To the Theists. Which God(s) you believe in, which you don't and why?

P

praty

Registered Member
To all the theists here. Think and answer the two questions. Don't go on and type random stuff.
First:
Which God(s) you believe in and why?
Second:
Which God(s) you don't believe in and why?

Please don't post anything else, just answer the questions. No digressions. Don't write anything meaningless, word salads and such. Only the answers. Do not derail the thread.
 
You would do better with your questions on a religious site. I don't think there are many theist participants on sciforums.

I think most people choose the god that is presented to them by the dominant culture, which is probably why we have so many christians in America.
 
praty said:
To all the theists here. Think and answer the two questions. Don't go on and type random stuff.
First:
Which God(s) you believe in and why?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Personality_of_Godhead
Because the term incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more

Second:
Which God(s) you don't believe in and why?
Click to expand...
Attributing impersonal brahman or some other polytheistic or voidist view as supreme (since such an argument has problems of attributing quality as caused by something devoid of quality)


Please don't post anything else, just answer the questions. No digressions. Don't write anything meaningless, word salads and such. Only the answers. Do not derail the thread.
Click to expand...
Do you understand how monotheism (or even plain old monism) can contextualize polytheistic and even animistic claims?
(just asking because we can anticipate the much flogged retort "so you don't believe in thor?" or "an atheist only disbelieves in one more god than you do")
 
praty said:
To all the theists here. Think and answer the two questions. Don't go on and type random stuff.
First:
Which God(s) you believe in and why?
Second:
Which God(s) you don't believe in and why?

Please don't post anything else, just answer the questions. No digressions. Don't write anything meaningless, word salads and such. Only the answers. Do not derail the thread.
Click to expand...

Of course its gonna get de-railed..

its a silly attempt to get a definition of God to argue with.
 
Mekigal cause he was a lot like Me and hells bells I love Me. He mysteriously disappeared into the sea too, so it is my contention that Micheal myths of rowing boats ashore were born from old Me
 
lightgigantic said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Personality_of_Godhead
Because the term incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more


Attributing impersonal brahman or some other polytheistic or voidist view as supreme (since such an argument has problems of attributing quality as caused by something devoid of quality)



Do you understand how monotheism (or even plain old monism) can contextualize polytheistic and even animistic claims?
(just asking because we can anticipate the much flogged retort "so you don't believe in thor?" or "an atheist only disbelieves in one more god than you do")
Click to expand...

That is funny . Atheist are separated by one degree is the implication . That is funny . I will be laughing for days
 
lightgigantic said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Personality_of_Godhead
Because the term incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more
Click to expand...

1. How do you respond to charges of circularity and self-referentiality?
Namely, it is this particular theology that teaches that the Supreme Personality of Godhead "incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more"; without subscribing to that theology, you would not see it that way.


2. How do you respond to charges from the Christian or Muslim side?
They hold that you are subscribing to some variation of falsity or the devil's work.
 
Bowser said:
You would do better with your questions on a religious site. I don't think there are many theist participants on sciforums.

I think most people choose the god that is presented to them by the dominant culture, which is probably why we have so many christians in America.
Click to expand...

Still, I'd like to find out.

Culture and decision to ignore facts.

SciWriter said:
Welcome back, Praty.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Sci! Had my exams.:cool:
 
lightgigantic said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Personality_of_Godhead
Because the term incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more


Attributing impersonal brahman or some other polytheistic or voidist view as supreme (since such an argument has problems of attributing quality as caused by something devoid of quality)



Do you understand how monotheism (or even plain old monism) can contextualize polytheistic and even animistic claims?
(just asking because we can anticipate the much flogged retort "so you don't believe in thor?" or "an atheist only disbelieves in one more god than you do")
Click to expand...

Does that mean you also follow the Hindu theology?

Something that is logical needs to be flogged till you properly answer it.
 
Which God(s) you believe in and why?
Click to expand...

All of them in some form or fashion..if not necessarily in the same context their adherents do.

Second:
Which God(s) you don't believe in and why?
Click to expand...

If you mean by that "believe in the metaphysical 'existence' of" there aren't any...
If by that you mean "Gods I don't like," well...kind of rude to bring up names...:eek:
 
lightgigantic said:
perhaps you can cite the text(s) where the word "hindu" appears just so we can be clear exactly what the hell you are talking about
Click to expand...

Let me make it easier for you, just so you know what the hell I'm talking about.

Would you have still have believed in, as you apparently do, a Godhead supreme being if it wasn't talked about in Hindu theology (hence none other) as the link you shared says.


"physician heal thyself"
Click to expand...

Funniest thing I've read today.
 
praty said:
Let me make it easier for you, just so you know what the hell I'm talking about.

Would you have still have believed in, as you apparently do, a Godhead supreme being if it wasn't talked about in Hindu theology (hence none other) as the link you shared says.
Click to expand...
still not clear what the hell you are talking about.

I didn't mention a thing about "hindu" theology

If you have an idea what you are talking about, perhaps you can indicate what body of work you are talking about when you start talking about "hindu" theology.

k?




Funniest thing I've read today.
Click to expand...
I know
just trying to help you form a logical statement
:D
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
perhaps you can cite the text(s) where the word "hindu" appears just so we can be clear exactly what the hell you are talking about
Click to expand...

In order to have some reason to believe that a theistic practice is relevant and authoritative (ie. in order to have some reason to believe that it can and will deliver the desired results), said practice needs to be embedded into a living theistic culture and society.

As it is, the only culture and society that embeds the practice in relation to the Supreme Personality of Godhead as you linked earlier, is the Hindu culture and society, specifically some traditions and groups within it.

For all practical intents and purposes, one cannot practice according to the theology of the Supreme Personality of Godhead unless one is part of said Hindu culture and society.

Unless you wish to argue otherwise?


I am referring also to your thread here: Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God


And to further quote a point you frequently make about the necessity of being properly socialized:

lightgigantic said:
actually the key element for entering into the spiritual world is to be socialized around the devotees.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2621270&postcount=218
Click to expand...


The disciplic succession and association of devotees that you so emphasize are only present in what is usually known as Hinduism.
 
Last edited:
Signal said:
In order to have some reason to believe that a theistic practice is relevant and authoritative (ie. in order to have some reason to believe that it can and will deliver the desired results), said practice needs to be embedded into a living theistic culture and society.

As it is, the only culture and society that embeds the practice in relation to the Supreme Personality of Godhead as you linked earlier, is the Hindu culture and society, specifically some traditions and groups within it.

For all practical intents and purposes, one cannot practice according to the theology of the Supreme Personality of Godhead unless one is part of said Hindu culture and society.

Unless you wish to argue otherwise?
Click to expand...

still not clear what body of work you are specifically referring to that makes mention of the word "hindu" within its seminal texts
 
lightgigantic said:
still not clear what body of work you are specifically referring to that makes mention of the word "hindu" within its seminal texts
Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't mention Christians or Christianity either, but it is culturally understood that they are inextricably connected to the Bible - as they are the ones who provide the translations, commentaries, who publish and distribute it.

You yourself have noted that scripture can only be properly understood only via proper socialization within the disciplic succession.

The Vedic scriptures may not even mention the word "Hindu", but the only ones who claim to have the authoritative disciplic succession for the Vedic scriptures, are Hindus / groups of them. Nobody else.

There is no "independent church of God" in which everyone with a desire to know about God would be welcome or could fit in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top