TromboneChat

Martin,
the problem I see is how you know your God has those attributes.

I fear it comes down to "well that's the definition of God." 

If so, that's a God of our own imagining and is not guaranteed to match in any respects with a real Entity. 

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 07:34AMIf we can't understand who God is how can we understand God's plan for us?
Through His revelation. Through the written Word given to us, from Him.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 26, 2017, 08:05PM      Buddhism
         - I know they have a different concept but I'd like to understand it.
         - Do atheists not believe in Buddhism too?

Not exactly a Buddhist, but have sat on a pillow now and then, and done some reading... speaking as a devout Nunya (seriously) I can offer the following:

"Buddhism" is no more monolithic than the Abrahamic religions taken together, as far as details of doctrine go. Buddhist scholars have said things such as "we avoid speaking of a deity, since that may confuse those with a Western view." At its core, Buddhism teaches that dukkha (often mistranslated as "suffering" but more related to dissatisfaction e.g. the stress of dealing with a squeaky wheel) is a thing, and how it arises and continues, and how it is brought to an end.

Atheists are not doctrinally monolithic in the slightest. Trying to characterize an atheist body of belief would be monumental silliness; I don't think anyone stands to benefit from the busy-work of cataloguing a taxonomy of atheist beliefs, acknowledging that I could be mistaken.

God describes Himself as the one, and only God. He is "I Am", the Alpha to Omega.

He's a jealous God because He sees His creation making false gods and worshipping false gods, and that's not what He wants for us. In reality, people who reject Him, are worshipping false gods.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 11:45AMIn many cases that is an appropriate position to take in order to heal.Might be trendy to shrinks, but really doesn't do anything except give you someone to blame. In the end, life still won't be everything you want, and blaming others only goes so far.

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 11:45AMJust pray and see?  If you look at the 'historical' account, God's plan just seems like it may be a series of extremely deadly punishments.  What would you be praying for, a change of heart?
As taught by Jesus, and a few version brought together...
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Which basically is a pray of reminder of who God is, what God is, and our duties. Basically to trust in God that His will be done. If that means a bloody end, He will still take care of us.

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 12:11 AMI assume that you see the conflict is between veracity and omnipotence.  The definition I've given for omnipotence is
  'C. S. Lewis : "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power.'
Yeah ... this issue is a good test of dogmatism. The real problem with omnipotence is with the term--it's incoherent in its unadulterated form, so of course it's an incoherent notion that any given god is omnipotent according to the official definition of the word. Most believers will accept this and go with a rational usage, as you have, but some will absolutely insist that God is omnipotent as in all powerful/can do anything, and will just throw up their mental shield against the comically obvious problems. So it's almost a non-issue apologetically, really, but it's a good litmus test of how dogmatic any given believer at least can be (the potential for extreme dogmatism is demonstrated, but it can also be isolated or even just a temporary brain cramp kinda thing ... or it can also just be combativeness of course--not gonna give an inch, but I'm not sure that's really any different from intense dogmatism, and it functions the same regardless).
 
Even given all that though, it is odd to see someone include attributes describing what God can't do. That's not a criticism though, just a perception worth noting (I suppose) that has no rhetorical consequence.
 
In any case the real problems still remains for the standard issue range of God designs as the creator of all things and therefore its/his unavoidable responsibility for all things as well though.

So... traditional gravity is well understood per einstein's work and those before him. We can calculate the force, determine when it happens,  how it happens, have it pretty well figured out. However, when dealing on the quantum level with gravity, it isn't fully consistent between the two.

So does that mean that gravity doesn't exist and we should throw it out, or just that we don't fully understand?

Byron et al want to say that if we can't understand something, we can't count on it, or claim that it's there. That there seem to be contradictions in the concept of God, therefor it shows how God doesn't really exist. But they don't say that for other areas... those areas, science areas, well... we just haven't gotten there yet. We haven't figured it out yet. Calling one just part of the way there, and the other invalid, mostly just serves to show the preference of the person proclaiming the call. Seeing what you want to, rather than applying your own logic consistently.

The nature of God as we understand it is ultimately that God is a god and we are people, and the very nature of that is a gulf too great to comprehend. When Job questions God why God makes him suffer, God's response is basically... how can you possibly understand His motives?

So, yes, there are characteristics that we can ascribe, but the full comprehension just isn't there. And there will be inconsistencies, or seem that way... not because of what it, but because our understanding is limited. Runs into a major wall in this area. How does a fish understand a solar system? How does a fly understand the seasons?

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 04:57 AMMartin,
the problem I see is how you know your God has those attributes.

I fear it comes down to "well that's the definition of God." 

If so, that's a God of our own imagining and is not guaranteed to match in any respects with a real Entity. 

It's kind of like how the powers of Superman have risen and fallen over the years to meet the needs of whatever story was being told with him at the time.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 26, 2017, 02:57PM"the single God"??  is that what I call a stereo-typical god? It seems to me that the Jews and the Muslims are more willing to admit there is just one God for all the current mono-theistic religions.  Why do the Christians have such an issue with it just because they see that God in a slightly different light?


Quotethanks, I'll stay in but I think I'll try and do a comparative list of the godsThat would be amazing.  Thanks!

QuoteI think their's is wrong or complementary, but they think mine is wrong.  So its fair.I don't think this is fair.  You are both people of faith and the implications of that should not be brushed aside.  You are comrades in faith and thinking each other is wrong only betrays that.  Since you both understand blind faith, you must surely be able to empathize with each other.

QuoteAnd we both think you're wrong And that's fair too.Yes, that is fair.  I think it a natural position to take when a person of faith finds error in the ways of a person without faith.

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:36 AMMight be trendy to shrinks, but really doesn't do anything except give you someone to blame. In the end, life still won't be everything you want, and blaming others only goes so far.
It at least allows you move on without blaming yourself which can be extremely damaging.

I have a problem with this "omniscient" and "omnipotent".  If God is omniscient and omnipotent, how can he allow someone to kill innocent people?  If he's omniscient he knows that the killing will occur.  If he's omnipotent he should be able to stop it.  This is a conundrum to me.  I would sooner accept that God (whomever he is) started things off and is now busy elsewhere and isn't watching what happens here.

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 05:18 AMThrough His revelation. Through the written Word given to us, from Him.
Well, I've been through both testaments of the Bible and the Qur'an and have read other sundry texts dedicated to the explanation of the afore mentioned.  I'm sad to say I have no idea of what God's plan is.  Do you Dusty?  Could you explain to us?

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 06:52 AMSo... traditional gravity is well understood per einstein's work and those before him. We can calculate the force, determine when it happens,  how it happens, have it pretty well figured out. However, when dealing on the quantum level with gravity, it isn't fully consistent between the two.There are distinct differences between Classical Mechanics, Relativistic mechanics and Quantum mechanics.  I'll try to explain the best I can if you want me to, but I'm not sure this is the place.  None of the 3 actually agree on gravity, but that does not mean they aren't all useful tools for work in their domain.  Just that none of them is a perfect theory.

QuoteSo does that mean that gravity doesn't exist and we should throw it out, or just that we don't fully understand?Their failing(s) say nothing about Gravity.

QuoteByron et al want to say that if we can't understand something, we can't count on it, or claim that it's there. That there seem to be contradictions in the concept of God, therefor it shows how God doesn't really exist. But they don't say that for other areas... those areas, science areas, well... we just haven't gotten there yet. We haven't figured it out yet. Calling one just part of the way there, and the other invalid, mostly just serves to show the preference of the person proclaiming the call. Seeing what you want to, rather than applying your own logic consistently.Science is open to scrutiny and revision.  It's one of the mechanisms of science.  Religion is not open to scrutiny and God is not subject to revision.  There are scientists working every day to do away with or change the nature of our current understanding of Gravity.  Gravity seems okay with that, however God threatens you with the worst possible end if you try to lift his skirt to see what's happening.

QuoteThe nature of God as we understand it is ultimately that God is a god and we are people, and the very nature of that is a gulf too great to comprehend. When Job questions God why God makes him suffer, God's response is basically... how can you possibly understand His motives?So just put up and shut up and do what you're told?

QuoteSo, yes, there are characteristics that we can ascribe, but the full comprehension just isn't there. And there will be inconsistencies, or seem that way... not because of what it, but because our understanding is limited. Runs into a major wall in this area. How does a fish understand a solar system? How does a fly understand the seasons?
I'm not trying, at least here, to unravel God.  Just come to some understanding of God we can use to discuss the religions that surround him.  Why do you fear that?

Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 08:04 AMI have a problem with this "omniscient" and "omnipotent".  If God is omniscient and omnipotent, how can he allow someone to kill innocent people?  If he's omniscient he knows that the killing will occur.  If he's omnipotent he should be able to stop it.  This is a conundrum to me.  I would sooner accept that God (whomever he is) started things off and is now busy elsewhere and isn't watching what happens here.

Maybe it's like playing Grand Theft Auto

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 26, 2017, 08:05PMHere is my list of attributes of the christian God for discussion which I submit for inclusion in the description of god.

This is based on wikipedia's list, modified and notated to be useful to me.  I'm happy to put these up for discussion and tweaking but I'll probably defend their inclusion as I think that they are important attributes of a god.

(Aside:
   I'd like to do the for some of the other "gods" too so we can do a comparison. 
   Bill: is this ok for this thread or would you prefer it in another one?
   Which ones are people interested in?
      Allah
      JW's Jehovah - I'm interested to compare their understanding to mine
      Hindu pantheon
      Buddhism
         - I know they have a different concept but I'd like to understand it.
         - Do atheists not believe in Buddhism too?
   Are there any others we want to consider?
   My list of attributes are possibly not what a liberal/mainstream christian thinks.  Should we describe the Mainstream view?
)

So my list of God's attributes are:

(he has) Aseity
 - he is self-sufficient
 - he isn't dependent on creation, he was not incomplete before creation and it doesn't add to his completeness or happiness ...
 - he is uncaused

Eternal
 - no beginning and no end, he is not restricted by time

Good
 - God is the ultimate standard of good

Gracious
 - he is compassionate and desires to forgive and even makes that possible

Holy
 - he is separate from sin and incorruptible.

Immanent
 - he is in every part of the world
 - qv transcendent

Unchangeable
 - immutable or constant
 - but this allows for things like "Jesus became flesh"

Impassable
 - God is free from all attitudes "which reflect instability or lack of control.

Impeccable
 - God is unable to sin

Incomprehensible
 - he is not able to be fully known
 - what we do know of him is via revelation
 - our knowledge is subject to human limitations.

Incorporeal
 - he is spirit
 - but Jesus became flesh which is both corporeal and a change.

Infinite
 - in time and space
 - Infinity also permeates all other attributes of God: his goodness, love, power, etc. are all considered to be infinite.

Jealous
 - he gets angry if people reject him
 -  J. I. Packer: "zeal to protect a love relationship or to avenge it when broken,"

Love
 - includes:
   - the love the Father has for the Son,
   - God's general love for his creation,
   - God's "salvific stance towards his fallen world,"
   - his "particular, effectual, selecting love toward his elect," and
   - love that is conditioned on obedience.

Omnipotent
 - C. S. Lewis : "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power.

Omnipresent
 - similar to immanence but exceeds it
 - he is everywhere in the universe/creation
 - but also outside it

Omniscient - he knows everything
 - he is also comletely wise

One
 - the is only one real God
 - this real God is one
 - qv trinity

Provident
- he cares for all creation

Righteous
 - may refer to his holiness, to his justice, or to his saving activity.

Simple
 - ie homogenous, he is not partly this and partly that, but that whatever he is, he is so entirely.
 - "not composed of parts".

Sovereign
 - omnipotent, provident, and the boss
 - also encompasses his freedom
 - it is in keeping with his goodness, righteousness, holiness, and impeccability.
 - in complete control as he directs all things — no person, organization, government or any other force can stop God from executing his purpose.
 - Isaiah 46:10 "My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please"

Transcendent
 - he is outside space and time, and therefore eternal and unable to be changed by forces within the universe.
 - closely related to God's immutability, and is contrasted with his immanence.
 - Isaiah 57:15: "For this is what the high and exalted One says — he who lives forever, whose name is holy: "I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit,..."

Triune
 - God is three persons.
 - Each person is fully God.
 - There is one God.
or
 - The Father is God.
 - The Son is God.
 - The Holy Spirit is God.
 - The Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
 - The Holy Spirit is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
 - The Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son.

Veracity
 - he can't lie

Wrath
 - he hates anything that is opposed to his moral character
This is a lot Martin.  Thanks.  But at first glance I see there are things that are implicit in other things.  Also there are things that seem to follow definition rather than define.  Do mind if I take a shot at boiling it down?  Separate the fundamental from the things that are as a result of the fundamental?

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:32 AMThere are distinct differences between Classical Mechanics, Relativistic mechanics and Quantum mechanics.  I'll try to explain the best I can.  None of the 3 actually agree on gravity, but that does not mean they aren't all useful tools for work in their domain.  Just that none of them is a perfect theory.

Their failing(s) say nothing about Gravity.Exactly my point... the understanding is what is in question, though the search can be useful. That which is attempted to be understood is not somehow compromised because an approach is not complete or without issue.

QuoteScience is open to scrutiny and revision.  It's one of the mechanisms of science.  Religion is not open to scrutiny and God is not subject to revision.Nope. because you you revise your theory of gravity, gravity is not impacted in the least. You are revising how you approach and understand it. And that same approach is not only valid, but regularly happening with religions everyday. My own understanding is quite different than when I was little. That does not mean God changed. Just how I attempt to understand Him did. And per revisions about said understanding... that has been happening for millennia.

QuoteI'm not trying, at least here, to unravel God.  Just come to some understanding of God we can use to discuss the religions that surround him.  Why do you fear that?Fear is your own word and your own projection. I have no fear of that at all. It's like if you said gravity was a hoax... It really doesn't change anything. My glass will still fall and break if I drop it. The question comes.... the God of christianity is different than the God of islam or the jews, which is different from the gods of hinduism or other religions. What is it you hope to get from blurring the lines enough to try to put pictures of these all on top of each other?


Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:01 AMIt at least allows you move on without blaming yourself which can be extremely damaging.
Because blaming others is better?

Life basically never turns out as desired or expected. Sometimes, it gets better, sometimes worse. Looking back and hunting for a target to blame when things don't go as expected is itself damaging. Better to just accept and figure out where to go from there.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 25, 2017, 02:45PMAssuming that we describing the Christian God I think we should include:

- God is triune: ie
 (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons,
 (2) each Person is fully God,
 (3) there is only one God.
- God cannot lie
- God is love
- God is just and holy

I'm not sure about immutable because Jesus became flesh.

There are a few others but I will want to clarify them a bit first

Christians believe that the incarnation doesn't affect immutability because that attribute is seen as referring to constancy of character.  Cf. Hebrews 13:8 where the immutability of Christ is set forth.

Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 08:04 AMI have a problem with this "omniscient" and "omnipotent".  If God is omniscient and omnipotent, how can he allow someone to kill innocent people?  If he's omniscient he knows that the killing will occur.  If he's omnipotent he should be able to stop it.  This is a conundrum to me.  I would sooner accept that God (whomever he is) started things off and is now busy elsewhere and isn't watching what happens here.

Classic definition of a deist understanding of God.  Most traditional monotheistic religions in their classical forms don't think it is sufficient and would rather deal with the theodicy issue than to diminish God.  We've obviously discussed the theodicy issue over in the other thread so we don't need to rework it here unless some want to.

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 08:55 AMThe question comes.... the God of christianity is different than the God of islam or the jews, which is different from the gods of hinduism or other religions. What is it you hope to get from blurring the lines enough to try to put pictures of these all on top of each other?


I agree that there are considerable differences between these notions of God.  The 3 Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic, but Christianity is Trinitarian while Judaism and Islam are unitarian and this has considerable implications.

Hinduism, for example exists in a variety of forms.  One form is very polytheistic and believes literally in thousands of gods, another tends toward a form of monotheism that is different from the monotheism of the Western religions.  Another form of Hinduism is pantheistic-- everything is divine, including you, I, the grass, the cockroaches, the mountains, and everything else.  In fact, in that form of Hinduism, all reality is just the spiritual extension of the divine and the individual distinctions that we see all just maya (illusion) and not real in the full sense.  The latter form of Hinduism is the form often taught in the philosophical schools.

Of course, there are many philosophers of religion who have developed notions of the divine that are not necessarily connected with a religious tradition.  The discussion could get very interesting here.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 09:54 AMI agree that there are considerable differences between these notions of God.  The 3 Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic, but Christianity is Trinitarian while Judaism and Islam are unitarian and this has considerable implications.Just a question, how does the difference between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism  alter the interpretation of the Old testament?

QuoteThe latter form of Hinduism is the form often taught in the philosophical schools.And also gave rise to many of the beliefs in Buddhism.  However, like all religious pursuits, even though the followers try to make them immutable, Buddhism now has as many different sects as Christianity, Hinduism or Islam.  Which one is right?  Well, they all are - just ask them, but then you also need to deal with them all being wrong.

QuoteOf course, there are many philosophers of religion who have developed notions of the divine that are not necessarily connected with a religious tradition.Now there's a concept.

Maybe we should just do this by a show of hands - a little thought experiment.  If we go around to the 100 most popular religions in the world, show them the list of 100 religions and ask them to vote for the religions that are 'right' and those that are 'wrong'.  I predict that we will get 100 votes for a 'right' religion and none of those votes will agree.  We will also get 9,9000 votes for a 'wrong' religions and 9,8000 of those will agree.  The only possible conclusion that any reasonably sane individual can take away from this is that religious people agree overwhelmingly that religion is wrong.

But I digress ... again.

I have another question for you all.

Given that God created us, and the universe, is it a good assumption then that he created mathematics?

I think it is, and I'm pretty sure there is passage in the Bible that tells us only God can create.  I just don't remember it off hand but remember from my readings of Aquinas that he made this argument.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 11:06 AMJust a question, how does the difference between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism  alter the interpretation of the Old testament?
And also gave rise to many of the beliefs in Buddhism.  However, like all religious pursuits, even though the followers try to make them immutable, Buddhism now has as many different sects as Christianity, Hinduism or Islam.  Which one is right?  Well, they all are - just ask them, but then you also need to deal with them all being wrong.
Now there's a concept.



It does affect the interpretation of the OT, often in subtle ways, but I'm not sure that this thread is where we want to discuss that.

Yes, Buddhism has a number of sects and they divide into similar variations as found in Hinduism and even Theravada Buddhism which doesn't really believe in a deity-- how's that for an oddity in some people's definition of religion?

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 11:08 AMMaybe we should just do this by a show of hands - a little thought experiment.  If we go around to the 100 most popular religions in the world, show them the list of 100 religions and ask them to vote for the religions that are 'right' and those that are 'wrong'.  I predict that we will get 100 votes for a 'right' religion and none of those votes will agree.  We will also get 9,9000 votes for a 'wrong' religions and 9,8000 of those will agree.  The only possible conclusion that any reasonably sane individual can take away from this is that religious people agree overwhelmingly that religion is wrong.

But I digress ... again.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is.  The philosophers have also frequently and profoundly disagreed on God when they posit a deity and somtimes their views coincide roughly with views found in various religions.

From a Christian POV, this is just a Romans 1 situation and not all that unexpected, but the diversity of views of God is an obvious given and like any human beliefs most people believe that their beliefs are true, so what's your point?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 11:16 AMIt does affect the interpretation of the OT, often in subtle ways, but I'm not sure that this thread is where we want to discuss that.No, I agree.  I don't really want to discuss it here.  But talk of the trinity has made me think about my original question and the reason I started this thread.  It appears I was talking about God as he showed himself in the OT.  In the NT God shows himself though Jesus and in a very different way than he is revealed in the OT.

I try to stay out of religious discussions for the most part, but I have read several books by Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC. The book "How Jesus became God" is a fascinating description of how a man whom most thought of as mortal during his time on earth somehow morphed into the savior of all mankind over the course of about 3 centuries.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 11:20 AMI'm not exactly sure what your point is.  The philosophers have also frequently and profoundly disagreed on God when they posit a deity and somtimes their views coincide roughly with views found in various religions.

From a Christian POV, this is just a Romans 1 situation and not all that unexpected, but the diversity of views of God is an obvious given and like any human beliefs most people believe that their beliefs are true, so what's your point?
My point is, that if a religion is valid according to those that believe it, then all religions must be valid.  However, the view of religious people is that 99% (or more) of religions are invalid.  That is a striking paradox, don't you think?

Anyway, it was just a digression.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 11:31 AMNo, I agree.  I don't really want to discuss it here.  But talk of the trinity has made me think about my original question and the reason I started this thread.  It appears I was talking about God as he showed himself in the OT.  In the NT God shows himself though Jesus and in a very different way than he is revealed in the OT.

Christians would say yes and no and make a distinction between elementary and final revelation of God, so that ultimately both are needed to fully understand God. Hebrews 1 is all about that distinction.  Let me give you one example:

The famous Shema text in Deuteronomy 6:4 says that the Lord-- the Hebrew term is what we think is pronounced Yahweh, the covenant name for God-- is one, but the Hebrew term for one is not the singular word for one, but rather a term that means something like a composite unity-- it is the same word that is translated one flesh in Genesis 2:24.  The Jewish rabbis understood this and sometimes puzzled over it and tried to figure out how it fit into a unitarian type of monotheism.  A Christian would argue that this is just a very preliminary expression of Trinitarianism that is fleshed out by Christ and the New Testament.

My point is that from a Christian POV the NT record is not only helpful, but crucial to understand God.

Quote from: MikeBMiller on Yesterday at 11:40 AMI try to stay out of religious discussions for the most part, but I have read several books by Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC. The book "How Jesus became God" is a fascinating description of how a man whom most thought of as mortal during his time on earth somehow morphed into the savior of all mankind over the course of about 3 centuries.

If you'd like to know I can point you to a number of scholarly critiques of Ehrman.  His POV has been severely challenged.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 11:41 AMMy point is, that if a religion is valid according to those that believe it, then all religions must be valid.  However, the view of religious people is that 99% (or more) of religions are invalid.  That is a striking paradox, don't you think?

Anyway, it was just a digression.

No more than saying our personal political beliefs must be the only valid one since we hold them.  There is a huge difference between saying that we believe is necessarily the truth and it being the truth.  I don't get your point.  You seem to imply that strongly held religious beliefs operate in a different way than other strongly held beliefs.

In other words it looks like you're conflating the existence of a belief with the warrant for a belief.  The 2 are very different.

All of us look at others and say that we agree with some peoples' beliefs, agree partially with some peoples' beliefs, and think others are completely out to lunch.  None of that touches on the truth claims of those particular beliefs, but rather are expressions of our judgments on those beliefs.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 11:42 AMIf you'd like to know I can point you to a number of scholarly critiques of Ehrman.  His POV has been severely challenged.

Like i said, I stay out of religious discussions as they generally lead to people getting mad at each other over something that cannot be proved or disproved. I read the book, thought it was interesting, and shared the information here. I don't care whether anyone else reads it or not.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 11:46 AMYou seem to imply that strongly held religious beliefs operate in a different way than other strongly held beliefs.
Yes, absolutely.

Using the political argument.  We may not agree that Trump is a good president but we can usually convince each other that our views justify our position.  One person that is keen on getting a low paying, future less job may love Trump for shutting down the Mexican border, throwing out environmental laws to bring back coal consumption and putting tariffs on foreign lumber. Another that is a staunch tree-hugger may think he is a bad president for nearly exactly the same reasons.  However, they can certainly see how each pundit's perspective leads them to their opinion on Trump.

The religious argument is more analogous to two people that support Trump but each finding the other reprehensible because they support him for different reasons.

The political pundit's can agree to disagree, the religious can't seem to agree to agree.

Quote from: MikeBMiller on Yesterday at 11:55 AMLike i said, I stay out of religious discussions as they generally lead to people getting mad at each other over something that cannot be proved or disproved. I read the book, thought it was interesting, and shared the information here. I don't care whether anyone else reads it or not.
No one here seems to be getting mad - yet.  I think we can keep it that way.

Quote from: MikeBMiller on Yesterday at 11:55 AMLike i said, I stay out of religious discussions as they generally lead to people getting mad at each other over something that cannot be proved or disproved. I read the book, thought it was interesting, and shared the information here. I don't care whether anyone else reads it or not.

His book and those of Elaine Pagels are well worth reading, because they give you a viewpoint you would never suspect from the orthodoxy.

By all means read both sides of it, critically.  

You should also check out Spong.  His logic isn't as detailed but he's quite readable, and most of what he says is mainstream liberal Christian.  Not all, he's got a weird theory about liturgy and the gospels that's intriguing and well argued, but he didn't quite convince me.  

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 11:59 AMYes, absolutely.

Using the political argument.  We may not agree that Trump is a good president but we can usually convince each other that our views justify our position.  One person that is keen on getting a low paying, future less job may love Trump for shutting down the Mexican border, throwing out environmental laws to bring back coal consumption and putting tariffs on foreign lumber. Another that is a staunch tree-hugger may think her is a bad president for nearly exactly the same reasons.  However, they can certainly see how each pundit's perspective leads them to their opinion on Trump.

The religious argument is more analogous to two people that support Trump but each finding the other reprehensible because they support him for different reasons.

I couldn't disagree more.  I have seen far to many people demonize political opponents as evil people to believe that they are fundamentally different.  Yes, members of Congress can drink coffee togetherin a collegial manner, but then we can discuss on this forum-- at least some of us can.  You seem to be going back to some variation of your "religion is inherently violent" argument and some of us have already challenged that so I don't think we need to challenge it again here.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 11:42 AMHis POV has been severely challenged.
Of course it has.  It is not main-stream Christian.  Why would this surprise anyone?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:07 PM I have seen far to many people demonize political opponents as evil people to believe that they are fundamentally different.
Yes, I agree that can happen.  But not always, and in my circles it's the exception rather than the rule.

However, I've never heard, for example's sake, a devout RC say something like "You know, Those Muslims don't worship God like I do, but I can see how their faith is just as valid and true for them as mine is for me."

QuoteYou seem to be going back to some variation of your "religion is inherently violent" argumentYour off on that count John.  "Religion is inherently violent" never entered my mind in that response. Besides, I've stated it before, I don't think religion is inherently violent.

Quote and some of us have already challenged that so I don't think we need to challenge it again here.
Was there unanimous agreement at the end of that discussion"  Or is it sufficient for you to state a view is wrong, and that makes it absolutely wrong.

To get back to the original point...

If you take 100 pictures of different male or female passport photos, put them each at 1% opacity, and overlay them all over top of each other... you will wind up with a composite portrait that looks an awful lot like a person, and yet, looks different than any of the individual people involved.

So the question becomes, what is this composite portrait for? To identify the most common features? ie. that most people, from a variety of cultures, languages, and places all feel an impulse that there is something greater? That those who don't often think of themselves as the highest point they are willing to acknowledge?

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 12:25 PMTo get back to the original point...

If you take 100 pictures of different male or female passport photos, put them each at 1% opacity, and overlay them all over top of each other... you will wind up with a composite portrait that looks an awful lot like a person, and yet, looks different than any of the individual people involved.

So the question becomes, what is this composite portrait for? To identify the most common features?
That actually works really well Bob.  Why didn't I think of putting it that way?  Yes, the result would definitely be a picture we could all agree looks like a human.  But I'm not sure we'll get 100 religions chiming in here.  It would be awesome though.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:23 PMYes, I agree that can happen.  But not always, and in my circles it's the exception rather than the rule.

However, I've never heard, for example's sake, a devout RC say something like "You know, Those Muslims don't worship God like I do, but I can see how their faith is just as valid and true for them as mine is for me."
Your off on that count John.  "Religion is inherently violent" never entered my mind in that response. Besides, I've stated it before, I don't think religion is inherently violent.
Was there unanimous agreement at the end of that discussion"  Or is it sufficient for you to state a view is wrong, and that makes it absolutely wrong.

I agree that we didn't resolve it, but I thought this thread was going in a different direction.

BTW, many politicos that I know would never say that what they consider a false political view is "true for them."-- referring to the person holding that belief.  I've seen plenty of politicos that would argue that one is completely an ignoramus who is helping foul up the whole country by holding and voting according to those "completely wrong" political beliefs.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:31 PMI agree that we didn't resolve it, but I thought this thread was going in a different direction. True enough.

QuoteI've seen plenty of politicos that would argue that one is completely an ignoramus who is helping foul up the whole country by holding and voting according to those "completely wrong" political beliefs.
As I've said, that does happen.  What you mention can happen for at least 3 reasons as well.
   1) The person saying that is the real ignoramus.
   2) The person saying that is right.
   3) Both the person making the statement and the person the statement is about are both ignoramuses

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:45 PM True enough.
As I've said, that does happen.  What you mention can happen for at least 3 reasons as well.
   1) The person saying that is the real ignoramus.
   2) The person saying that is right.
   3) Both the person making the statement and the person the statement is about are both ignoramuses



Same things can apply to religious/theological discussions but none of this changes the fact that people can have fundamentally different beliefs on a whole range of topics, but none of that touches the issue of the warrant for those beliefs which is a different kettle of fish.  Let's make sure we don't confuse categories.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:31 PM

BTW, many politicos that I know would never say that what they consider a false political view is "true for them."-- referring to the person holding that belief.  
I would agree with that.

But I really think there is a difference for the religious person who is sure that his view is correct and everybody else's wrong, because his comes from God.  The Holy Spirit revealed this to him (also wrote the Bible, but I digress).  When you're speaking for the Almighty, I think your perceived sense of certainty is higher than the most self evident political truth.  

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:57 PMI would agree with that.

But I really think there is a difference for the religious person who is sure that his view is correct and everybody else's wrong, because his comes from God.  The Holy Spirit revealed this to him (also wrote the Bible, but I digress).  When you're speaking for the Almighty, I think your perceived sense of certainty is higher than the most self evident political truth.  

Uh, also, the stakes are higher.

Vote for the wrong politician, your taxes go up.

Sign up with the wrong Deity, be tortured in hell for billions of years.  Once you're sure you're right, you DARE NOT second guess. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:57 PMI would agree with that.

But I really think there is a difference for the religious person who is sure that his view is correct and everybody else's wrong, because his comes from God.  The Holy Spirit revealed this to him (also wrote the Bible, but I digress).  When you're speaking for the Almighty, I think your perceived sense of certainty is higher than the most self evident political truth.  

Yes and No.  I've met some very certain politicos who are absolutely certain that their political opponents were ruining the country.

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:59 PMUh, also, the stakes are higher.

Vote for the wrong politician, your taxes go up.

Sign up with the wrong Deity, be tortured in hell for billions of years.  Once you're sure you're right, you DARE NOT second guess. 

Just as high for the atheist, BTW.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 01:02 PMJust as high for the atheist, BTW.

Yes.  (assuming a vengeful deity in both cases) 

Exactly as high.  Out of the thousands of possible Gods, the chances of picking the right one are equivalent to the atheist.  Slim to none.

However there is a significant difference in perceived certainty, and that's a rather important concept.  Regardless of which God, the believer tends to be highly certain he picked the right one, and highly resistant (often violently) to any change.  Atheists in general are FAR less certain. 

Overheard at a Notre Dame commencement in about 1974:  "We all worship the same God.  You in your way, and............we in His." 

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:01 PMHis book and those of Elaine Pagels are well worth reading, because they give you a viewpoint you would never suspect from the orthodoxy.

By all means read both sides of it, critically.  

You should also check out Spong.  His logic isn't as detailed but he's quite readable, and most of what he says is mainstream liberal Christian.  Not all, he's got a weird theory about liturgy and the gospels that's intriguing and well argued, but he didn't quite convince me.  

Most accessible critique of Ehrman, Pagels, et al-- along with some of the crazies such as the author of The DaVinci Code-- from a traditional Christian POV is this volume.  If you read the ones Tim suggested, you should read this at least for balance. 

https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski/dp/082542982X/ref=pd_sim_14_40?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=082542982X&pd_rd_r=G19BGJD39D73DS94SQJ0&pd_rd_w=z6Ivu&pd_rd_wg=2f5IQ&psc=1&refRID=G19BGJD39D73DS94SQJ0

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 07:59 AM It seems to me that the Jews and the Muslims are more willing to admit there is just one God for all the current mono-theistic religions.  Why do the Christians have such an issue with it just because they see that God in a slightly different light?

I was just clarifying what you meant.

I would be astonished if the Jews or Muslims would accept that Jesus is God/YHWH.

QuoteI don't think this is fair.  You are both people of faith and the implications of that should not be brushed aside.  You are comrades in faith and thinking each other is wrong only betrays that.  Since you both understand blind faith, you must surely be able to empathize with each other.
Yes, that is fair.  I think it a natural position to take when a person of faith finds error in the ways of a person without faith.

But you are mistaken in thinking that we consider faith to be blind.

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:51 AMThis is a lot Martin.  Thanks.  But at first glance I see there are things that are implicit in other things.  Also there are things that seem to follow definition rather than define.  Do mind if I take a shot at boiling it down?  Separate the fundamental from the things that are as a result of the fundamental?

I'm happy to discuss it.

There's a lot happening on the thread at the moment.  Can you let me know if you've said something you wanted me to respond too.

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 02:37 PMI would be astonished if the Jews or Muslims would accept that Jesus is God/YHWH.
You are right, of course, they just think Christians are mistaken about Jesus and the trinity.  God remains the same.

QuoteBut you are mistaken in thinking that we consider faith to be blind.  This is going to be another perspective discussion.  Let's leave it for another time.  I'm good with dropping the 'blind' for this discussion.

QuoteI'm happy to discuss it.

When I get the moment, I'll go through it.

QuoteThere's a lot happening on the thread at the moment.That almost seems like an understatement.

QuoteCan you let me know if you've said something you wanted me to respond too.I'd like your response to my question about math being created by God.  I think the post is not too far back.