What is to say that Yaweh and Allah are not one and the same? After all, could not God appear to mortals in whatever form He so desired? He appeared as a burning bush at one point, after all - what is to stop Him from appearing to some as Allah, others as Yaweh, yet others still as Zeus or even Odin?
What God Would Say
- Thread starter davidelkins
- Start date
What is to say that Yaweh and Allah are not one and the same? After all, could not God appear to mortals in whatever form He so desired? He appeared as a burning bush at one point, after all - what is to stop Him from appearing to some as Allah, others as Yaweh, yet others still as Zeus or even Odin?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I would argue being loving is far more relevant than being honourable.
Honour is an ego trait; while not exculsively so, there is a large component to honour that is about onesself.
Contrarily, to love is pretty much the definition of being about others.
This is why I think your choice of honour as a god's desire is highly subjective.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Argued implies speculation, from my premise if God says something it is so.?. God dont speculate. Again I´m arguing from the bible. There is no point of discussion if there is no common playground, it all comes just trivial point of views.
Quoting myself:
"Example, for God is customory to start a thread what ever way God prefer, and declare to be it so, yes? So, is davidelkins a God?
If you ask for a new age people or satanists and suchs, that is the case, you are your own god, defining good and evil, and so on what is honorable or not."
If you have noticed I havent been challenging OP statement to be wrong or right, I´m interest what kind of thinking and mindset produce such a statement, besides other factors.
Current state of the world. We made it finite, compromising the word, we became our own authority. Moral relativism.
I´m not doing it, on the contrary, I´m trying to understand the word, and more I study more I understand. If I take the stance that God of the bible is the one ( you have to choose one of a time to be a platform of a debate, otherwise all this is pretty pointless?) how does that destroy the "whole alpha and omega" idea?
What is it that you want to argue, there is no God; its just fabrication of our minds and our interpretions about it just differs, there is a God but our interpretions about it just differs, or what? Are you suggesting there is no major filosofical/theological differences in the religions? I will argue there is major differences between them in a such a way that only one of them can present the truth, explaining why things are why they are and how to overcome it, and so on ofcourse they cant co exist together in a sense that all are presenting the truth.
I really didnt want talk about honorable doings lightly, thats why "later" "challenge" and "interesting". Often the little things like what you dont say or dont do are the really honorable things.
Last edited:
That seems to assume there is only one individual God, whereas the Greek and Norse religions (among others) recognize a whole pantheon.
Monotheism seems to be in the minority when it comes to religion.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
On point, I agree 100%
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
-I would argue that the basing on what have They sayeth, logical conclusion is that they are not the same author, I see what you are saying but I would merely argue step by step is the difference between them,and if there is, does one of them present the truth, meaning in a way that it is correlating with what is going on in reality and explaining why. Bible explains who were Zeus and Odin, Nephilims, demigods, giants, childrens of the fallen angels and mankind, corrupting mankinds DNA.
What is your objection to acknowledging people? "God don't speculate" is a change of subject.
But that's not actually what you're doing. Seriously, you need to acknowledge people if you want to consider mindset and thinking. "God don't speculate" is a complete change of subject.
It's a matter of definitions. Infinity is infinite; less than infinity is not.
Again, a matter of definitions. By constraining what you would allow God to be, you describe something less than the Alpha and Omega.
You really are offensive.
What is it that I want to argue? Well, I was responding to Mr. Elkins, but you needed to change the subject. What is it that I want to argue? How about what the hell is your problem? No, seriously, what is so important that you have to change the subject and play this role of petulant ignorance?
Why? Why do you have to go out of your way to be so damn rude, Eyeswideshut? Is there some reason being respectful is presently beyond your faculties?
You do realize, Eyeswideshut, at this point, nobody cares.
davidelkins
Registered Senior Member
Sarkus, when I say that I believe in God, I mean that I believe that He exists, that He is Perfect and that I should worship Him. I simply chose to 'accept' the existence and goodness of God, even at my early evidential stage.
And by the way, I'm not Christian. I'm a non-Christian theist. I don't believe in Noah's Flood. So can it with the flood jokes.
Now, you want to know what my beliefs are that I need no text as prerequisite for? My principle belief is 'Do no harm'. A related belief would be 'Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.' That's the Harm Principle.
DE
And by the way, I'm not Christian. I'm a non-Christian theist. I don't believe in Noah's Flood. So can it with the flood jokes.
Now, you want to know what my beliefs are that I need no text as prerequisite for? My principle belief is 'Do no harm'. A related belief would be 'Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.' That's the Harm Principle.
DE
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
So you are defining what God is and so on ofcourse everything you said about God is the truth, for you at least, so what is the point in examining is there any universal truth in your original statement.
You take the same position as New Age guru Timothy Leary: "Do what you wilt is whole of the law, under love"
That is satanic philosophy, defining good and evil, and then you are your own God by default.
Last edited:
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But your assertions on this matter is just muddying the waters, no real substance, in my opinion.
Being honorable is more than 'self esteem or ego'. It encompasses many good traits, being loving to all can also qualify as being honorable. It covers the good actions of a person, rather than making a simple statement about his honor. If one shows hatred towards people in general, it can be termed as not being honorable.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
I guess thats why statement: "while not exclusively so"
From love you can generate real honour, not the other way around I will argue.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
But you stated that we could have figured it out without religion, how is it so? Lets take the naturalistic (no God, evolution) stance then, how one arrive to that stated conclusion in that framework. As far I can tell "kill or to be killed" doesn't turn easy to be " treat others as you wanted them to treat you", "be honorable" if you will.
Or do you mean that we invented religions to support our "honorable" actions?
As I have already said, practically every culture on earth understands the concept of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". It's something we figured out as we evolved a social structure. We all know that societies work better that way. Different societies have thin veneers of "gods" supposedly telling them what to do but the basic foundation is universal. They already know. And of course many animals have similar social structures without any extraneous "gods".
"Kill or be killed" is not a part of any social structure. Practically every society forbids one member from killing another - because it's counter-productive. Together we have a better chance of survival.
eyeswideshut
Registered Senior Member
Communism which embraces Atheism and no God surely have no problem with some Darwinism and natural selection, "kill or to be killed" if you will, after all we are just high IQ animals according to him, mix that with embracing man like a God you get North Korea. I will argue that "kill or to be killed" if you will, can be found in some cultural/social structures.
“Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."
-Joseph Stalin
Natural selection is not about people killing each other or being killed by each other. We are selected by nature to die, not by each other. Bacteria are a far more dangerous selector than other humans.