• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Sacred sites are a sign of a weak god

Rhea

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
14,947
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Reading about some issues over “sacred sites” and the fights people have over them (e.g. the mormons in Missouri, all of the jerusalem sites), amde me think of how the serve or don’t serve an all-powerful god(dess).

It binds the relationship with the god to a physical site. Making it possible for humans to break another human’s bond wih their god. It betrays that the god is not able to be everywhere and anywhere. It limits the god to interactions that are possible in that site. It teaches humans that as the site deteriorates, so does the god(dess).


When I think about it at length, it just seems like a terribly limiting and constraining binding on gods, clarifying how weak they really are.

Your thoughts?
 
Mankind has worshiped a variety of gods and spirits over the millennia; not all were the Supreme and Omnipotent Designer of the Universe as some imagine the Abrahamic God to be.

The Sycamore Gap tree in Britain was recently destroyed, despite that some people probably imagined the tree to have some spiritual power. Does that make "worshipers" of that tree into hypocrites? Frankly, I don't understand the intent of OP's question.

Thinking about it just now, I realize I encountered almost ZERO religion during my decades in the U.S.A. Our family went to church regularly for several years (and I was even an altar boy!) but other than that I had about ZERO discussion with family, friends or co-workers about religion. (And ZERO discussion of ATHEISM, also.) ZERO. Is that unusual? About the ONLY thing I recall very vaguely would be 60+ years ago when my friends ridiculed the improbability of Noah's Ark. Already, at age 11 that discussion seemed pointless and sophomoric to me.

I am definitely an atheist. (It says "pseudo-deism" on my profile: that's just in case I decide to join a Masonic lodge.) But I wonder if I'm at this message-board "under false pretenses." My atheism has about ZERO to do with the rest of my life. I find myself bemused by some of the discussions here. For example, the atheist Richard Carrier is demonstrably more foolish than most Christian preachers yet has attracted a cult of "believers" here who follow him as blindly and dogmatically as some Christians follow their own low-IQ preachers. I've tried to discuss the flaws in Carrier's reasoning here at this message-board and have gotten nothing better than the equivalent of "Read one of the Holy Carrier Books. The details of his Revelations are too sublime for us but in our hearts we know he's right"! EXACTLY the sort of "Christian (non-)thinking" these same atheists despise!!
 
Swammerdami said:
Frankly, I don't understand the intent of OP's question.
Click to expand...

I was pondering whether the adulation/worship/defense of sacred sites (or vessels or shards or whatever) represent a plot hole in stories of god(dess)(es) who are purported to be
 
In the Torah, God is a gypsy, whose home, the holy tabernacle, folows the wanderings of the Israelites. This God also immensely enjoys the odor of burning animals. Only with Solomon does God settle down to a stationary temple home.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
In the Torah, God is a gypsy, whose home, the holy tabernacle, folows the wanderings of the Israelites. This God also immensely enjoys the odor of burning animals. Only with Solomon does God settle down to a stationary temple home.
Click to expand...
The Temple was a dwelling place for the Name of God, he never actually lived in the Tabernacle or the Temple full time. His true dwelling place was the Court of God high in the heavens. Think of his earthly synagogues as being more like consulates, and the Temple in Jerusalem as a permanent embassy in an allied nation.

The same is true of other ancient temples. Zeus did not physically reside at the Athens temple dedicated to him, but it was a dwelling place for his cognomen as Zeus Olympeon, that he could visit if he chose to, or more likely send messages through by divinatory means if he had business with the city.
 
Nothing sacred.... Not life, not the biosphere, not human dignity. That's the atheist ethic.
 
Some religions did equate the statue of a god with that god itself. Hammurabi did this in several letters, e.g.
Hammurabi King of Babylon said:
Unto Sin-idinnam say: thus says Hammurabi. I am sending [two named officers] to bring the goddesses of Emutbalum. Let the goddesses travel in a processional boat as in a shrine as they come to Babylon. And the temple-women shall follow after them. For the food of the goddesses you shall provide sheep ... Let them not delay, but swiftly reach Babylon.
Click to expand...
Kings visited such statues to hear their words.

Jews did not make graven images but, as Politesse implies, the Ark was a conduit (radio!?) via which God spoke to His People:
Exodus 25:21-22 said:
And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Click to expand...

Politesse said:
The Temple was a dwelling place for the Name of God, he never actually lived in the Tabernacle or the Temple full time. His true dwelling place was the Court of God high in the heavens. Think of his earthly synagogues as being more like consulates, and the Temple in Jerusalem as a permanent embassy in an allied nation.

The same is true of other ancient temples. Zeus did not physically reside at the Athens temple dedicated to him, but it was a dwelling place for his cognomen as Zeus Olympeon, that he could visit if he chose to, or more likely send messages through by divinatory means if he had business with the city.
Click to expand...

Yes. Solomon states that he built the Temple as a "House for the Name of the Lord God of Israel."

Still -- perhaps to simplify things for more casual Jews -- parts of the Bible do adopt the metaphor that God resided ("dwellest") in or slightly above the Ark of the Testimony.

2 Kings 19:14-15 said:
And Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.
Click to expand...
(The same story is also in Isaiah 37:14-16.) God is also shown "dwelling between the cherubim" in Psalms 80:1, Psalms 99:1, 2 Samuel 6:2, 1 Chronicles 13:6, 2 Chronicles 6:1-2.

And of course, alleged artifacts of God -- e.g. a piece of the cross, or even a footprint of Buddha -- may be highly revered.
 
Represented by is not a synonym for "is confined by", is the point. YHWH was not homeless when the Tabernacle was on the road, or when the Ark was carried into war. His home is and always was in His heavenly Court, wherever else He or an aspect of him such as his name might choose to also reside. Just as although a statue of Istabaran literally was Istabaran should He choose to in-dwell it, destroying a statue of Istabaran does not mean that Istabaran is now dead.
 
No Robots said:
Nothing sacred.... Not life, not the biosphere, not human dignity. That's the atheist ethic.
Click to expand...
This must have been written on a whim, because it's nonsensical. First, there is no 'atheist ethic', because atheism is not an ethical theory. If there was an atheist ethic, it would by definition have no 'sacred' component. The posted comment is like discussing the Islamic diet and criticizing it as 'non-kosher'.
Secondly, 'nothing sacred' seems to mean 'of no importance' to you. You'd need to interview individual atheists to ascertain that. Good huntin'.
Last, with respect to the claims of religion, especially the local (American) flavor, here's a sampler from Biblegod:
Life and biosphere - God kills off humanity, the animal kingdom, and the plant kingdom in Genesis 7, preserving some mating specimens for a restart. I don't think atheism can compete with that record.
Human dignity: In war you can kill off the entire enemy population, including non-combatants (which means infanticide), but you can save the virginal girls and women for your men to exploit. (Numbers 31; not contradicted or condemned in the rest of the volume.) Chattel slavery's OK, too. (Lev. 25) The Bible even gives a table of the monetary value of human beings, broken down by age and gender (Lev. 27).
MMMMyeah, I'll stick with secular ethicists, thanks.
 
^A renewed socialism must purge itself of atheists. Same for conservatism. Atheism has completely contaminated and degraded public discourse.
 
^You don't think Jerusalem is sacred? You have nothing to offer on the subject of world affairs.
 
No Robots said:
Nothing sacred.... Not life, not the biosphere, not human dignity. That's the atheist ethic.
Click to expand...
Nah.
That's the religious ethic.

Anybody who doesn't accept my authority concerning God is hell bound, no reason to consider their interests.

That's not all the religious people's ethic. Many, possibly most, have a far more more secular morality than traditional Christianity.

A better ethical code and moral principles than that typically taught by high profile Christian religious leaders, such as Trump and Dollar and Falwell.
Tom
 
"Sacred" apparently just means "So important to me, that I am prepared to react with massively disproportionate violence if you suggest that it's not important to absolutely everyone".

If only the world were full of people to whom nothing was sacred, it would be a far better place.

Declaring something a "desecration" is just an excuse to act out like a spoiled toddler, because you didn't get the respect you felt that you deserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom