In this post modern world some of us live in a theist can have a belief that is right in line with atheism. Atheism can be based on the fact that there is no evidence for God, and yet there are plenty of people who also know that a transcendent deity can never give evidence of his existence. Others will point out that whatever concept one can come up with for god is still just a concept; a creation of one's own imagination. Therefore the theist must go beyond all concepts or ideas or evidence. To believe in any ideas is to believe in a created god and be an idolater, so they find themselves in the same camp as the atheist.
What you appear to be arguing is that one can not be a theist unless one has a complete understanding of one's deity.
I'm not arguing that at all. Please explain how you get that from what I posted?
"To believe in any ideas is to believe in a created god and be an idolater, so they find themselves in the same camp as the atheist."
This is a convoluted mess.
Your confusion doesn't refute what I've posted. Moreover, this statement: " one can not be a theist unless one has a complete understanding of one's deity."
does not follow from this statement:
"To believe in any ideas is to believe in a created god and be an idolater, so they find themselves in the same camp as the atheist"
Just because people speculate on the nature of a deity does not make "any ideas" the same as believing in a deity of one's own making.
First off, you're introducing the idea of speculating which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a believer. These speculations are also just ideas. If one takes it a step further and decides to believe in these ideas they are still beliefs based on his own ideas. Ideas are not gods. Ideas are ideas.
That's like saying that having an idea of what constitutes a rock makes the rock in front of me a figment of my imagination.
Bad example. You don't have any gods in front of you, unless they're made of stone or wood or your own imagination; then you're an idolater.
My limited understanding of a deity does not make what I do know about that deity wrong.
Your limited understanding makes what you know about that deity limited to your understanding. In other words, your thoughts, ideas, concepts etc. None of which are deities. You can have an extremely accurate idea of the ground you are standing on, the fact is that that understanding is not the ground you are standing on. You can have an excellent understanding of water, but that understanding will never quench your thirst.
Simplistic maybe, but idolatrous no.
Not simplistic, false. Definitely idolatrous.
You have your definition of marriage which is not subject to feelings. The reality is that your legal contracts are subject to the feelings of those who entered into these contracts and in many cases they base their divorce on how they feel about the contract.
This is not my definition. This is the historical definition.
The historical origin of the word means "to impregnate". That's what the purpose of marriage was historically up until our most recent post modern world redefined the meaning of the word to be a contract.
So, if we use that derivation as a working definition...
Your first mistake is so claim that it is a derivation. Origins have no derivation.
... a John who impregnates a prostitute is marrying her and the same could be said of a rapist and a victim.
Yep; in a post modern sense especially. Originally impregnating was within the context of people getting together for life. Anything outside of that was unsanctioned regardless of it being one day or the day before one of the parties died.
When you speak of "post modern" in this sense, I would presume that you mean post Greco/Roman times.
Why? Post modern follows modern etc.
Since, the middle ages, even though people without property rights could take marriage as a simple coupling, the primary recognition of marriage was a combining of assets.
A distinction with no effective difference. Just because the size of the assets varies from great to neglible doesn't negate the fact that the assets are being combined.
Also, this latter view of marriage predates that in Torah law. The romantic view of marriage made a comeback in Renaissance literature and philosophy, but only gradually took hold as people without property gained the franchise.
Your point being what?
I don't know where you got the idea that I view marriage as a legal contract. I couldn't care less what legalities are fabricated around marriages; these are for those who shouldn't be married in the first place. Usually it's those who are basing their relationship on some romantic notion, or some legal protection. I was referring to neither, but to an observation of marriages that are successful.
Well, please explain in detail how you would define "marriages that are successful". In that context, what does the word "marriage" mean and what constitutes "success"?
Marriage means "to impregnate" and conception would constitute success. Some might take it to mean bringing the pregnancy to full term and delivery. In todays world the necessity for an abortion would be just as successful.
That is a very narrow view of "marriage" and "success". Using that view, one night stand, or even a rape could be called a successful marriage.
After walking down the aisle or simply getting the blessing of whatever authority figure was available, yep.
An extremely successful marriage would be one where the man hangs a round until the baby is born and then takes off. I personally do not think the first to are marriage at all and would not call the third successful.
I wouldn't either, nor would I think any different for any of the myriad variations that are being introduced on an almost daily basis.