rotting bones]

it must?

*shrugs*

as my anthropology teacher used to point out, socialism is also a religion.

A twist makes the story interesting. Maybe that's the role played by cults of personality in socialist movements.

Also, AFAIK Indian goddesses are always seen as mothers no matter how violent they look.

[rotting bones]

Thats also the attitude of Heresies of the High Middle Ages, a book I found years ago in a library. not sure about 'more conservative', but a sect, definately.

It's true that Islam hasn't always been more conservative than Christianity. It still isn't in every respect.

[malloc]

It's true that Islam hasn't always been more conservative than Christianity. It still isn't in every respect.

How so? What are some ways you would consider it less conservative than Christianity?

[rotting bones]

How so? What are some ways you would consider it less conservative than Christianity?

Women could always inherit and own property in Islamic law. American women started having limited property rights around 1840.

Islam has always been less prudish around sex. This is something Christians and ex-Christians often misunderstand about Islam. Islam cares much less about "virginity" than Christianity. What Islamic law says is that embarrassing public behavior should be punished. It's a law about appearances. This is why Islam doesn't have an inquisition. Multiple witnesses have to see you embarrassing the community.

These days, Islam is way stricter about appearances than "Christianity", which is really the Enlightenment. It medieval times, differences weren't that striking. In medieval times, strictly abiding by standards of decency was expected of the aristocracy anyway, not poor Muslims. In fact, these originally evolved out of aristocratic ideals among Arabs.

The Catholic Church still maintains a list of banned books. Islam is way better at tolerating heresy. That's why Greek science survived in the Middle East, but died out in the West. It's better at tolerating heretics too. Hinduism would have been totally wiped out if medieval crusaders had reached India.

...