• The Sietch will shortly be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance. Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
  • Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!
  • The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)
  • Your beloved Boot here with a confession. The Boot tangled its laces and failed to properly set up the new Comrade user title. Thanks to the kind intercession of Emperor Tippy this failure has been corrected and the new user title is now actually on sale to everybody.

Why does the left consider the UN a moral authority?

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
7,228
Location
Mother Roof
All men worship something, something that justifies themselves and their actions. If it isn't God, it's something else. Even atheists worship themselves.
See: the large number of left wing atheists screeching about believing in science and trusting the experts. Atheist libertarians worship the concept of liberty most often, their morality is guided by the idea of some natural right as human beings and the NAP. And then you have politically very racist atheists who worship their own race, like white nationalists.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
12,338
Location
Federal Way
"Experts" are starting to become the new clerical/priestly class in our society: "do what they say because... they're the experts! The science backs them up!".
"Well, if the science backs them up, they should be able to produce the data that supports their conclusions; right?" "Shut up! They don't have to prove anything to you; you're stupid and poor, and a racist/sexist!"
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Reaction score
4,731
Location
The Land of Snow and Cold
All men worship something, something that justifies themselves and their actions. If it isn't God, it's something else. Even atheists worship themselves.
:LOL: That would just be projection on your part. The closest I come to "worshiping" anything is in my fondness for tomboys.
 

JasonSanjo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Reaction score
799
Location
Sweden
All men worship something, something that justifies themselves and their actions. If it isn't God, it's something else. Even atheists worship themselves.
:LOL: That would just be projection on your part. The closest I come to "worshiping" anything is in my fondness for tomboys.
Indeed, this does appear to be projection on your part, Val.

For my part, I find the ideas of worship and idolization (including self-worship and self-idolization) to be alien to my psyche, much as I imagine you find the ideas of non-worship and non-idolization alien to your psyche.

As a species, humans tend to project their own needs and desires onto others: the cheater who suspects their spouse of cheating; the kleptomaniac who suspects everybody else of being a thief; the "anti-racist" who suspects everybody else of being racist because they themselves harbor racist thoughts and ideas; etc.

Likewise from this stems an inability to understand those who lack the needs and desires oneself has: the pyromaniac who doesn't understand how others can't find beauty and fascination in the sight, sound, smell and the feeling of heat of a burning building; the art lover who doesn't understand how others cannot appreciate art the way they do; the adrenaline junkie who doesn't understand why others wouldn't want to risk their lives at the drop of a hat...

... and perhaps most pertinent to this conversation: the believer/worshipper/idolizer who doesn't understand how others can lack the need and desire for belief/worship/idolization.

For a long time, I could not understand why religious people did as they did. Setting aside the many logical and moral problems with most religions and their various holy texts, I simply could not understand why the religious people so vehemently desired to "believe", to "worship", to "idolize"; I completely lacked these desires, and so I could not empathize with them at all in that context. Now, I could of course understand and relate to the desire to belong to a community, and in many cases (indeed, most, at least in my personal experience) that appeared to be what they were actually after, but a smaller sub-set of religious people seemed to desire and even need just the act of belief/worship/idolization itself, and that I simply could not understand. I still can't, but these days I can at least recognize that they possess a certain desire and need that I do not, and only postulate that it has something to do with either their biology or very early psychological development, much the same as it is for kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs, adrenaline junkies, etc.

Now, with all this said, people who do have this need aren't necessarily "religious" in the sense of belonging to an official religion; as has been mentioned in this thread, there are those who treat "science" as though it were a religion (I call it "science" with quotation marks because these same people generally eschew the scientific method and do everything in their power to ignore or defame research that runs counter to their beliefs), or do the same to a particular political ideology and/or political leader, such as the stereotyped "feminist", "SJW", "Leftist", "Trumpist", etc. However, it would be a grave mistake to believe that all who eschew religion are like these people, who have simply chosen a non-religious or non-theistic target for their desire and need for belief/worship/idolization.

A lot of people, like myself, simply lack the need and desire for belief/worship/idolization entirely.

TL; DR: People are different. Don't make the mistake of assuming all people are the same as you are.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,032
A lot of people, like myself, simply lack the need and desire for belief/worship/idolization entirely.

TL; DR: People are different. Don't make the mistake of assuming all people are the same as you are.
Or you could just be misunderstanding what someone means by 'worship' or 'idolize.'

Whatever is treated as first and most important in your life? That's what you worship; theologically speaking, that is what the term means.

Generally speaking, when a Christian says 'everyone worships something,' they aren't saying 'I 100% believe that everybody sings worship songs directed at whatever it is they idolize in their life.' They're saying 'everybody has something that they consider important above all else in their life.'

People put all kinds of things first in their life. 'Being happy,' being 'strong,' their job, their family, romance, power, a hobby, their political ideology, their self-image as 'being a good person,' etc.

If you will subordinate everything else in your life to that thing, you are worshiping it.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,601
Location
Israel
Or you could just be misunderstanding what someone means by 'worship' or 'idolize.'

Whatever is treated as first and most important in your life? That's what you worship; theologically speaking, that is what the term means.

Generally speaking, when a Christian says 'everyone worships something,' they aren't saying 'I 100% believe that everybody sings worship songs directed at whatever it is they idolize in their life.' They're saying 'everybody has something that they consider important above all else in their life.'

People put all kinds of things first in their life. 'Being happy,' being 'strong,' their job, their family, romance, power, a hobby, their political ideology, their self-image as 'being a good person,' etc.

If you will subordinate everything else in your life to that thing, you are worshiping it.
Then the word "worship" is a completely meaningless term. We all have priorities, nobody holds every single aspect of their life with the exact same importance. Of course there must be some kind of number one (and two, and three etc). Why give it a special word?

No. To me, worship implies supreme importance. Not merely something that is most important, but something that is put on a special pedestal. An obsession. Not everybody has that.
 

JasonSanjo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Reaction score
799
Location
Sweden
Or you could just be misunderstanding what someone means by 'worship' or 'idolize.'

Whatever is treated as first and most important in your life? That's what you worship; theologically speaking, that is what the term means.

Generally speaking, when a Christian says 'everyone worships something,' they aren't saying 'I 100% believe that everybody sings worship songs directed at whatever it is they idolize in their life.' They're saying 'everybody has something that they consider important above all else in their life.'

People put all kinds of things first in their life. 'Being happy,' being 'strong,' their job, their family, romance, power, a hobby, their political ideology, their self-image as 'being a good person,' etc.

If you will subordinate everything else in your life to that thing, you are worshiping it.
Except that is not how the terms are defined and used in either my nor Val's posts, rendering your entire argument irrelevant to the conversation. If you re-read mine, in particular, you see that I define how they are used in the context of my argument in particular. Using an undefined term mentioned by someone else without asking for a clarification or definition would have been idiotic, and while I am many things, an idiot is fortunately not one of them.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,032
Except that is not how the terms are defined and used in either my nor Val's posts, rendering your entire argument irrelevant to the conversation. If you re-read mine, in particular, you see that I define how they are used in the context of my argument in particular. Using an undefined term mentioned by someone else without asking for a clarification or definition would have been idiotic, and while I am many things, an idiot is fortunately not one of them.
Except for the part where when Theologians discuss what Worship actually means, this is the sort of conclusion that comes out.

I get that Christian Theology is not a subject of intense interest to agnostic and atheist types, but when it is a Christian using the term to describe something, you should be aware of what they mean, not what the pop culture perception of the term is. This is not even what all Christians mean by the term, but those Christians who are usually theologically-studied enough to use the saying 'everyone worships something' are coming from this school of thought, which is why they are using the saying.

Then the word "worship" is a completely meaningless term. We all have priorities, nobody holds every single aspect of their life with the exact same importance. Of course there must be some kind of number one (and two, and three etc). Why give it a special word?

No. To me, worship implies supreme importance. Not merely something that is most important, but something that is put on a special pedestal. An obsession. Not everybody has that.
'Supreme' is functionally a fancier and more emphatic word for 'most' in this usage. Whatever is most important in your life will be on a special pedestal by the very merit of being most important.

Now granted, that does not mean you'll see the same sort of obsessive behavior that you get from some people. I'm not claiming that. But it does mean that everyone has something pre-eminent.

Another way some Christians put it is 'what is on the throne of your heart?' Or 'On the throne in your life?'
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
5,996
Location
Before the Ninth Gate
Except for the part where when Theologians discuss what Worship actually means, this is the sort of conclusion that comes out.

I get that Christian Theology is not a subject of intense interest to agnostic and atheist types, but when it is a Christian using the term to describe something, you should be aware of what they mean, not what the pop culture perception of the term is. This is not even what all Christians mean by the term, but those Christians who are usually theologically-studied enough to use the saying 'everyone worships something' are coming from this school of thought, which is why they are using the saying.



'Supreme' is functionally a fancier and more emphatic word for 'most' in this usage. Whatever is most important in your life will be on a special pedestal by the very merit of being most important.

Now granted, that does not mean you'll see the same sort of obsessive behavior that you get from some people. I'm not claiming that. But it does mean that everyone has something pre-eminent.

Another way some Christians put it is 'what is on the throne of your heart?' Or 'On the throne in your life?'
Thanks for explaining this. It makes a lot of sense.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Reaction score
896
Another way some Christians put it is 'what is on the throne of your heart?' Or 'On the throne in your life?'
The issue is that this denotes the very sort of qualitative difference in priority being denied. Not everyone has a specific thing they treat fundamentally differently like that, in many cases it's just the top of an ever-changing list, and using a single term for both is vague in ways very poor to useful communication because it's trying to describe two fundamentally opposed behavior patterns.

Such ambiguity is why the theological definition you're trying to clearly define is rarely-used academic jargon, because it isn't useful in wider society.
 

JasonSanjo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Reaction score
799
Location
Sweden
Allow me to reiterate and simplify, as you apparently missed it the first time: As seen in Val's, Captain X's and my own posts, your definition is contextually invalid and thus irrelevant to the conversation.

If you are still unable to grasp something so simple, then I'm afraid there is very little I can do to help you.

More importantly: This is veering wildly off-topic. Therefore, I politely ask you to drop it. Whether or not you do so is of course up to you, but I have no interest in further derailing this thread.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,032
Allow me to reiterate and simplify, as you apparently missed it the first time: As seen in Val's, Captain X's and my own posts, your definition is contextually invalid and thus irrelevant to the conversation.

If you are still unable to grasp something so simple, then I'm afraid there is very little I can do to help you.

More importantly: This is veering wildly off-topic. Therefore, I politely ask you to drop it. Whether or not you do so is of course up to you, but I have no interest in further derailing this thread.
Unless I'm seriously misreading Moofia, he's either a Christian, or directly took this saying from a Christian.

So no, my saying is not contextually irrelevant, because I am explaining the definition used by the person who said it.

A lot of Christians don't consciously think that 'hey, secularists probably don't have an understanding of what 'worship' means beyond what they pick up through pop culture osmosis.' So they use a saying that they don't realize you likely won't understand the meaning of it. Your attempt to say 'no not people are all like that' is to show that you do not understand the statement which was being made. (Because I am not Moofia, I cannot know 100% he meant what I think he did, but if that's the case, then that's what I would have meant by the statement, I know many other Christians would have meant, and I agree is appropriate in this context.)

Also, this is thread-relevant, for the same reason that the statement was originally made in this thread.

To ordain and define moral order, is a demonstration of Divine authority.

Someone can be referenced as a moral authority for one of two reasons:
1. Their excellence at understanding and interpreting moral law that already exists.
2. They are the one with the power and authority to create the moral law, thus, they are divine.

To say 'some people consider the UN a moral authority because they ascribe to it divine authority' is a pretty profound statement, and extremely topical.

The issue is that this denotes the very sort of qualitative difference in priority being denied. Not everyone has a specific thing they treat fundamentally differently like that, in many cases it's just the top of an ever-changing list, and using a single term for both is vague in ways very poor to useful communication because it's trying to describe two fundamentally opposed behavior patterns.

Such ambiguity is why the theological definition you're trying to clearly define is rarely-used academic jargon, because it isn't useful in wider society.
The fundamental difference is 'what is most important?'

Literally everyone does this. Everyone has something that is most important in their life, even if it changes frequently. They may not ascribe all the qualities to that thing that a Christian does to God, but a Muslim, Jew, polytheist or a pantheist does not 'worship' in the same exact way that a Christian does, yet we still use the same term.

It's also not rarely-used academic jargon, it's terminology semi-commonly used among religious communities and cultures. I understand that to those of you who are agnostic/atheist or otherwise secular, it might seem an obscure or niche term, but as was said earlier up the thread...

TL; DR: People are different. Don't make the mistake of assuming all people are the same as you are.
The reason I made post to explain the way the term was used, was because I understood that people of an agnostic/atheistic bent are not like me and are also not like people who embrace a worldview that includes the existence of Deity. As such, with rare exceptions (mostly those who study religion in an academic sense), agnostics/atheists will not understand what 'worship' really means.

Yes, I understand that secularists are not going to a thing called a temple, shrine, or suchlike, and paying homage at an altar, or explicitly bowing down and praying before something. Yes, by that superficial understanding of 'worship,' secularists do not worship.

But that's not what 'Everyone worships something' means. If it did, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you and trying to explain what is meant by the saying.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Reaction score
896
The fundamental difference is 'what is most important?'
No, the fundamental difference is "What will I lay down my life for?", to be somewhat hyperbolic. Simply being the "most important" thing in one's life does not have this baggage, the fundamental difference is a matter of proclaiming a willingness to sacrifice needs for, or perhaps to make conditions materially worse as an ethical decision.

We can quite justifiably say a Libertarian worships freedom, but can we say a drug addict "worships" meth or heroine? Can we say a starving person driven to cannibalism "worships" food? One would not expect a Christian to kill someone barring them from their child getting baptized or, despite what some often say, a Libertarian to kill someone in the way of them doing business, but we wouldn't be surprised at a drug addict doing the same for a hit.

There are fundamentally differing kinds of priority people tend to have, that would be described in utilitarian-style equations as the weight of other priorities. This is a large part of why "importance" tends to be so supremely fluid, because different kinds of priority are looked at for tradeoffs differently, and the different ways these priorities work lead to the common definition of "worship" specifically involving behaviors expected of religions, but are not intrinsically exclusive to them.

When one places a simple desire as the "most important" thing, such as wanting to have some arbitrary sum of wealth, personal needs can very readily overtake it in the moment, whereas most religions propose a causal chain where death is not the end, and your treatment afterword is determined by adherence to their values, leading to death being a perfectly acceptable cost to uphold them.

Edit: See also the situation with idolatry, where the terminology surrounding the "sin" denotes religious behaviors, rather than being defined solely by priorities. The issue at hand was not strictly of putting other deific figures before the God of the Hebrews, but that one was providing supplication similar in kind.
 
Last edited:

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,601
Location
Israel
'Supreme' is functionally a fancier and more emphatic word for 'most' in this usage. Whatever is most important in your life will be on a special pedestal by the very merit of being most important.
A definite NO on this one.

You can have a number one priority in life without obsessing over it, or giving it more than a marginal preference over priorities 2 and 3.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,032
A definite NO on this one.

You can have a number one priority in life without obsessing over it, or giving it more than a marginal preference over priorities 2 and 3.
No, the fundamental difference is "What will I lay down my life for?", to be somewhat hyperbolic. Simply being the "most important" thing in one's life does not have this baggage, the fundamental difference is a matter of proclaiming a willingness to sacrifice needs for, or perhaps to make conditions materially worse as an ethical decision.
Congratulations, you're rehashing discussions of values, priorities, diminishing returns, and moral conflicts that I've been having for a decade and some.

You are, again, attributing to me (and other Christians) your personal definition of worship, then insisting that what someone else said means what you say it means.

You're not putting forward any thoughts I haven't heard before. You aren't going over any ideas or logical conflicts that I (and many other Christians) have not run through before.

Please stop insisting that no, the statement totally means what you say it does, based on your preconceptions of the term 'worship.'
 
Top Bottom