#dystheism

[grimmstar-grimmoire]

Varieties of Theism

Agnostic Theism Whereas atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. The Greek roots of the term combine a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Hence, agnosticism literally means “without knowledge.” In the context where it is normally used, the term means: without knowledge of the existence of gods. Since it is possible for a person to believe in one or more gods without claiming to know for sure that any gods exist, it's possible to be an agnostic theist.

Monotheism The term monotheism comes from the Greek monos, (one) and theos (god). Thus, monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single god. Monotheism is typically contrasted with polytheism (see below), which is a belief in many gods, and with atheism, which is an absence of any belief in any gods.

Polytheism Polytheism is the belief in the existence of multiple gods. The prefix ''poly'' means many, so polytheists believe that there are multiple divine forces in existence. The Greek and Roman pantheons are excellent examples of these, as they consist of many gods that govern different aspects of nature and essences of humanity. Some argue that Christianity is a polytheistic religion because of the worship of the Trinity. However, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all aspects of a single God, making it a monotheistic religion.

Deism Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but it remains distinct enough in character and development to justify discussing separately. In addition to adopting the beliefs of general monotheism, deists also adopt the belief that the single existing god is personal in nature and transcendent from the created universe. However, they reject the belief, common among monotheists in the West, that this god is immanent—presently active in the created universe.

Henotheism and Monolatry Henotheism is based upon the Greek roots heis or henos, (one), and theos (god). But the term is not a synonym for monotheism, despite the fact that it has the same etymological meaning.

Another word expressing the same idea is monolatry, which is based on the Greek roots monos (one), and latreia (service or religious worship). The term appears to have been first used by Julius Wellhausen to described a type of polytheism in which just a single god is worshiped but where other gods are accepted as existing elsewhere. Many tribal religions fall into this category.

Pantheism The word pantheism is built from the Greek roots pan (all) and theos (god); thus, pantheism is either a belief that the universe is God and worthy of worship, or that God is the sum total of all there is and that the combined substances, forces, and natural laws that we see around us are therefore manifestations of God. The early Egyptian and Hindu religions are regarded as pantheistic, and Taoism is also sometimes considered a pantheistic belief system.

Panentheism The word panentheism is Greek for “all-in-God,” pan-en-theos. A panentheistic belief system posits the existence of a god that interpenetrates every part of nature but which is nevertheless fully distinct from nature. This god is, therefore, part of nature, but at the same time still retains an independent identity.

Impersonal Idealism In the philosophy of Impersonal Idealism, universal ideals are identified as god. There are elements of impersonal idealism, for example, in the Christian belief that "God is love," or the humanist view that "God is knowledge."

Autotheism The term ''autotheism'' is composed of two parts: the prefix, ''auto,'' and the root/suffix combination, ''theism.'' ''Auto'' means ''self, one's own, by oneself.'' So, autotheism is the belief that one is a god themself. It has also been described as someone who mistakes one's inner voices as God's voice within them.

Kathenotheism The belief that there are many gods, but only one deity at a time should be worshipped, each being supreme in turn.

Ditheism (or Duotheism) The belief in two equally powerful gods, often, but not always, with complementary properties and in constant opposition, such as God and Goddess in Wicca, or Good and Evil in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism. The early mystical religion Gnosticism is another example of a ditheistic belief of sorts, due to their claim that the thing worshipped as God in this world is actually an evil impostor, but that a true benevolent deity worthy of being called "God" exists beyond this world.

Misotheism The belief that gods exist, but that they are actually evil. The English word was coined by Thomas de Quincey in 1846. Strictly speaking, the term connotes an attitude of hatred towards the god or gods, rather than making a statement about their nature.

Dystheism The belief that gods exist, but that they are not wholly good, or possibly even evil (as opposed to eutheism, the belief that God exists and is wholly good). Trickster gods found in polytheistic belief systems often have a dystheistic nature, and there are various examples of arguable dystheism in the Bible.

Animism Animism is the idea that all things—animate and inanimate—possess a spirit or an essence. First coined in 1871, animism is a key feature in many ancient religions, especially of indigenous tribal cultures. Animism is a foundational element in the development of ancient human spirituality, and it can be identified in different forms throughout major modern world religions.

Totemism Totemism is a system of belief in which man is believed to have kinship with a totem or a mystical relationship is said to exist between a group or an individual and a totem. A totem is an object, such as an animal or plant that serves as the emblem or symbol of a kinship group or a person. The term totemism has been used to characterize a cluster of traits in the religion and in the social organization of many primitive peoples.

[thecouncilsinsideblog]

I just recieved an advertisement for religion and I am... amused (/derogatory).

Ah yes, let's give the demonic alter with religious trauma a message praising the thing that helped form it (/sarcasm).

It isn't any of my business what others do or believe in; I do not care as long as it doesn't hurt my headmates.

But I am... displeased with the irony.

[anomalouspest]

It always goes deeper, it always gets sadder, more tragic, more horrifying, more absurd more depraved, wronger nastier scarier and more vile, it always, always, always gets worse. Your perception of the lowest low is defined by the boundary where your knowledge meets your ignorance, the true depth of suffering is beyond measure, the true scope of evil is without limit. There is tragedy and wickedness woven into every inch of the fabric of life, no matter how innocuous and mundane any given portion of it may seem, at the root of every good thing is rot and festering and despair. Every spark of joy and hope is generated by the striking together of evil and misery. All of us are alive because of the rape and enslavement of our female ancestors, our wealth comes at the expense of others' exploitation and toil, our peace is achieved through war, or at least the threat of it, our meals reliant on the abuse perpetuated by industrial farming. And these are only a handful of the most blatant examples. These are not exceptions to the rule, they are the rule, this is the natural order, and nature cares nothing for what is good. Nature is rather the progenitor and perpetuator of all evil, and goodness exists only as a means to motivate us to endure and ignore evil, its purpose is to serve as a tool of manipulation and distraction. To focus on what is bad, to be negative, pessimistic, critical, grim, is to fight against the incuriosity and passivity nature insills in us in order to compel us to perpetuate ourselves and thus, our own suffering. To deny the goodness of reproduction is to deny the goodness of the willful perpetuation of nature's evil.

[vampiretheology]

On the Nature of God

TL;DR: People read the made in God's image thing to mean humanity is good. The far more reasonable interpretation is that God isn't.

Gen 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

This differentiation of image and likeness conveys the idea that mankind is made deliberately similar to God, not just in physical body, but in action and function (and yes, the difference exists in the Hebrew as well). Where God claims dominion over the world, mankind claims dominion over all animal life. In so paralleling, scripture informs us that we can get a glimpse of the nature of God simply by looking at ourselves.

Mankind has great capacity for many things, but not all are good. Sure, we may have great capacity for love, but if God were only love we certainly couldn't be called his likeness. We have spectacular capacity for becoming overly controlling, manipulative, jealous, abusive, and deceptive. Many of which are traits we see God openly exhibit in scripture.

I find it odd how little capacity those who claim to follow the Bible have when it comes to accepting that their god might not always be truthful with them. He might not always have their best interest at heart. Even from the first chapter of the first book we see the subtle warning that all the evil man might do, God might just do as well. And one of those evils, in fact arguably the first one man displays, is deception.

My best and only response to a biblical literalist is simply this: "Yes, but he could very well have been lying." Do I know that he was - no, but neither can you be certain he wasn't. If the question itself is God's honesty, no scriptural refutation is possible, only blind faith. I do not doubt that your god exists - I doubt that he is good, that he is truthful, and that he is alone. He could have literally said everything you quote - but who's to say he's being honest? You've experienced his voice, even his miracles - great, I never refuted his existence, I never doubted his ability to grant miracles, but I also have no reason that his motives are noble, or even to believe he is alone in the capacity to grant miracles. The only evidence is that of his own hollow words, and I do not accept them.

You wish to dedicate your life and your soul to him - more power to you, I certainly won't get in the way. Just don't try to force me along for the ride.

[groovyfandomhuman]

*I do not mean to offend anyone this is just a thought*

in truth, the snake never asked Adam and Eve to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, he just asked them to question god's will; his word.

don't you think it to be suspicious that some divine creator doesn't want us to be on the same knowledge level as "him"? how curious.

[doctor-seamonster]

Yaldabaoth is a dickhead and you're a fool for showing him any deference at all.

You heard me.

[bonefall]

You may have answered this before, but how are you handling characters that don't believe in starclan, like mothwing and cloudtail? Personally I thought it was interesting when reading the books, considering cloudtail, but only to a point because it's very hard to write atheist characters in a setting where there's undeniable proof of the gods/spirits/etc. Like, how did they explain the literal forces of heaven and hell battling on earth??

As An Atheist Myself ™ I have a lot of feelings about the two of them. I think the short answer is just that in a setting where gods are literally undeniable facts of life, "Atheism" looks more like Dystheism, the belief that they exist, but are not worthy of worship.

That seemed to be the conclusion at the end of Mothwing's... i forgor the name of her novella 💀Mothflight's Blaspheme Boogie. It's actually why it's one of my favorite novellas, I really like the way it closes out with Mudfur trying to sales pitch StarClan's goodness to her, she doesn't buy a fucking penny of it, and ultimately concludes that the comfort it provides to her Clanmates is valuable to them but doesn't have to be for her.

So that's how I want to handle them. They have an outsider perspective to the fact that this is a theocracy, based on gods that can be vindictive and vengeful. Scourge/Iceheart is also joining these two, he actually is going to have a minor but important role in Squirrelflight's Horror as a ghost basically giving insight to what happens when you don't worship StarClan when you die.

With him and Mothwing I really know what I'm doing. Mothwing is insight to Leafpool, especially in TNP where she is now a POV, and observing how the though of StarClan influences the behavior of the cats around her. Scourge is killed in the Great Battle and serves as a ghost to witness their trial. Cloudtail...

Cloud's still evolving. He's going to be a supporting character with Ferncloud in her SE and exploring the feelings he has towards Ashfur, now his apprentice, becoming a villain. How he did his job perfectly, raised him with a deep respect towards the warrior code, and that lead to the person he is today. How he couldn't have done things "better" because this DID raise him the way his society expected him to.

But his dystheism is kind of secondary to that. I think the story I've got for him is fine so far, but it needs more of an 'ending' that I can't decide on until they finally kill him in the main books.

[beheworthy]

I'm really disappointed on how they showed Christian bale in Thor 4 like they should've done better with his acting skills

Tell me about it!

They had an actor of his callibre, known for his intense method acting, playing a character that would be worth his mettle, but then they waste him like that. Poor guy shaved his head for it and all.

Red Letter Media said in their review that Christian was in a different movie, Nat was in a different movie, and Chris half the time was in a different movie. Then maybe make that movie your main characters are in instead of a joke fest when you know the topics at hand are c*ncer and dystheism.

For what it's worth, I absolutely loved his interactions with Thor :) Christian also said that his favorite scene was with Chris in the Shadow Realm, probably because he had another person in the room with him in this green screen fest.

[phoenixenero]

Administrator, variations. Based on Administrative Mishap (a Worm x Supergirl CW crossover fanfic) by OxfordOctopus.

Also a cheeky speculative High Priest from the Dystheism omake over on the SpaceBattles thread.

Full-res (4k) is available for free download on my deviantART post if you so wish.

[vi-visected]

an acrostic poem for the word “dystheism”

[gascon-en-exil]

Are you atheist?

I'm Catholic. Coming from a Frenchman, with our cultural tradition of secularism, that statement is a bit more nuanced than that, but I am baptized and confirmed and sometimes bother to recognize feast days even if I have little use for the Church's morals unless I can make something kinky out of them...and Catholicism has a ton of kink potential, as many have noticed. Relevantly to online spaces, I'm vaguely aware of "tradcaths" but want as little to do with them as I'm sure they'd want to do with me (or New Orleans in its entirety, for that matter).

I dislike the all-or-nothing concept of religion that seems to be the norm in Anglo culture, because it ignores that major organized religions have a variety of cultural dimensions that don't necessarily relate to dogma. I'm Catholic because it ties into Louisiana's longstanding resistance to US Protestant cultural hegemony, not because I care very much about God or His Church. My actual theological beliefs, if I cared enough to even have any seriously, would be closer to dystheism: that God is a chronically bored sadist who torments humans for His pleasure. Who was it who said we create God in our image? That'd be what I'd do if I were immortal and omnipotent.

[hellguarded-moved]

given that ignis comes from ancient greece, it is natural for him to be a polytheist—  believing,  knowing,  that there are multiple gods.  he fits into a few certain categories of polytheism:

hard polytheism:  the belief that these multiple gods are their own beings, rather than abstract natural forces or aspects of one singular god.

henotheism:  the devotion and worship to a singular god without rejecting the existence of the others, while also not preaching that those other gods are unworthy of said worship.  in ig’s case, he prays to persephone  ( still, to this day ).

dystheism:  the belief that the  ( not all )  gods aren’t wholly good;  the belief in existence of trickster or outright malicious gods, or  ‘neccessary evil’  gods.

[greatamericansatan]

The Fvcked in the Mouth Fundraiser

My fundraiser to make up for dental expenses is doin' pretty well - up to 81% of goal at time of this post. I'm not abjectly desperate so if you know twenty-five mutuals with turbo-cancer, give to them first, but anything helps when your credit cards are maxed out, so I'm keeping my tin cup rattling for the moment.  Plz donate thx.

I had to pay close to $700 unexpectedly so I’m hastily raising as much as I can within two weeks.  If I go over target, I’ll put any excess toward paying down some of the thousands in credit card debt I racked up from the same dental shituation.  Donate and I will write you a blog post on your topic of choice, containing ten words for every dollar.  If you chip in a few bucks you can get a haiku, right?

Here is an example of what your donation buys:

250 Words on the Topic of Loki as God

Somebody suggested I could meditate for a moment on what it would be like if Loki were behind the mask of the christian god.  What an obscure concept to be into, Norse mythology of all things.  It’s not like there’s some global media conglomerate spamming culture with a contemporary representation played by a conventionally attractive rich white guy.  How does one even get into these things?

At the core of the request is the concept of dystheism, and I’m grateful to whatever wikipedia editor linked that in the “related articles” section of Loki’s page.  What if the abrahamic god was a malevolent prank?  That might explain why god is nowhere to be seen – Loki was captured by his fellow æsir and squirreled away until doomsday, when his bastard children will bust him out of jail and destroy the world.  We’ll see Loki again when the soup goes down, possibly rocking stigmata and a crown of thorns.

Sometimes Loki’s pranks were for his own ends, sometimes he was badgered into using his powers for the pantheon, like the time he was impregnated (mpreg) by a male horse.  On one level, Loki playing Yah;_;eh demotes our lord of creation, but on another level, it empowers him, because he’ll win in the end, right?  And just like in Revelations, we’ll all lose at the same time.  If xtianity and the Great Middle East Hatepit are the creation of a prankster god, congrats to him, but it doesn’t change much for us...

[wormsslime]

thinking about how dystheism and misotheism are separate things, despite feeding into each other. like im both but theyre not the same and its interesting

[flameandindifference]

What's Lucius' take on dystheists?

For those who have no idea wtf that is: Dystheism (from Greek δυσ- dys-, "bad" and θεός theos, "god") is the belief that a god is not wholly good and can even be considered evil. Definitions of the term somewhat vary, with one author defining it as "where God decides to become malevolent".

He is silent a moment as several war-esque flashbacks of the Old Testament run through his head.

".... Makes more sense than the current view. My father's a shithead but at least he didn't give a damn who you were fucking."

[toomanybugs]

why does anyone do anything. why did some cruel god decide to put you where you are. who knows love. perhaps im trying to help

perhaps.

Okay. well. I dont think your helping, since you havent really said anything useful, and you and theseus and that phantom person can go sit in your weird dystheism boats.