"If" The Bible Was Man-Made What Would It Look Like?

[Freedom]

Have fun participating on a board where you make believe critical participation is allowed.

there are several critics who participate quite openly. Creatures with the maturity of a retarded gnat, on the other hand...

[wenglund]

I need to do a lot better in not letting some people bring out the worst in me. It inadvertently endows them with power over my disposition--power that I am better served reserving for myself. There can be a very liberating and maturing force in the pragmatic precept of "ignoring certain things." For this reason, and because of personal embarrassment, I will be deleting some of my previous posts on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thread banned...

Silencing critics when possible. Classic apologetics.

I fear it was your approach. This is not CARM or MD, as in Shades site. You can debate without being rude.

[Mudcat]

Anyone interested in engaging in apologetics for genocide?

Sure. First, I'll offer two angles of apologetic defense.

1. Acts of genocide were attributed to God by the nation of Israel to invoke some sort of divine sanction for what they were doing at the time.

2. God had sufficient reason, though it's beyond the understanding of most folks, to command the genocidal actions he commanded.

I have bounced about on either position but am preferential to 2, it doesn't impugn the integrity of Scripture in the way that 1 does and 2 can be expanded to point toward God having a perspective that bears in mind eternal consequence in primacy over temporal consequence.

That aside. I'll toss out the notion that unless someone has worldview that genocide is wrong in all cases, I don't see much need for actually defending the position. If a person has a philosophical or religious platform that they can assert that genocide is wrong in all cases, I think it's a criticism that needs to be addressed.

However, if a skeptic were to say something like the genocidal actions in the Bible are wrong and therefore Christianity is false.. or something like that. Well I think they would be in relatively poor shape to make the case that anything is right or wrong.. let alone genocide. Not putting words in your mouth Grey Hat, but I am curious to know by what means would you assert that the genocidal actions of the Bible are something that are wrong or in error or something like that.

edit add

Ooops didn't know you got yourself banned.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Mudcat

[Bikeemikey]

My perspective is a bit different. I see some people as being hypocritical in their worship of God, and some being sincere. Those who are not hypocritical in their worship of God see everyone who worships God as worshipping the same God, even though their theologies may be different from each other. The hypocrites, on the other hand, are not really worshipping God at all, but just pretending to.

Can you explain a bit more about this?

If I call west east, meet you in a field, we agree to go west, won't we walk in different directions.

If we use the same word to define fundamentally different things why it hypocritical to point that out?

I certainly don't think that sincere worshippers of God believe that all people who "worship" god "worship" the same god.

Of course if you want to define sincere worship (at least in part) as resulting in accepting that all people who worship are actually worshipping the same god I guess you could. Is that a little tautologous?

Please expand.

[Bikeemikey]

What about that guy Chris who translated the list pages and the sealed book.

Inspired or man made.

Some of his stuff is pretty scriptureish.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

deleted

Edited June 30, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

deleted

Edited June 30, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[zerinus]

Can you explain a bit more about this?

If I call west east, meet you in a field, we agree to go west, won't we walk in different directions.

If we use the same word to define fundamentally different things why it hypocritical to point that out?

I certainly don't think that sincere worshippers of God believe that all people who "worship" god "worship" the same god.

Of course if you want to define sincere worship (at least in part) as resulting in accepting that all people who worship are actually worshipping the same god I guess you could. Is that a little tautologous?

Please expand.

If you go back to your Bible, you will find that all prophets have conversed with the rest of mankind based on the assumption that there is one God, and that everybody has an idea who that one God is. Everybody who believes in one God, believes in the same one God, regardless of the "tradition" on which that belief is based. Here are a couple of examples:

Acts 10:

1 There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

Cornelius was a heathen. He was a Roman. He was not a Jew. He believed in God, and worshipped God according to his Roman (heathen) tradition or concept of God, but not the Jewish one. So if (by your theory) he was believing in and praying to the "wrong God," how come he was approved of, and received a revelation from the true God? Answer: anybody who believes in God, and worships that one God with a good conscience, is worshipping the same God. The God doesn't change just because the tradition or the theology changes. Here is another example:

Acts 17:

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Again, Paul is here addressing a bunch of Greek (and possibly Roman) heathens. They were not Jews. They were worshipping God according to their heathen traditions. Yet he doesn't tell them that they are worshipping a "different God". He is telling them that they are worshipping the same God, but that they have got some of their facts about Him wrong.

It is hypocritical, wicked, and exceedingly sinful to tell people who worship God according to their own tradition that they are worshipping the "wrong God" or a "different God," when God in fact acknowledges their worship, and answers their prayers according to their faith (as He did with Cornelius).

Does God hear and answer the prayers of a Muslim who prays to Him in sincerity and faith, according to his/her traditions? Of course He does. And it is a great wickedness in the sight of God to tell them that they are worshipping a "different God" or the "wrong God". Anybody who says that of another human being, they are the ones in fact who are worshipping the "wrong God," and God has turned His face away from them, and hears them not at all. They are the hypocrites and liars. To them is fulfilled the following scripture:

Psalms 138:

6 Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.

God hears and answers the humble prayers of a Muslim a lot sooner than the prayers of a Christian who believes as you do.

Edited June 30, 2012 by zerinus

[Palerider]

I’m guessing that it would be full of myths, fables and untrue stories. It would weave actual historical events and combine them with myth. It would have claimed histories of individuals who never existed in reality. It would be heavily influence by the myths and stories of surrounding civilizations. Since man made books can’t predict the future with any accuracy, it would be full of false predictions and failed prophecies. It would be full of miraculous stories of miracles, angels and other godly creatures that don’t exist in the real world and can’t be duplicated under controlled circumstances. In other words it would look pretty much like it does right now…

While the Bible, unlike the Book of Mormon, has been shown to included stories about real cities and civilizations that actually left behind evidence that they existed, it is full of fabricated untrue myths and fables…and has every mark of being a man made book written by men to look like it came from a god.

Considering the amount of surviving ancient writings, I have a feeling that we might not be very familiar with the Bible if it was strictly a book created by man. Just the fact that it is so well preserved (comparatively speaking) speaks to it's inspired nature.

Most people in ancient times had more critical things to do than sit around writing goofy stories. It seems to me one had to have a pretty driving force to preserve the words of men who were considered the prophets of their day. I'm sure it (writing about one's history and culture) occurred to a certain extent in most civilizations, but not on the scale of the Bible. It seems to be a ton of writing.

Consider the Illiad attributed to Homer. How much influence has it had on the governments and people of the world? Do people read it on a daily basis to help them in their lives? The only reason I read the Illiad was because it was an assignment in a literature class. Interesting? Somewhat. Inspiring? Only in the sense that I enjoy a good adventure occasionally. Does it make me want to be a better person? Ehhhhh....I'll get back to you on that one.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Palerider

[Bikeemikey]

If you go back to your Bible, you will find that all prophets have conversed with the rest of mankind based on the assumption that there is one God, and that everybody has an idea who that one God is. Everybody who believes in one God, believes in the same one God, regardless of the "tradition" on which that belief is based. Here are a couple of examples:

I am not sure this makes a lot of sense to me. Are you saying that different monotheistic traditions which believe in one God believe in the same one God, even if they say they believe in a different one God? Different monotheistic traditions came about for a number of reasons, one was that groups didn't believe in the power/divinity of other traditions "God".

Acts 10:

1 There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

Cornelius was a heathen. He was a Roman. He was not a Jew. He believed in God, and worshipped God according to his Roman (heathen) tradition or concept of God, but not the Jewish one. So if (by your theory) he was believing in and praying to the "wrong God," how come he was approved of, and received a revelation from the true God? Answer: anybody who believes in God, and worships that one God with a good conscience, is worshipping the same God. The God doesn't change just because the tradition or the theology changes. Here is another example:

This example shows that the "true God" will answer the earnest prayers of all sincere individuals, even if they believe in a different God. I dont see how this Acts 10 example shows that all sincere believers of different Gods actually believe in the same God. It is true that their is only one "true God". That God will be the only God that can answer prayer, it doesn't mean that all believers believe in that God.

Acts 17:

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Again, Paul is here addressing a bunch of Greek (and possibly Roman) heathens. They were not Jews. They were worshipping God according to their heathen traditions. Yet he doesn't tell them that they are worshipping a "different God". He is telling them that they are worshipping the same God, but that they have got some of their facts about Him wrong.

It is hypocritical, wicked, and exceedingly sinful to tell people who worship God according to their own tradition that they are worshipping the "wrong God" or a "different God," when God in fact acknowledges their worship, and answers their prayers according to their faith (as He did with Cornelius).

Does God hear and answer the prayers of a Muslim who prays to Him in sincerity and faith, according to his/her traditions? Of course He does. And it is a great wickedness in the sight of God to tell them that they are worshipping a "different God" or the "wrong God". Anybody who says that of another human being, they are the ones in fact who are worshipping the "wrong God," and God has turned His face away from them, and hears them not at all. They are the hypocrites and liars. To them is fulfilled the following scripture:

Your opening line from this post talked about those who believed in one God. Acts 17 is directed to a community who believed in many Gods. Does you opening claim hold true for traditions with a pluralistic view of God? If not, this Acts 17 reference doesn't matter. If you think your opening claim does hold true for pluralistic traditions then I don't think Acts 17 supports this.

Paul is talking with these folks precisely because they believe in a whole range of different Gods. In Acts 17:18 the people proclaim that Pauls "God" is a strange God. in 17:23 Paul likens his Christian God to the unknown God in their temple, not because they were worshipping Christ when they worshipped the unknown God, but to point out the ridiculous nature of their extreme pluralism. Paul was talking about adhering to a monotheistic perspective as much as he was talking of Worshipping Christ. In Acts 17:26 he reminds the people that we are all made by the one true God, whether we worship him or a different God.

Psalms 138:

6 Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.

God hears and answers the humble prayers of a Muslim a lot sooner than the prayers of a Christian who believes as you do.

This is a great quote from Psalms, though I am unsure as to it's relevance.

God distances himself from the prideful? Is that the takeaway?

Followed up you last line, is that directed at me? If so that seems a little unnecessary. I am personally quite comfortable with us both being able to have our prayers heard by God, even if we believe differently... wouldn't that also be the conclusion of your opening assertion. That all people who believe in God believe in the same God, even if they talk about that God differently?

Am I to take away from this that I do not believe in the same God, even though I am an active LDS member and believe in a very same God you do? Now I am all confused.

As much as I enjoy your perspective on religious discussion I would prefer it without the personal attacks, if that is what it was meant to be.

[CASteinman]

Manmade Bibles would have much thicker paper. The paper in my Bible is miraculous.

[Bikeemikey]

I would hope if it were manmade it would have less pages in general... that book is long.

Yet again further evidence the BOM is man made :-( - look how short that book is.

[CASteinman]

I was buying a Bible once. I looked inside. There was a page where some of the ink had formed a sort of blob or blemish in the margin of the page.

I knew at once it was man made and refused to buy it.

[Craig Paxton]

Too bad you can't destroy the entire Internet...

Now everyone will know that Joesph lied about the book of Abraham, and married other man's wives.

Whoa dude...you're really not helping.

[Freedom]

If a person wrote an account of an angelic visitation, how would a genuine account differ from a fictional account? I don't think the text would look any different. The key would be with witnesses.

[altersteve]

If a person wrote an account of an angelic visitation, how would a genuine account differ from a fictional account? I don't think the text would look any different. The key would be with witnesses.

Exactly. This is why this thread doesn't make any sense to me. Of course the Bible wouldn't look any different if it was "man-made." I don't see Craig's point.

[Craig Paxton]

If a person wrote an account of an angelic visitation, how would a genuine account differ from a fictional account? I don't think the text would look any different. The key would be with witnesses.

They wouldnt differ at all thats my point because the Bible is man made oh and Yes reliable witnesses that walk and have conversations with talking deer. Now that's someone I'd believe we're they to tell me they also saw an angel...yup absolutly reliable. So yes reliable witnesses like this are a must. They make angelic visitations so much more credible

Edited June 30, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[zerinus]

I am not sure this makes a lot of sense to me. Are you saying that different monotheistic traditions which believe in one God believe in the same one God, even if they say they believe in a different one God? Different monotheistic traditions came about for a number of reasons, one was that groups didn't believe in the power/divinity of other traditions "God".

It is a logically inconsistent statement that several people who believe in one God in fact believe in different Gods. The statement itself is logically inconsistent. It is like saying that some bachelors are married. It is a logically inconsistent statement. If they are married then they can’t be bachelors. You can’t have a married bachelor. Likewise you can’t have several people believe in one God, and yet believe in different Gods. I think you are just being cynical. What you are really trying to say is that if somebody has a different theological conception of God from you, that they are not really believers in God at all. You want to monopolize the belief in God to only those who do so according to your theology, and exclude all others who believe in God according to a different theology. That is extremely cynical and wicked. It is an Evangelical mindset. It has nothing to do with Mormonism. According to the Bible, everybody who believes in God believes in the same God, as these verses show:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religious tradition] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The ultimate criteria for acceptability to God is actually “working righteousness” more than anything else. Cornelius was not only “devout” (according to his own religious tradition), he also worked righteousness. It says he “gave alms” to the poor. A theological tradition has never been a bar to the worship of the one true God. Here is another:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles [i.e. heathens, or unbelievers in the Judo-Christian tradition of the God], which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

What he is saying is basically that righteous doing is what really counts in the sight of God more than anything else. Anybody who "works righteousness" is in his heart of hearts worshipping the true God, for "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the Fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27).

And here is another:

1 Nephi 17:

35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. . . .

This example shows that the "true God" will answer the earnest prayers of all sincere individuals, even if they believe in a different God. I dont see how this Acts 10 example shows that all sincere believers of different Gods actually believe in the same God. It is true that their is only one "true God". That God will be the only God that can answer prayer, it doesn't mean that all believers believe in that God.

There is no such thing as believing in a “different God,” if they all believe in one God. If somebody prays to God and gets an answer to his prayers, then he has been praying to that one true God who alone is able to answer prayers. Nobody has his prayers answered who prays to Baal. Baal is not real, and doesn’t answer anybody’s prayers. But if somebody in his heart of hearts believes there is one God, and prays to that one God in any degree of faith (according to whatever religious tradition he may be accustomed to), and accompanies it with righteous living, like Cornelius, will have his prayers answered by the one true God. That is the testimony of the scriptures.

Your opening line from this post talked about those who believed in one God. Acts 17 is directed to a community who believed in many Gods. Does you opening claim hold true for traditions with a pluralistic view of God? If not, this Acts 17 reference doesn't matter. If you think your opening claim does hold true for pluralistic traditions then I don't think Acts 17 supports this.

Yes, even those who have religious traditions with a pluralistic system of deity, still have some concept in their mind of one, true, supreme, and eternal God. It is something that seems to be universally built in people’s conscience. And in their extremities people tend to gravitate to that eternal and unchanging concept of God. And when they do, He hears and answers their prayers.

Paul is talking with these folks precisely because they believe in a whole range of different Gods. In Acts 17:18 the people proclaim that Pauls "God" is a strange God. in 17:23 Paul likens his Christian God to the unknown God in their temple, not because they were worshipping Christ when they worshipped the unknown God, but to point out the ridiculous nature of their extreme pluralism. Paul was talking about adhering to a monotheistic perspective as much as he was talking of Worshipping Christ. In Acts 17:26 he reminds the people that we are all made by the one true God, whether we worship him or a different God.

Cornelius was also a product of a pluralistic system of Deity. The Greeks were not the only ones who believed in multiple deities; so did the Romans. In the case of Paul addressing the Greeks, you will notice that he talks to them of God in monotheistic terms; because that is a universal constant. The idea of there being one supreme God above all is a universal one, no matter how many gods your religious tradition may happen to talk about. Hinduism for example by all appearances has a pluralistic deity. Yet at the heart of it is hidden a concept of monotheism. Here is a quote:

Yet first impressions can sometimes be mistaken, for many Hindus regard their gods and goddesses as manifestations of the Supreme God, Brahman. In the Vedantic schools of Hinduism, Brahman is the name given to the concept of the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all Being. This Supreme Cosmic Spirit is regarded to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, and omniscient. It can be described as infinite Truth, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. There is a remarkable similarity between this set of attributes and those ascribed by Christians, Muslims and Jews to the one God of classical monotheism. Source.

This is a great quote from Psalms, though I am unsure as to it's relevance.

God distances himself from the prideful? Is that the takeaway?

Followed up you last line, is that directed at me? If so that seems a little unnecessary. I am personally quite comfortable with us both being able to have our prayers heard by God, even if we believe differently... wouldn't that also be the conclusion of your opening assertion. That all people who believe in God believe in the same God, even if they talk about that God differently?

Am I to take away from this that I do not believe in the same God, even though I am an active LDS member and believe in a very same God you do? Now I am all confused.

As much as I enjoy your perspective on religious discussion I would prefer it without the personal attacks, if that is what it was meant to be.

What I was saying is that it is a great sin, and wickedness in the sight of God, to tell people who worship God according to a different tradition than you, that they are worshipping the “wrong God” or a “different God”. Different form whom? From you? If so, then you must be worshipping the wrong God, not them. They are worshipping the right God. Let me quote you another interesting scripture:

Luke 18:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

I have my own version of this parable. It goes something like this:

Two men went up to the Mount of Olives to pray; one was an Evangelical Christian from the United States, who had gone to Palestine on a tour of the Holy Land, and the other a Palestinian Muslim who lived there. The Evangelical stood and prayed thus: “God, I thank thee that I am not like this Muslim who believes in a simple “one God” deity, and knows nothing about the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creeds, and doesn’t believe in the God with three heads and one body called the Trinity, and even despises that idea when it is taught to him; whereas I believe in all the creeds, and worship the three-headed monstrosity which called the Trinity, and thus worship the right God and not the wrong God like this miserable Muslim does.” And the Muslim standing afar off prayed thus: “Be merciful to me O God, and forgive my sins, and give me my daily bread.” I think that God heard and answered the prayers of the Muslim, not the Christian.

[Freedom]

They wouldnt differ at all thats my point because the Bible is man made oh and Yes reliable witnesses that walk and have conversations with talking deer. Now that's someone I'd believe we're they to tell me they also saw an angel...yup absolutly reliable. So yes reliable witnesses like this are a must. They make angelic visitations so much more credible

You reject it simply because you refuse to consider the divine. You are basing your argument on the premise that supernatural events do not every occur, despite the fact that you know virtually noting of the working of the universe. Just because you have never witnesses them does not prove that they do not exist.

[CASteinman]

They wouldnt differ at all thats my point because the Bible is man made oh and Yes reliable witnesses that walk and have conversations with talking deer. Now that's someone I'd believe we're they to tell me they also saw an angel...yup absolutly reliable. So yes reliable witnesses like this are a must. They make angelic visitations so much more credible

How would things differ if God wrote the text himself, with divinely produced iron ink on divinely produced cotton paper, all with the intent of having a perfectly natural and ordinary appearance to men? How would you detect the difference between that one and the later one copied by a man using man-made iron ink and man-made cotton paper?

[Bikeemikey]

It is a logically inconsistent statement that several people who believe in one God in fact believe in different Gods. The statement itself is logically inconsistent. It is like saying that some bachelors are married. It is a logically inconsistent statement. If they are married then they can’t be bachelors. You can’t have a married bachelor. Likewise you can’t have several people believe in one God, and yet believe in different Gods. I think you are just being cynical. What you are really trying to say is that if somebody has a different theological conception of God from you, that they are not really believers in God at all. You want to monopolize the belief in God to only those who do so according to your theology, and exclude all others who believe in God according to a different theology. That is extremely cynical and wicked. It is an Evangelical mindset. It has nothing to do with Mormonism.

So, I would like to respond to your first paragraph (quoted above). I will try and explain a little more how I arrive at my thoughts on this subject. I would then like to ask one question which will help me understand your perspective on this a little more clearly.

There is a very big difference between believing the universe has "one god" and the belief in who/what that "one god" is. There can be three parties who all share the belief that the universe has one God, yet also disagree on who that God is. That is, they believe there is one God, but they each believe this one God is a different God from the other two parties God. This is not logically inconsistent. It would however be logically inconsistent (based on the prexisting belief that their is only one God) to claim that all three Gods exist. As such, these three parties can either claim that their "One God" is the true on God and the other Gods don't exist, or they can claim that they each believe in the same "One God" but understand that "one God" differently. Most monotheistic religions (based on my understanding) have members that use both of these different perspectives in order to deal with competing monotheistic claims related to there being only "one God".

I think you have placed the logical inconsistency in the wrong location and have created a false imperative that necessitates that parties with the belief that the universe has one God must in fact believe in the same God.

How different does someones perspective on God need to be before we accept their claim that they do in fact believe in a different God?

How different does someones perspective on God need to be before we insist that they in fact do believe in a different God?

[zerinus]

So, I would like to respond to your first paragraph (quoted above). I will try and explain a little more how I arrive at my thoughts on this subject. I would then like to ask one question which will help me understand your perspective on this a little more clearly.

There is a very big difference between believing the universe has "one god" and the belief in who/what that "one god" is. There can be three parties who all share the belief that the universe has one God, yet also disagree on who that God is. That is, they believe there is one God, but they each believe this one God is a different God from the other two parties God. This is not logically inconsistent. It would however be logically inconsistent (based on the prexisting belief that their is only one God) to claim that all three Gods exist. As such, these three parties can either claim that their "One God" is the true on God and the other Gods don't exist, or they can claim that they each believe in the same "One God" but understand that "one God" differently. Most monotheistic religions (based on my understanding) have members that use both of these different perspectives in order to deal with competing monotheistic claims related to there being only "one God".

I think you have placed the logical inconsistency in the wrong location and have created a false imperative that necessitates that parties with the belief that the universe has one God must in fact believe in the same God.

How different does someones perspective on God need to be before we accept their claim that they do in fact believe in a different God?

How different does someones perspective on God need to be before we insist that they in fact do believe in a different God?

Your entire question is irrational and based on a false premise, that having different theological understandings of God means believing in a "different God". That is just a false perception. God is so transcendent that nobody in mortality can claim to know God to perfectness. No matter how much we know or think that we know, our knowledge of God will never be perfect. You are trying to compare different imperfect theologies of God, and asking how "imperfect" that theology would have to be before it becomes a "different God". Different from which other imperfect understanding of God? That is a fundamentally flawed argument. Jews don't believe in the Trinity. They don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that they believe in a "different God"? I don't think so. Jesus told them that His Father was the same as the Being whom they called "God" (John 8:54). So no matter how different two theologies might be, there will never be a time one person's (or one religion's) monotheistic concept of God becomes a "different" God. It will always be the same God, no matter how erroneous one's conception of Him might be.

[Bikeemikey]

Your entire question is irrational and based on a false premise, that having different theological understandings of God means believing in a "different God". That is just a false perception. God is so transcendent that nobody in mortality can claim to know God to perfectness. No matter how much we know or think that we know, our knowledge of God will never be perfect. You are trying to compare different imperfect theologies of God, and asking how "imperfect" that theology would have to be before it becomes a "different God". Different from which other imperfect understanding of God? That is a fundamentally flawed argument. Jews don't believe in the Trinity. They don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that they believe in a "different God"? I don't think so. Jesus told them that His Father was the same as the Being whom they called "God" (John 8:54). So no matter how different two theologies might be, there will never be a time one person's (or one religion's) monotheistic concept of God becomes a "different" God. It will always be the same God, no matter how erroneous one's conception of Him might be.

My premise is that if someone tells me they believe in a different God to me, and after they tell me about their God, their God sounds and acts very differently to my understanding of God, then they may believe in a different God to me. A belief in God has no relevance or reference point in the "real" world. It is a statement of personal conviction.

So how can the presence of substantial theological difference between conceptions of God, combined with the believer themselves saying they believe in a different God, not be evidence to conclude that these subjects do in fact believe in separate Gods?

So how do we deal with people/beliefs that do claim to believe in a different God and don't want to be relegated to just another perspective of the same God?

This has nothing to do with what i want or what I am trying to to force on religious individuals.

There are many belief systems that are truly polytheistic or pluralistic. It is fundamentally essential to choose a God in these systems. Such a choice is made at the exclusion of other Gods. The statement of belief in God is a statement about a belief in a unique God.

How should we address this? Or should we just insist that the believer themselves is mistaken?

The idea that there is only one God is part of our religious tradition. To view all religious traditions perception of God/s through a monotheistic filter does not make sense.

Furthermore, belief is not about the real world that is measurable and empirical. It is a statement of personal faith. People make up gods all the time. The existence of the God/s in the real world has no bearing of the belief statement of the religious individual.

Again, how should we address this?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[zerinus]

My premise is that if someone tells me they believe in a different God to me, and after they tell me about their God, their God sounds and acts very differently to my understanding of God, then they may believe in a different God to me. A belief in God has no relevance or reference point in the "real" world. It is a statement of personal conviction.

So how can the presence of substantial theological difference between conceptions of God, combined with the believer themselves saying they believe in a different God, not be evidence to conclude that these subjects do in fact believe in separate Gods?

So how do we deal with people/beliefs that do claim to believe in a different God and don't want to be relegated to just another perspective of the same God?

This has nothing to do with what i want or what I am trying to to force on religious individuals.

There are many belief systems that are truly polytheistic or pluralistic. It is fundamentally essential to choose a God in these systems. Such a choice is made at the exclusion of other Gods. The statement of belief in God is a statement about a belief in a unique God.

How should we address this? Or should we just insist that the believer themselves is mistaken?

The idea that there is only one God is part of our religious tradition. To view all religious traditions perception of God/s through a monotheistic filter does not make sense.

Furthermore, belief is not about the real world that is measurable and empirical. It is a statement of personal faith. People make up gods all the time. The existence of the God/s in the real world has no bearing of the belief statement of the religious individual.

Again, how should we address this?

You are constructing an elaborate hoax. Who has told you that they believe in a different God? I have never heard anybody telling me that they believe in a different God. The only thing I have heard have been certain Evangelicals who have told me that we believe in a different God. I have never told anybody that I believe in a different God.

Let's come out of the cloud for a moment, and talk about real objects in the real world, instead of talking in generalizations and vague abstractions. Let's take Islam for example, for which you appear to have a particular aversion. Do you think that Islam teaches or worships a "different God"? If so, please describe for us what your God looks like; give us an accurate, authoritative, theological description of Him (and what that description is based on); and then do the same for the Islamic God, and tell us how you come to the conclusion that you and them are worshipping two different Gods (and why your God is better than their God). Has any Muslim ever told you that they worship a different God? I doubt it. That accusation would have to come from you--and the explanation for it likewise.