The Real Test: God vs God

[Tiassa]

Atheists! Grab some popcorn!

Seriously, the reason I've never done this before is that I generally don't trust our atheists as a whole to let things lie. I think TruthSeeker's recent thread shows that. So I appeal to our atheists: Let us see what comes.

And now:

The Real Test: God vs. God

One of the primary points I seem to disagree on with most theists is that God has to be anyone, anything, &c. I think that if you check with our atheists, I've been more than patient in my defense of religions, such that I have a right to be disappointed in the present religious voice. Newcomers, understand that it's all been done before--and poorly. We've seen the gamut of expected religious ... (I'm looking for a word other than "blather" and not having an easy time of it) ... assertions ... and the one thing I know that I, personally, have not seen, is a serious attempt to merge religion and reality to any functional degree.

Thus: Demonstrate to me or anyone that your God is the true God. Short of that, as I understand that to be a considerable task, evangelize your faith in such a manner as would cause someone to wish to undertake it.

To examine those challenges:

- True God: I've found that Abramic religions put the most weight on the actual name of God. Nonetheless, supreme beings as they are, it would seem that one must necessarily be truly supreme, or, as the pope has it, "first among equals". One of the core components of many deities is their totality, the assertion that this deity is the supreme incarnation. Sell me on the idea that your God is that God.

- Evangelize: One of the most disappointing results of religion is that evangelism actually turns off a good number of people. Religions like Christianity tend to advertise to the "lowest common denominator", seeking the most desperate and superstitious. While this works well for market-share, the demographic on that bloc is abhorrent. Low-education, low-income ... accommodating this market often means better-educated, better-financed people don't appreciate the evangelism. The point being, I've never met a "popular" or "successful" evangelist who was actually doing any good. If that evangelist's point was in any way related to drawing me nearer to the Biblical God, that evangelist failed. So evangelize, sell me, or anyone, on your religion.

enjoy,
Tiassa

 

[notme2000]

If there is a God I would imagine 'it' is behind everything we know as existance therefore we could never know of it. It is not the God we know of from religions or books, therefor 'it' could not be preached or praised... He/it would be 'simply the cause before the cause'. I think this is the best anyone can do at merging theism and reality.

 

[New Life]

Thats a really tough thing to live up to!

I know some evangilists even drive ME away and I"m already a christian!

There is no way to tell anyone how God will be a reality in their life because everyone experiences God in a different way........the only thing that I can do is tell you what the bible says and how God is a reality in MY life........and maybe how He MIGHT be in your life (ie, there is a feeling of joy that most christians experience so you prolly will too)!

as for an evangilist already out there doing good, I'd say Billy Graham is doing pretty well!

 

[Turduckin]

Originally posted by tiassa

The Real Test: God vs. God

One of the primary points I seem to disagree on with most theists is that God has to be anyone, anything, &c.

Sorry, but I don't understand the last part of your statement. It sounds like you disagree that God has to be anyone or anything etc? Does the etc include anything and nothing? It's unclear to me.

Thus: Demonstrate to me or anyone that your God is the true God. Short of that, as I understand that to be a considerable task, evangelize your faith in such a manner as would cause someone to wish to undertake it.

I have tried dialoging with you and others on previous threads and have not seen much in the way of give and take. I can think of quite a few reasons why.

1. You have heard everything I've said before and are uninterested.

2. I am such a staggering logician that no one can counter my arguments when I present any. (yeah, right)

3. I don't go out of my way to poke people with rhetorical sticks, and encourage them to flame me.

4. People (including myself) are more interested in talking within our comfort zone and prefer to make easy arguments. If the level of discussion gets too high, it takes too much time to compose a decent reply.

5. etc. etc blah blah.

In any event, the new threads keep coming at a rapid pace and the old threads drop off the face of the list. So I think I'm just going to pop my own bag of corn and sit back for awhile.

 

[sycoindian]

Tiassa.. you've raised some really good questions... i'll explain what i've observed....

there is a shocking disparity between the religious texts and the beliefs of its followers... religious texts have always allowed to be corrupted by ppl who use it for various purposes... and about ppl preachin in different religions is absolutely garbage... ppl have been conditioned to believe certain things cuz they have been taught over centuries... at the same time, if you examine the texts, you can see that there is some sorta wisdom in it when u put it in a historical context... human beings have evolved socially and so have the religious books... that's a pattern that i've observed...

lemme be devil's advocate here for a minute.. a logical breakdown... lets suppose that the prophets were indeed infallible and the word of god flowed through them...

God is infallible
therefore prophets are infallible
the texts are infallible
the followers are fallible
interpretations of the followers are fallible
therefore belief systems stemmin outta the followers are incorrect
so the followers have deviated from their texts and made up stuff that is convenient to them and used it for various selfish purposes

so if the above scenario is true, then the only way to judge a religion would be from the untainted text it provides...

therefore, the followers will never have the answers to all the questions...

what irks me the most is when i ask a question and i find that the answer is 'its not time for humans to know this yet'... what kinda sad explanation is that?? i find it qute bemusing...

anywayzz.. i hope ur not mad cuz i wasn't really respondin to what you were asking.. i was just puttin my 2 cents in...

p.s. turduckin... id be interested to know what you have to say..

 

[Tiassa]

Turduckin

Turduckin

Sorry, but I don't understand the last part of your statement. It sounds like you disagree that God has to be anyone or anything etc? Does the etc include anything and nothing? It's unclear to me.

The simplest explanation is that many different religions claim their Gods to have distinct personalities. The Trinity is different from Allah is different from the Dianic Triune, &c. Even within the religions themselves, sects compete for justification. Certain Baptists dislike Catholics for theological reasons.

Being a theist does not require carrying any specific religion. And from that vantage outside the doctrinal horsepucky I see a number of groups (e.g. religions) working hard to reduce God to something that fits in a book. If God is something, what of those things that God is not? If God is Good, whence evil?

Establishing an image of God which does not fall short of the asserted totality is a daunting task. But it seems important that, every once in a while, religious persons undertake the whole of their chosen beliefs and all the accompanying implications.

Why does God have to be anything at all? What is so unacceptable to these religions that God should just be? Hebrew creation leads to the Hebrews, Hopi creation to the Hopis. Why does Hopi creation not lead to Palestinians in such a direct manner, or Hebrew creation not lead to Druids?

We encounter a problem in such sentiments as godly creationism: such stories lead too perfectly to the chosen religion. This process is a result of whittling God down to meet some human-derived expectation of what God should be.

For me, that God is serves well enough. I don't get why anyone would aim for something seemingly lesser.

Hence the challenge of demonstration. For if any one God is superior, then that superiority ought to be demonstrable. What I'm offering is, essentially, an open season on converting me. Personally, I don't think it can be done, because the range of questions unresolved would, seemingly, have found some sense of resolution along the way. So the subordinate clause there is that I'm asking for something new, for new thinking, for new perspective. The old paradigm has failed so miserably that even the faithful are driven to ad hoc theology in order to justify themselves.

Anyone can claim that their God is the true God, and by proxy that their religion is the true religion. But how many people can show it?

A strange comparison: it's functionally like challenging racism--that is, challenging something inherent to a person's worldview. I love hearing theories from racists on the origin of terms like "porch-monkey" and "shit-from-Shinola"; I would think that the racists would at least know their own history.

Perhaps it is an impossible challenge, though, to create a clear picture of Christianity, present it in its pristine glory, and support it with history. But if I can understand how people come to believe what they believe about Christianity, it can only help me to deal with it better.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Turduckin]

Re: Turduckin

Tiassa,

Excellent job reformulating the question. Interesting tie to racism, because I can't speak for all Christians any more that a black man could speak for all blacks, or a woman could speak for all women. I can only give you my perspective from my place on the circle. (I wasn't aware that 'shit from shinola' had racist implications. I thought shinola was a brand of shoe polish, and that it took a real moron not to be able to tell the difference.)

Perhaps it is an impossible challenge, though, to create a clear picture of Christianity, present it in its pristine glory, and support it with history. But if I can understand how people come to believe what they believe about Christianity, it can only help me to deal with it better

Definitely an impossible challenge, especially if I have to use history to support it. There are plenty of examples of good church/evil church, so that path informs nothing. Besides, I came to the church in spite of it's history, not because of it.

Anyone can claim that their God is the true God, and by proxy that their religion is the true religion. But how many people can show it?

I'm in luck here, because I don't claim my religion is the true religion. I only claim it's the best religion for me, and if we talk for a while, you may hear something that will help you on your path. "But, wait" you say, "What about all that crap about 'I am the truth and the way and the life - no one gets to the father except through me'?" I say, if that bothers you, then it bothers you for very good reasons, and until those reasons are honestly examined and tracked to their source, then let it go. It is not a good enough reason to prevent you from seeking God, only from becoming a Christian. Seeking God is the most important thing, (I'll explain why I think that's true shortly.)

Hence the challenge of demonstration. For if any one God is superior, then that superiority ought to be demonstrable. What I'm offering is, essentially, an open season on converting me. Personally, I don't think it can be done, because the range of questions unresolved would, seemingly, have found some sense of resolution along the way. So the subordinate clause there is that I'm asking for something new, for new thinking, for new perspective. The old paradigm has failed so miserably that even the faithful are driven to ad hoc theology in order to justify themselves.

God is God, regardless of religion, theology, definitions, abstractions, words, mental images or demonstrations I may make. When I say God, I am talking about that which has created all things. But the minute I talk about God I make God less. How can it be otherwise? That which created the whole of creation cannot be understood by me. I cannot fit the length and breadth of it in my head. The Jews say that no one can look into the face of God and live. The Gita says that God is One, but most can see only a fragment and worship just that fragment.

Answers said "To put this in practical terms: you read books that disprove Christianity, while I read books that prove it. " The problem with that answer is it makes the books the end in itself, and they are not. The books are only signposts to a larger thing. To believe in the books is another way to make God less, to put God in your pocket and not let God be God. Answers is a good name... many athiests and theists want the same thing... Answers. The problem is, too many stop when they are satisfied. They become complacent. They get justification by judging others wrong and themselves right. They get comfortable with the idea that they know something. Comfort is another word for death. If your search for knowledge or God or whatever doesn't occasionally make you uncomfortable, then your not looking hard enough.

That is why We encounter a problem in such sentiments as godly creationism: such stories lead too perfectly to the chosen religion. This process is a result of whittling God down to meet some human-derived expectation of what God should be.

But you go on to say...

Why does God have to be anything at all? What is so unacceptable to these religions that God should just be? Hebrew creation leads to the Hebrews, Hopi creation to the Hopis. Why does Hopi creation not lead to Palestinians in such a direct manner, or Hebrew creation not lead to Druids?....For me, that God is serves well enough. I don't get why anyone would aim for something seemingly lesser.

This is the exact point where we diverge. That God is, is not good enough because God does not want to leave us alone. The judeo-christian God wants us to transform ourselves. The Hindu God wants us to break through the illusion. Even the buddhist non-god wants us to become better by using our minds to a fuller extent than we normally wish to. Only the lesser gods want to leave us alone, or worse, play with us as toys because we are useless for anything else. But how can I, as a Christian, be talking about all these other Gods? Because God is God, regardless. And the belief in all these Gods point to the common thread that binds us all together. We have in our nature an unending thirst, a hole that demands to be filled. It can't be filled with food or sex or rational discourse or study, because at the end of the day, the satisfaction is never permenent. We always need more sex or knowledge or power or money. All that searching is being driven by that singular need.

As I argued earlier - The physical world evolves in one direction: Toward ever greater awareness of self and environment. Why? Because that 'will' that exists in 'spirit' motivating 'flesh' to become self aware wants to fuse with the flesh, bridge the gap between the purely physical and the purely spiritual. Each living thing, looking though its own eyes, is a living manifestation of that 'will'... trying to see itself, to understand what it means to be physical, to be, to exist as it is. God doesn't want to leave us alone. God wants to complete us! When it happens, all other experience becomes ghostly and unreal, like an illusion or a bad painting of a beautiful scene. There is wholeness. There is an answer to every deep longing in your heart. There is Love beyond all understanding. We become truly aware and truly alive. That is why anything that gets between us and God is a sin - not because those things are intrinsically bad or good, but because they distract us from being truly fullfilled in God. I have glimpsed these things and all I can say is that it's real, because it's real to me.

And when God first touched me, it turned on a light. And that light helped illuminate the way toward God. No one can read a book in the dark. With light, the book begins to make sense. But the book is a map of the path, not the destination. And "knowing the path is not walking the path."

I am a Christian because the Bible gave God's name as "I AM". Those were the exact words that came into my head as if spoken by someone else when I was 12 years old that nearly blew the top of my head off and scared the shit out of me, before I ever opened a Bible. I am a Christian now because the parts of the Bible that make sense to me help me move closer to the Creator. And I feel that it has something to do with what Jesus did on the cross. But that is one of the things that I do not understand. So I let it go and continue to seek God in Christ. I am also a Christian because only in Christ have I been able to make progress getting beyond the distractions that separate me from God. On my own and through my own effort, I wasn't able to do so. And finally, I am a Christian because Jesus exhorted us to an impossible task (Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.) and then provided a way to accomplish the impossible. Just because many people who claim to be Christian seem to avoid taking the journey is no justification not to make the trip myself.

I didn't get to everything. As you said, it is an impossible task, and I'm not really trying to convert you. All I hope to accomplish, really, is to try to help you understand where I'm coming from, simply because you asked. If you actually read all of this, then thank you for giving me some of your time. I appreciate it very much.

 

[biblthmp]

If there is a God

Originally posted by notme2000
If there is a God I would imagine 'it' is behind everything we know as existance therefore we could never know of it. It is not the God we know of from religions or books, therefor 'it' could not be preached or praised... He/it would be 'simply the cause before the cause'. I think this is the best anyone can do at merging theism and reality.

If there is a God, he would have to reveal himself, on His terms, using the supernatural to prove His claims to be God. Uisng many revelators, over a long period of time, to elimate the possibility, of someone just relating a bad drug trip.

Sounds like the God of the Judeo Christian bible to me.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Why not: God vs God(s)

Originally posted by biblthmp
If there is a God, he would have to reveal himself, on His terms, using the supernatural to prove His claims to be God.

Please forgive the intrusion, but who made up that rule?

On the other hand, it seems to me that the, if revalation is discounted, the only interesting arguments remaining are those dealing with First Cause. But these arguments do not apply to the supernatural. That is, even if you find First Cause compelling in the natural world, there is zero basis for asserting that the supernatural, in whole or in part, must have a "First Cause". But, if this is true, it seems to me that there is zero basis for rejecting polytheism while embracing the supernatural.

So my question becomes, other than revelation or Western bias, what is the compelling reason for monotheism as opposed to polytheism?

 

[Tiassa]

Great question

So my question becomes, other than revelation or Western bias, what is the compelling reason for monotheism as opposed to polytheism?

Well, insofar as I can tell, a polytheistic system generally sees a number of deities whose scope and conduct is limited.

Now, while it is admittedly a Western example: What authority limited the actions of Greek and Roman gods?

I would have to quote a dozen or so pages of Basham in order to establish the basis of a Hindu equivalent, so please forgive me if I avoid committing that torture for now.

But regardless of how you cut it, what is the principle which demands this division of labor and specialization of ability? In this sense a polytheistic system is false, merely identifying the liason between humanity and the divine. The diverse deities are still subject to an overriding authority, and this authority can be viewed as a monotheistic source. Again with the Western example, but for all we hear about Zeus, Apollo, and other Greek deities, how many of us read myths of the "Unmoved Mover" or "Unnamed Namer" when we were kids? That authority was sort of accepted in the Greco-Roman polytheisms.

Polytheism, by this idea, is a "functional" demand. The underlying monotheism is too abstract to be practical, or to affect function.

Two cents. If'n you need, I'll be happy to dredge together an ill-conceived Hindu/Sufi response, but it'll take a few days and may not clear anything up.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Great question

Originally posted by tiassa
Now, while it is admittedly a Western example: What authority limited the actions of Greek and Roman gods?

Who knows? Certainly not you, and I don't believe in them in the first place.

More importantly, you are the one assuming/insinuating some authority limiting some action. That seems at best anthropomorphic. Furthermore, is it not somewhat of a strawman to argue that Polytheism is not viable because you don't find the Greek/Roman Pantheon compelling? At issue is, given acceptance of the supernatural, whether there is anything that logically precludes Polytheism. I suggest that there is not, much as there is nothing to preclude a God or Gods being good or *bad, honest or dishonest, interested or disinterested, etc.

(* It is interesting to note that some Gnostic Christians view YHWH as the demiurge.)