Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 136 of 286 (631692)
09-02-2011 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by hooah212002
09-01-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
iano writes:
So genocide is "always immoral" because jar says so.
hooah writes:
No...genocide is bad because taking the lives of others is bad, mmkay?-
So genocide is "bad" (a.k.s. "always immoral") because hooah says so?
hoosh says so - the long version writes:
See, rational people have their own moral compass, usually derived from societal standards. Rational people don't derive their morals from deranged lunatics that use murder and mayhem as a means to get a point across. (the god you are marketing). Basically (as a social animal/species) standards that help bolster the numbers. The more members of a society (to a degree), the better.
The fact that you seem to think this sort of character is not only acceptable, but something to be sought after, worshipped and bowed down to, something you want to spend eternity with....says something about yourself.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by hooah212002, posted 09-01-2011 7:47 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2011 2:06 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 137 of 286 (631693)
09-02-2011 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Panda
09-01-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Panda writes:
Well, that would be very naive. A person willing to point a gun at you is likely to do whatever he wants regardless of any promises he made. You don't know what his goals are - your death might suit his needs.
You don't know his motivations - maybe he enjoys killing people.
You asked what I would think in the circumstances - not what was possible under any circumstances at all. A person willing to point a gun is to be taken seriously indeed. But I wouldn't be automatically supposing they would take the next step and shoot me given robbery a more likely motivation that killing.
And so I would do precisely what you would do under the circumstances, I'd cough up the code to the safe.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 7:37 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 09-02-2011 1:17 PM iano has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 138 of 286 (631694)
09-02-2011 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by iano
09-02-2011 1:05 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
iano writes:
You asked what I would think in the circumstances - not what was possible under any circumstances at all.
Ok - I'll change it slightly...
Imagine an armed robber pointing an AK47 at someone and not giving you any reason to suppose that he is anything but serious.
If he promised that he would not kill them as long as they give him the combination to the safe - do you think he will keep his promise?
He is demonstrably capable of delivering on his promise, but do you think he actually will?
A person willing to point a gun at someone is likely to do whatever he wants regardless of any promises he made.
You don't know what his goals are - a death might suit his needs.
You don't know his motivations - maybe he enjoys killing people.
I doubt that any soldier/policeman would expect him to keep his promise.
Do you think it would be odd to work on the premise that he wouldn't keep his promise?
Do you think he will keep his promise?
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by iano, posted 09-02-2011 1:05 PM iano has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 139 of 286 (631700)
09-02-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by iano
09-02-2011 12:55 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
So genocide is "bad" (a.k.s. "always immoral") because hooah says so?
What you will notice that I did was to provide factors for which rational beings derive their morality from. This is different than deriving them from a singular entity.
What you will notice I did NOT do, however, is label myself as any arbiter of morality.
It is only you, and people like you (the religious) who seem to think morality comes from a singular entity. This is demonstrably not the case.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by iano, posted 09-02-2011 12:55 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 140 of 286 (631703)
09-02-2011 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jazzns
09-01-2011 3:01 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
Jazzns writes:
Let me try to cut to some of the main points rather than responding to each line. If you feel like I unfairly missing something in your reply let me know. I just don't want the number of quote boxes to get exponential.
Good idea! Sorry about the delay in responding.
-
Yes. And in short, if he exists as defined by you, he is a tyrant. I think all the dancing around the issue of judgement stemmed for what appeared to be a position from you that god's morality is superior BECAUSE he is sovereign. I am challenging that notion. It is perfectly rational the such a god (should he exist) be both sovereign and depraved. We can judge his depravity by adhering to our own standards. Standards which need not be authoritative but merely widely accepted or at least proclaimed.
I don't think you're arguing because you feel the Midianites were hard done by. I think you're arguing because you would object to God killing you on account of your sin (genocide merely meaning lots of you's are taken out in one place and at one time)
Can I suggest that the root of your objection lies in your not feeling that your sin warrants death at God's own pleasure? That 2 grammes of selfishness here or a half an pound of lust there - doesn't warrant that level of response from God?
As a way of countering, could you outline precisely how it is you come to feel you deserve to sit at the top table so as to contribute your view on this?
Q: On what basis should you be invited to submit your opinion on the responses God should have to your sin?
Q: Where do you derive the right-to-comment in a way that should be considered by God, precisely?
It would appear to me that many assign these rights (and the value judgements that stem from them) to themselves as if they are automatically assignable. It would appear that folk view this claim strengthened by the fact that many other sinners happen to (not unsurprisingly) agree with each other.
-
It still seems as though your god is either removing my capability to reason for myself, or injecting me with thoughts that are not my own in order to force me to come to his conclusion. What it seems like you are saying is that in the day of judgement I will not be able to reason that god is evil for the eternity of torture he is about to inflict me with. Is that what you are saying?
As to not avoid your question.
You are not 'your own' as it stands. Your thoughts are distorted by a disease called sin (goes the argument).
At Judgement, God will withdraw the freedom he has granted you to wilfully suppress the truth about your sin. This suppression is deployed by you so that you can apply a rose tinted view to the guilt and conscience that your sinning awakes in you, This in order that you can carry on with the sin-party (so the argument goes).
You won't be able to reason then as you do now because you will have then a crystal clear data-set to apply your reasoning to.
You will see that "Yes, I deliberately suppressed the knowledge given me that what I was doing was wrong - in order to minimize the ugliness of that wrong so that I could go on engaging in it" And..
"Yes, I deliberately denied I had done wrong in order to escape that pride-denting demand on me to say 'sorry' to someone I hated having one over on me".
You will see it because God can replay all your thoughts and motivations - replayed as they happened but wiped clear of the excuses and self-justifications.
The sheer weight of revelation (think of the millions of clips to be watched) will be the reason why every knee will bow - even if not all will do it with delight.
Unless you, like me (a sinner like you) take the alternative route offered by God.
-
To perhaps stop beating around the bush, what I mean is that the value judgement is not authoritative. We can in fact have a better value system that god that you are characterising.
Not if every value judgment involves sinners doing what the argument above says you are doing: suppressing truth in order to bury your own sinfulness. The tendency to seek justification (solace?) in numbers has no substance to it when no safety in numbers applies.
I know you don't think much of my analogies but..
It strikes me that the common drugs: nicotine, alcohol and caffeine - all taste horrible to the uninitiated. Once you've become addicted however, the drug tastes great - largely because the taste is associated with taking the drug > which is associated with a reduction in withdrawal cravings > cravings that happen to be instigated by the previous dose > all the way back to the time you first learned to get hooked.
Sinners are like drug addicts. They argue that the drug tastes fine whilst they chase after it - even knowing somewhere inside that it leads to death.
To the uninitiated (or the re-born) the drug tastes absolutely awful.
The idea is that at Judgement you'll have a viewpoint, like that of the uninitiated, to reason with. You'll view sin as God views it. Albeit from the wrong side of the table.
-
I've got to fly for now Jazzns...I'll get back to the rest over the weekend hopefully. By all means trim your responses to what you think the essence of our discussion is.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jazzns, posted 09-01-2011 3:01 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Jazzns, posted 09-09-2011 11:24 AM iano has not replied
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2011 8:16 PM iano has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 141 of 286 (631709)
09-02-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Granny Magda
09-02-2011 8:33 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Granny Magda writes:
Then I think you have your answer. If we regard the three Abrahamic faiths (or as a neo-pagan friend of mine calls them the "Three poison shoots from one poison root") as worshipping the same God, then all Christians worship the same God. If we were to say that the three worship different gods, then I think that we would be forced to conclude that the various Christian sects also worship different gods.
Blast. You know what you've done? You have caught me agreeing with both sides of the discussion.
I see it this way. I believe in the God of the OT. (Yahweh)I am a committed Christian. However, I believe that as humans we continue to try and give attributes to Him that fit what we believe. That certainly applies to me as much as anyone else.
I showed in my last post to you, (utilizing Micah 6:8, a verse common to both Christians and Jew,s as well as Surah 3: 133,134), that all three religions, using their holy texts can be brought together in a common belief that God is a loving God and wants us to love all of His creation as He does. This would then allow us gather around a common table and cheerfully debate other doctrinal points. This is how I reconcile my view that we all worship the same God.
In my discussion with iano I have just come to the conclusion that although we both call ourselves Christians and have the Bible as our holy text we have come to very different views of the god we worship and so I came to the conclusion that we worship different gods. Frankly I find his beliefs disturbing and dangerous.
Granny Magda writes:
Of course, as an atheist, I still maintain that each individual worshipper has their own personal god concept.
I agree. I think that is to be expected if only for reason that I talked about earlier in this post.
Granny Magda writes:
Yeah, it would seem that way. Or at least, I agree that it should seem that way. In practice though, it doesn't work. There are plenty of nasty bits that are common to all three faiths, mostly (as IamJoseph never tires of pointing out) because the Christian and Muslim faiths are so heavily cribbed from Judaism. The misogyny is there in all three. The tolerance of slavery is there in all three. So is the threat of divine wrath. I think that if you look, you'll find that there are many abhorrent tales and attitudes that are common to all three faiths.
Absolutely, but it isn't necessary. If we get beyond the idea that we need absolute answers to our understanding of God, and if we get over the very human need to belong to a like thinking group I think we can make progress. Biblical fundamentalists try and read the Bible literally. It can't be done of course but they try. That way they can have absolute answers. I am firmly convinced that the Bible is not intended to be read that way, and for that matter I suggest that there is no reason to think the Bible should be read that way, other than to provide definite answers to troubling questions and in order to belong to a cohesive group. The Bible tells us that Jesus was the word of God and now it seems that they are trying to replace Jesus with that same Bible.
Granny Magda writes:
I agree that your method seems reasonable, but in practice I think that it fails badly.
Up to today I agree, but we are a work in progress.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2011 8:33 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2011 8:12 AM GDR has replied
 Message 146 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-04-2011 9:44 PM GDR has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 142 of 286 (631863)
09-03-2011 9:53 PM


Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah
To the topic question I say yes & no. yes since they are all Abrahamic religions, no because there are numerous interpretations of the Abrahamic God, Many more than the 3 religions listed in that each sect has its own interpretation and in many cases individual persons do the same.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 143 of 286 (631870)
09-03-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by iano
09-01-2011 6:48 PM


Re: Everyone has their own god.
I don't know. Bear in mind that the answer "No then" was an answer to your complete question:
Well then, it should have been "I don't know" in the first place.
But when I asked my question, it was because you, when asked if various acts of genocide were in a good cause, replied: "Whether they were or weren't isn't the issue. That God permitted them to occur is".
Well then, if I successfully commit a crime, then God permitted it to occur. Apparently whether I was behaving justly or unjustly in so doing isn't the issue.
OFF TOPIC
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 09-01-2011 6:48 PM iano has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 144 of 286 (631894)
09-04-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by GDR
09-02-2011 3:25 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Hi GDR,
Blast. You know what you've done? You have caught me agreeing with both sides of the discussion.
Dontcha just hate when that happens? Still, I think that's one of the hallmarks of a truly interesting discussion. A little ambiguity makes things more interesting.
I showed in my last post to you, (utilizing Micah 6:8, a verse common to both Christians and Jew,s as well as Surah 3: 133,134), that all three religions, using their holy texts can be brought together in a common belief that God is a loving God and wants us to love all of His creation as He does. This would then allow us gather around a common table and cheerfully debate other doctrinal points. This is how I reconcile my view that we all worship the same God.
I understand where you're coming from and I think that this approach to religion is certainly one of the best. I just think that it leaves you with unanswered problems.
In theory, your round table of faiths sounds like a great idea, but in practise, most Abrahamic denominations claim exclusive truth, which makes it little more than an empty talking shop. There is also the fact that acrimonious schisms bloody conflicts have erupted between these faiths. Rather than agreeing on common grounds it seems to me that religion is more likely to divide people as to reconcile them.
Then there is the logical side of things. You can go through the holy texts all you like. You can draw out all the nice bits you like. None of that is valid evidence of a good god. As I have said before, you are pre-defining God as "good" and then searching for the texts that match your definition of "good". It's a meaningless exercise. You could do the same with the writings of Epicurus, or Plato. It has nothing to do with the divine, only with a set of texts and your personal morality.
In my discussion with iano I have just come to the conclusion that although we both call ourselves Christians and have the Bible as our holy text we have come to very different views of the god we worship and so I came to the conclusion that we worship different gods. Frankly I find his beliefs disturbing and dangerous.
I agree. Iano's dominionist view of the divine is eerily similar to that of an al-Qaeda terrorist. But what this goes to show is just how bad an idea it is trying to derive one's morality from the Bible.
You look at the Bible and get an uplifting moral message that we can both agree is pretty good. Iano looks at the same text and comes out with... what he comes out with. Neither of you is truly taking their morality form the text. You are taking your own moral visions and linking them to the text where you can.
You only recognise the kindness, mercy and love that you see in the Bible because they were already part of you. You didn't need the Bible to teach you goodness. You already had it in you, that's how you are able to recognise it when you see the good bits in the Bible. Similarly, Iano didn't become the way he is simply because the Bible told him to be like that. He probably underwent a similar process, where he searched the texts for little nuggets of nastiness that suited his demeanour.
I don't think that you're way of reading the text lets you get a better view of the mind of God. I think that it only lets you get a view of your own mind. However, I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's a strength. By embracing a personal morality that does not have any connection to gods or holy texts, you are cutting out the middleman, freeing yourself from the outdated Bronze Age mentality espoused by Iano and some of the Bible authors.
Granny writes:
I think that if you look, you'll find that there are many abhorrent tales and attitudes that are common to all three faiths.
GDR writes:
Absolutely, but it isn't necessary.
If it isn't necessary to look at the bad bits, then it is no more necessary to look at the good bits. If it is invalid for me to cherry pick the nasty bits and thus conclude that the three faiths are evil, it is equally invalid for you to cherry pick the nice bits and conclude that they are good.
Biblical fundamentalists try and read the Bible literally. It can't be done of course but they try.
Actually, I think that the Bible can be read literally. You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that if a literal reading proves to false (Eg. a flat Earth or a six day creation) then the passage must not be read literally. This is wrong.
It is perfectly possible that the author of a passage intended that passage to be read 100% literally, but it just happens to be wrong. Looking at Genesis 1, I tend to think that it was intended to be read literally, at least in part. It must have been intended to have a symbolic content, but that does not mean that a literal reading wasn't there. Gen 1 is wrong, quite horribly wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean that its author didn't intent it to be literal.
I am firmly convinced that the Bible is not intended to be read that way, and for that matter I suggest that there is no reason to think the Bible should be read that way, other than to provide definite answers to troubling questions and in order to belong to a cohesive group.
Well yeah. Those sound like sufficient reasons to write a literal-intent religious text to me.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was the word of God and now it seems that they are trying to replace Jesus with that same Bible.
Aren't you doing the same? "The Bible" tells us..." How do you know that Jesus is the word of God? The Bible told you. How do you know that he is good? The Bible told you.
You are doing the same thing as the fundies, just in a less extreme and more flexible version.
Up to today I agree, but we are a work in progress.
But this is the word of an all-knowing benevolent god! It shouldn't need improving upon. Your observation is far more in line with a tradition of human attempts to describe something that simply isn't there.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 3:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 7:27 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 145 of 286 (631940)
09-04-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Granny Magda
09-04-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Granny Magda writes:
In theory, your round table of faiths sounds like a great idea, but in practise, most Abrahamic denominations claim exclusive truth, which makes it little more than an empty talking shop. There is also the fact that acrimonious schisms bloody conflicts have erupted between these faiths. Rather than agreeing on common grounds it seems to me that religion is more likely to divide people as to reconcile them.
The trouble is as always with people. If it wasn't religion we would find something else to argue over, and we do. We are divided due to nationality, race, skin colour, employer etc. People are extremely tribal.
The thing is our argument is circular. If one comes from it that there is no god(s) then of course you are right and never can draw us together as there is no unifying truth that can ever be reached. If however there is a god that does care about our morality then it makes sense that in the long run religion can be a tool to draw mankind together.
Granny Magda writes:
Then there is the logical side of things. You can go through the holy texts all you like. You can draw out all the nice bits you like. None of that is valid evidence of a good god. As I have said before, you are pre-defining God as "good" and then searching for the texts that match your definition of "good". It's a meaningless exercise. You could do the same with the writings of Epicurus, or Plato. It has nothing to do with the divine, only with a set of texts and your personal morality.
I fully understand what you are saying and I agree that it is the right question to ask. I can pick positive things out of the Qur’an but I don't feel anywhere close to being qualified to discuss it. I see the Bible as being a metanarrative - the story of God inserting Himself into the lives of His people. It is the story starting with creation, through Moses, Abraham, the prophets, Jesus, the church and finally new creation or the re-creation of this world. I do believe that the Bible is of God, written by people with personal and cultural biases, so that we can have a greater understanding of why and who we are.
I contend that we have to look at that context and through that we can understand what it is that God wants us to know and what is it that he desires of us. I contend that my Micha 6:8 verse, taken in the context of the whole metanarrative sums up the one part of the answer completely. What does God want of us - humbly love kindness and do justice.
We are creatures who understand reason and I believe God wants us to use that reason, whether it be through theology, philosophy or science to understand the big picture of life.
iano writes:
I agree. Iano's dominionist view of the divine is eerily similar to that of an al-Qaeda terrorist. But what this goes to show is just how bad an idea it is trying to derive one's morality from the Bible.
Only if you treat the Bible as something that is transcribed directly by God. In context and with reason it becomes something else altogether.
Granny Magda writes:
You only recognise the kindness, mercy and love that you see in the Bible because they were already part of you. You didn't need the Bible to teach you goodness. You already had it in you, that's how you are able to recognise it when you see the good bits in the Bible.
Actually becoming a Christian has changed my beliefs about this life considerably and I much prefer the person I am now compared to what I was.
Also, I don't just believe that it is the Bible. I think God works through all of us and becoming a Christian seems to have made me more open to hearing Him.
Granny Magda writes:
I don't think that you're way of reading the text lets you get a better view of the mind of God. I think that it only lets you get a view of your own mind. However, I don't think that's a bad thing.
But we all have a personal morality. It is the source of that morality that is the issue.
Granny Magda writes:
If it isn't necessary to look at the bad bits, then it is no more necessary to look at the good bits. If it is invalid for me to cherry pick the nasty bits and thus conclude that the three faiths are evil, it is equally invalid for you to cherry pick the nice bits and conclude that they are good.
I don't see it as cherry picking. I see it as taking the whole Bible in context, and as a Christian with a view of understanding the whole metanarrative through the Gospel message of Jesus, Then with reason I believe that the truth is there to be had. It won't be truth as we see in 2+2=4, but more philosophical in nature.
Granny Magda writes:
It is perfectly possible that the author of a passage intended that passage to be read 100% literally, but it just happens to be wrong. Looking at Genesis 1, I tend to think that it was intended to be read literally, at least in part. It must have been intended to have a symbolic content, but that does not mean that a literal reading wasn't there. Gen 1 is wrong, quite horribly wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean that its author didn't intent it to be literal.
It is early Jewish mythology which doesn't mean that the writer didn't intend to take it literally. It is a bit though like Jesus telling the story of the "Good Samaritan". He meant it literally which is not to say that He meant that it actually happened that way.
Granny Magda writes:
Aren't you doing the same? "The Bible" tells us..." How do you know that Jesus is the word of God? The Bible told you. How do you know that he is good? The Bible told you.
I originally became a Christian largely due to the influence of C S Lewis. Now however if I want to reason out my faith, and I agree that my thinking is circular, I start with the resurrection and work out from there. If there is no resurrection there is no Christianity. I have read a number of debates on the issue and I am convinced of the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Once I have that on board I can go from there and come to conclusions about how the Bible should be understood. I see the NT as being historical although not without error in the details, such as different timing on events etc.
Granny Magda writes:
But this is the word of an all-knowing benevolent god! It shouldn't need improving upon. Your observation is far more in line with a tradition of human attempts to describe something that simply isn't there.
..... or something that is.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2011 8:12 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2011 9:47 AM GDR has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 146 of 286 (631957)
09-04-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by GDR
09-02-2011 3:25 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Hi GDR. I'm just popping back in after a hiatus, and it's a pleasure to read your posts again.
GDR writes:
Granny Magda writes:
... each individual worshipper has their own personal god concept.
I agree.
Granny Magda writes:
... there are many abhorrent tales and attitudes that are common to all three faiths.
Absolutely, but it isn't necessary. If we get beyond the idea that we need absolute answers to our understanding of God, and if we get over the very human need to belong to a like thinking group I think we can make progress.
To say that "it isn't necessary" is to say that you don't really need (and in fact, may be better off without) the bible as the foundation of your faith. That is, you seem to be saying that portions of the bible can and should be set aside in some sense.
If you accept the notion that any individual's own "revelation" (or logical/emotional discernment, or intuition, or guesses) about God or other spiritual matters is both valid and sufficient for the individual, then you acknowledge that any sort of "absolute authority" in this matter (e.g. as represented in scripture) can be considered unnecessary and even undesirable.
That strikes me as being the essential foundation on which we base our notion of religious freedom in the U.S. The important thing is to guarantee to the individual the right to form his/her own thoughts on these matters.
Biblical fundamentalists try and read the Bible literally. It can't be done of course but they try.
The problem is not just the misguided goal of forming beliefs based on (selective) literal interpretations, but more importantly, the dangerous goal of requiring individuals to abdicate their own freedom of judgment about it -- to accept the authority of some specific scriptural interpretation without questioning it.
It's not just that humans have an individual desire to belong to a like-thinking group; the more insidious problem is that fundamentalist groups, once established, have an intrinsic, self-serving need to enforce like-mindedness among their members, at the cost of individual freedom. Hence the severe punishments we've seen prescribed in scripture for apostasy and "heresy".
The Bible tells us that Jesus was the word of God and now it seems that they are trying to replace Jesus with that same Bible.
The bible "tells us" a lot more besides that, obviously, and if you cite the specific passages that, in your view, say "Jesus was the word of God", you'll have to accept that others will draw conclusions from those same passages that are different from yours. I'm glad to see that you don't view this as a problem -- in fact, you seem to be both open and curious about the variety of interpretations that people come up with, which is a refreshing point of view.
As for "replacing Jesus with the Bible," well, I supposed it's understandable that such confusion could arise... "Jesus is the word of God", "the bible is the word of God", so "Jesus is the bible / the bible is Jesus", etc. But seriously, I think I get your point -- I wonder how many Christians really do sense a personal relationship with their savior, as opposed to simply yielding to scriptural authority (or just attending and dropping money in the plate).
I do wonder in what sense you can actually believe in "the God of the OT (Yahweh)." A lot of OT stuff has to be (re)interpreted pretty liberally, and a fair bit has to be put aside altogether, to reconcile that deity with the "Father figure" in the trinity, it seems to me. Of course, I think that just in the NT by itself, there's plenty of confusion about what sort of deity this is.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 09-02-2011 3:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 09-05-2011 12:19 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 147 of 286 (631975)
09-05-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
08-18-2011 11:25 PM


Anyone who holds an opinion like this:
GDR writes:
I am a Christian, but ... I worship a very different God than a Christian who reads the Bible as a book ... that is essentially ghost written by God. I read the Bible as a metanarrative that tells the story of God gradually infusing knowledge of himself into the minds and hearts of His people so that over time we gradually gain a more accurate picture of His character and His desires for our lives. I see it as being written by people, who were inspired to write their stories in their own words. These stories would of course be both culturally and personally conditioned.
should check out the YouTube channel called "Evid3nc3", and in particular watch his two-part series on "The History of God" -- here's the first part:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/u/6/MlnnWbkMlbg
Your point of view, GDR, seems to be only a stone's throw away from pursuing an objective, evidence-based assessment of how Abrahamic faith was introduced into the world, and what has happened to it since then. This in turn will provide a clearer, more substantive understanding of just how the gods of various consecutive epochs differ from each other, and how those differences are the product of cultural interactions and changes.
It's the culture that designs, creates and tweaks the deity, not the other way around.
I believe that reading the Bible as if it had been dictated by God does a disservice to the Bible, and to the Christian faith. The question then of course is what do we believe from the Bible. ... IMHO, if we properly understand Christ's gospel message of hope, love, truth, forgiveness, justice, mercy etc it isn't all that hard to sort out the truth.
That is, if we acknowledge the social and cultural progress we've made since the 1st and 2nd millennia BCE, it should be easy to identify the parts of the OT that should be left behind. In other words, scripture should be treated in the manner that we apply to other informational literature (including scientific discourse): as we spot inaccuracies, we should correct them, and as we recognize parts that are no longer applicable, we should discard them.
Of course, this is something that is antithetical, and effectively contradictory, to the very concept of treating scripture as sacred.
(And of course, to my mind, it means the concept sacred scripture should be abandoned.)
As a Christian I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and use that as a starting point.
I don't quite understand why that should be particularly relevant, given that (a) this is simply another supernatural assertion by fallible human authors (who actually give inconsistent accounts for it), and (b) bodily resurrection is a theme shared by numerous other theistic treatments of various mortals (including the prophet Mohamed and Genghis Khan, among others).
1/ Am I as a Christian worshiping a different God than the God as worshipped by a fundamentalist Christian?
This seems obviously true, but since Christian conceptions of god are all without evidence and all fundamentally incoherent, the fact that there are so many different conceptions is both unsurprising and inconsequential, except to Christians.
2/ What effect do these two different views of the Christian God have on our world view as individuals today?
My other reply above addresses this. What matters in this issue is not so much the alleged substance of the differences in God's nature, but rather the ability of an individual to examine, assess, and choose among alternate conceptions (or to choose "none of the above").
When a group insists on the authority of sacred scripture, this simply amounts to enforcing the authority of a specific interpretation of that scripture, which entails discouraging, suppressing, denying and even punishing individual free thought on the matter -- as well as any scientific discourse that might threaten the enforced interpretation.
In contrast, anyone who recognizes the possible need to pursue alternate interpretations of scripture, and/or the possible fallibility of scripture in general, and/or the possible irrelevance of particular portions of scripture, and who acknowledges/supports an individual's right to judge these matters freely, has the ability to overcome the limitations of the past, to learn more, and to understand better.
That dichotomy in the attitude toward scriptural authority is, I think, the root cause of the current culture war in the U.S. and elsewhere. In the U.S., we have the benefit of a Constitution, which has been, on the whole, successful for over 200 years, as a firm support for the latter view. But attacks from the fundamentalist groups are relentless, and must be opposed by continuous effort.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 08-18-2011 11:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 09-05-2011 3:01 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 148 of 286 (631976)
09-05-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Otto Tellick
09-04-2011 9:44 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
Otto Tellick writes:
To say that "it isn't necessary" is to say that you don't really need (and in fact, may be better off without) the bible as the foundation of your faith. That is, you seem to be saying that portions of the bible can and should be set aside in some sense.
No. It is a matter of how the Bible should be understood. For example there are stories of God telling His people that they are to slaughter every living thing in another community. If we see this as a telling of the story of the Jewish people, written by Jews of that period with their personal and cultural biases, then we can understand it as them justifying their acts by attributing their motivation for it to God. If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow then we can feel confident that it was not God commanding them. If we read the Bible as a metanarrative with Jesus as the "Word of God" we can see that genocide is completely contrary to what God would have us do.
Otto Tellick writes:
If you accept the notion that any individual's own "revelation" (or logical/emotional discernment, or intuition, or guesses) about God or other spiritual matters is both valid and sufficient for the individual, then you acknowledge that any sort of "absolute authority" in this matter (e.g. as represented in scripture) can be considered unnecessary and even undesirable.
The fact that there probably aren't two theists on the planet who would agree completely on everything concerning God. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get as clear a picture as we can. In the end though there is an ultimate truth which presumably we will get a clearer picture of in the next life.
I don't think that any holy text should have absolute authority. Our beliefs as individuals and as societies should be freely chosen.
Otto Tellick writes:
That strikes me as being the essential foundation on which we base our notion of religious freedom in the U.S. The important thing is to guarantee to the individual the right to form his/her own thoughts on these matters.
It works for us to the north of you as well.
Otto Tellick writes:
The problem is not just the misguided goal of forming beliefs based on (selective) literal interpretations, but more importantly, the dangerous goal of requiring individuals to abdicate their own freedom of judgment about it -- to accept the authority of some specific scriptural interpretation without questioning it.
I agree. I think we should always question or we never understand.
Otto Tellick writes:
As for "replacing Jesus with the Bible," well, I supposed it's understandable that such confusion could arise... "Jesus is the word of God", "the bible is the word of God", so "Jesus is the bible / the bible is Jesus", etc. But seriously, I think I get your point -- I wonder how many Christians really do sense a personal relationship with their savior, as opposed to simply yielding to scriptural authority (or just attending and dropping money in the plate).
It is just that sometimes the Christian faith makes the Bible the focus of their faith and worship. I think that this often coincides with a belief that it is belief of a specific doctrine that makes you right with God as opposed to a humble, just and loving heart.
Otto Tellick writes:
I do wonder in what sense you can actually believe in "the God of the OT (Yahweh)." A lot of OT stuff has to be (re)interpreted pretty liberally, and a fair bit has to be put aside altogether, to reconcile that deity with the "Father figure" in the trinity, it seems to me. Of course, I think that just in the NT by itself, there's plenty of confusion about what sort of deity this is.
IMHO God is a god that wants us to freely choose the way that is characterized by a humble loving justice. To give us book that He dictated so that everything would be conclusive runs contrary to the concept of a way of life freely chosen.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-04-2011 9:44 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 149 of 286 (631990)
09-05-2011 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Otto Tellick
09-05-2011 12:11 AM


Otto Tellick writes:
Your point of view, GDR, seems to be only a stone's throw away from pursuing an objective, evidence-based assessment of how Abrahamic faith was introduced into the world, and what has happened to it since then. This in turn will provide a clearer, more substantive understanding of just how the gods of various consecutive epochs differ from each other, and how those differences are the product of cultural interactions and changes.
It's the culture that designs, creates and tweaks the deity, not the other way around.
I recently finished "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. I understand the argument that you are making but even Wright concedes that this whole process could be driven by some intelligent prime mover. There is no doubt that culture does create god(s) in the image that suits them but that doesn't preclude the idea that there is an intelligent deity that by continually working through human minds and human imagination is refining our understanding of Him and His desires for our lives.
Otto Tellick writes:
That is, if we acknowledge the social and cultural progress we've made since the 1st and 2nd millennia BCE, it should be easy to identify the parts of the OT that should be left behind. In other words, scripture should be treated in the manner that we apply to other informational literature (including scientific discourse): as we spot inaccuracies, we should correct them, and as we recognize parts that are no longer applicable, we should discard them.
Of course, this is something that is antithetical, and effectively contradictory, to the very concept of treating scripture as sacred.
(And of course, to my mind, it means the concept sacred scripture should be abandoned.)
Just because the Bible isn't transcribed word for word by God doesn't mean it isn't sacred. I do believe that God inspired people to right down their stories, and their beliefs which would include inspired truths about the true nature of God. Sure these writings that are both personally and culturally conditioned would include that which is part of their story but not of God.
Otto Tellick writes:
I don't quite understand why that should be particularly relevant, given that (a) this is simply another supernatural assertion by fallible human authors (who actually give inconsistent accounts for it), and (b) bodily resurrection is a theme shared by numerous other theistic treatments of various mortals (including the prophet Mohamed and Genghis Khan, among others).
I don't see this as the place for it but I have read several debates on the concept of the bodily resurrection and agree that there are arguments on both sides. I find the pro argument more persuasive. Those against basically start with the premise that it isn't possible and start on that basis.
Mohamed is supposed to have ascended spiritually as opposed to dying and coming back in a resurrected body. I had never heard of Genghis Kahn being resurrected and even after googling around I still haven't heard of it except from you. Wiki doesn't mention it.
Otto Tellick writes:
My other reply above addresses this. What matters in this issue is not so much the alleged substance of the differences in God's nature, but rather the ability of an individual to examine, assess, and choose among alternate conceptions (or to choose "none of the above").
Of course, but if God does exist then we should probably have more than a passing interest in his nature.
Otto Tellick writes:
In contrast, anyone who recognizes the possible need to pursue alternate interpretations of scripture, and/or the possible fallibility of scripture in general, and/or the possible irrelevance of particular portions of scripture, and who acknowledges/supports an individual's right to judge these matters freely, has the ability to overcome the limitations of the past, to learn more, and to understand better.
I agree. In some ways though we might disagree with what it means to be fallible. For example in recent history we had the Viet Nam war. If you were to read the account of the war as told in an American history book and then compared it to a Vietnamese history book you would likely find significant differences. They likely infallibly display the writer's POV but they are likely both not completely accurate depictions of what actually transpired.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-05-2011 12:11 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 150 of 286 (632017)
09-05-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by GDR
09-04-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Do Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship Different Gods?
The thing is our argument is circular. If one comes from it that there is no god(s) then of course you are right and never can draw us together as there is no unifying truth that can ever be reached. If however there is a god that does care about our morality then it makes sense that in the long run religion can be a tool to draw mankind together.
Yes, I agree. But when we take a look at reality, that is not what we see. We do not see religions converging upon a central truth, except where science has forced them to withdraw from various claims (cosmology, origins of life and so forth).Instead we see religions diverging over time. This is more consistent with a non-divine explanation. When tested against reality your idea seems to fail. I regard that as strong evidence that you are wrong.
Actually becoming a Christian has changed my beliefs about this life considerably and I much prefer the person I am now compared to what I was.
Also, I don't just believe that it is the Bible. I think God works through all of us and becoming a Christian seems to have made me more open to hearing Him.
But how did you know which bits of the Bible were the good bits and which the bad? It can't be from the Bible, or else you would think slavery good and women's rights bad.
I maintain that you already had the moral instincts. You only associate them with God because your religious conversion (an attempt at self-improvement on your part) occurred at the same time as your moral development (another concious attempt at self-improvement. It does not mean that there is a direct causal relationship, only a loose association.
But we all have a personal morality. It is the source of that morality that is the issue.
I don't think it is an issue. You can only assert that God is the source of morality. You can offer no evidence.
I don't see it as cherry picking. I see it as taking the whole Bible in context, and as a Christian with a view of understanding the whole metanarrative through the Gospel message of Jesus, Then with reason I believe that the truth is there to be had. It won't be truth as we see in 2+2=4, but more philosophical in nature.
I'm sorry, but it just sounds like more rationalising. Trying to view the Jewish scriptures through a Christian lens is a textbook example of cherry picking, since it was not written for Christians. The reason that your "truth" is so nebulous is precisely because you are cherry picking.
I cannot fathom why an intelligent god would chose to work by encouraging his followers into this kind of vague nebulous rationalisation. That doesn't sound to me like God is trying to encourage us to use reason, it sounds more like he is trying to persuade us to abandon it.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 09-04-2011 7:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by GDR, posted 09-05-2011 1:13 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024