NewStats: 3,262,160 , 8,176,285 topics. Date: Sunday, 01 June 2025 at 04:50 AM 47474s

Kobojunkieee:
Is it equally metaphorical to say then that if one worships Sango, then Sango is a god to 'em?

No, because metaphors compares two unlike things e.g if you have the metaphor "John is a beast", this metaphor is comparing john (a human) to a wild animal, which are two different things.
If you say "this car is a rocket", you are comparing a car with a rocket which are also two different things.

But if you say "John is human", it's not a metaphor because john (a person) is actually human, so, it's literal.

Sango is a diety, so saying that it's a god is a literal statement because god and diety have the same meaning versus the comparison of god and money which are two different things.

Everyday247:
➜No, because metaphors compares two unlike things e.g if you have the metaphor "John is a beast", this metaphor is comparing john (a human) to a wild animal, which are two different things. If you say "this car is a rocket", you are comparing a car with a rocket which are also two different things. But if you say "John is human", it's not a metaphor because john (a person) is actually human, so, it's literal.
Sango is a diety, so saying that it's a god is a literal statement because god and diety have the same meaning versus the comparison of god and money which are two different things.

Why is saying, "Money is a god to those who worship money," perceived as a comparison and not a literal statement by you?🤔

I worship neither money nor Sango here, so please explain the following to me. What makes Sango a deity to those who worship Sango, and money not a deity to those who worship money? 🤔

Kobojunkieee:
Why is saying, "Money is a god to those who worship money," perceived as a comparison and not a literal statement by you?🤔

I worship neither money nor Sango here, so please explain the following to me. What makes Sango a deity to those who worship Sango, and money not a deity to those who worship money? 🤔

Because money is not a deity and Sango is.

A deity is defined as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers.
Between Sango and money which best suits this definition?

Money is not a deity to people that are said to worship money because they don't actually worship money but society made the figure of speech about their desire for money being comparable to religious martyrdom (i.e they can do anything for money in the same way a deeply devoted adherent/religious fanatic can do anything for his/her beliefs.

Everyday247:
➜Because money is not a deity and Sango is.
➜ A deity is defined as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers. Between Sango and money which best suits this definition?
➜ Money is not a deity to people that are said to worship money because they don't actually worship money but society made the figure of speech about their desire for money being comparable to religious martyrdom (i.e they can do anything for money in the same way a deeply devoted adherent/religious fanatic can do anything for his/her beliefs.

1. Who decided that money isn't a deity while Sango is?

2. And these superpowers are mainly as imagined in the minds of those who worship these deities, right? Again, I don't worship Sango and so have no proof that Sango has any superpowers. So, it is only regarded as a deity to me simply because I am aware there are those who worship it.

3. Recall your definition above that a deity is anything that has been ascribed powers that are beyond those of any ordinary human. Well, money is said, by many, to have such powers. Power to do the superhuman. People have been known to go to all lengths to gain access to some of that power, even destroying nations for its sake. If there are those who perceive this power exists in money, why should this society you speak of be the decider for them on whether they can rightly regard money as a deity or not?

Everyday247:
there are problems with this definition:
1. Is the universe aware of itself (conscious)?
2. What is "divine"?

1. Yes, and it is doing that through us...
2. Just another word for "Holy"

sonmvayina:


1. Yes, and it is doing that through us...
2. Just another word for "Holy"

ok

Kobojunkieee:
1. Who decided that money isn't a deity while Sango is?

This question is weird. Imagine a question like this: Who decided that a horse is an animal?
That's how your question sounds. 🤷

2. And these superpowers are mainly as imagined in the minds of those who worship these deities, right? Again, I don't worship Sango and so have no proof that Sango has any superpowers. So, it is only regarded as a deity to me simply because I am aware there are those who worship it.

It doesn't really matter whether they are real or not. What matters is the description. Mermaids are not real but we can describe them.

Are you aware of anybody who literally worships money as a deity or god?

3. Recall your definition above that a deity is anything that has been ascribed powers that are beyond those of any ordinary human. Well, money is said, by many, to have such powers. Power to do the superhuman. People have been known to go to all lengths to gain access to some of that power, even destroying nations for its sake. If there are those who perceive this power exists in money, why should this society you speak of be the decider for them on whether they can rightly regard money as a deity or not?

Yes, I agree that money has power, but it's not supernatural. Supernatural powers are those that are said to be beyond the natural laws of the universe (metaphysics).

Everyday247:
➜This question is weird. Imagine a question like this: Who decided that a horse is an animal?
That's how your question sounds. 🤷
➜It doesn't really matter whether they are real or not. What matters is the description. Mermaids are not real but we can describe them.
➜ Are you aware of anybody who literally worships money as a deity or god?
➜ Yes, I agree that money has power, but it's not supernatural. Supernatural powers are those that are said to be beyond the natural laws of the universe (metaphysics).

1. It is a valid question. Science certifies that a horse is indeed an animal. So, again, who decided that money is not a god while Sango is one?

2. So, we can describe these powers, whether real or not, that is all that matters? OK, then, people can describe the powers of money, so what exactly do you have against money being a god again?

3. Yes! I have encountered folks who would do anything for money.

4. First, I recall using the term superhuman , not supernatural. Second, I also recall that we were clear that proof of ascribed powers was not necessary, as is the case with gods like Sango. So, why pretend that money has to, itself, exhibit any actual powers to begin with?

Kobojunkieee:
<sub>1. It is a valid question. Science certifies that a horse is indeed an animal. So, again, who decided that money is not a god while Sango is one?
2. So, we can describe these powers, whether real or not, that is all that matters? OK, then, people can describe the powers of money, so what exactly do you have against money being a god again?
3. Yes! I have encountered folks who would do anything for money.
4. First, I recall using the term superhuman , not supernatural. Second, I also recall that we were clear that proof of ascribed powers was not necessary, as is the case with gods like Sango. So, why pretend that money has to, itself, exhibit any actual powers to begin with?</sub>

Sorry boss 😔
I'm preoccupied with something, I will continue next time.