Why does your God recieve special treatment?

Post Reply New Topic

It depends where you live.

The Christian God receives no special treatment in Saudi Arabia (and similarly religiously inclined countries that are 'friends' of the US) although HIS followers risk execution by beheading if they want to meet in public there and 'spread the Word' with Muslims.

He goes back and forth in the old testament. He has kind moments, but he kills en masse without notice.

I can COMPLETELY understand your point here Mindblind, and well done on your particular points to your mother.

I have found that it is gonna take a hell of a lot more to shake people loose of their indoctrination. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" which I would definately recommend. There is a section towards the beginning of the book that covers this very topic.

How come having faith in the judeo-christian God (for instance) is respectable and and should not be questioned, but if i believed in the Hobgoblin, I'd be called schizophrenic? I'm not calling religious people crazy nor do iI hink they're stupid - i just think it's remarkable that that there are highly intelligent people who are very skeptical and logical about everything until it comes to their religion. [/b][/quote]

There is a middle ground between the two. God is defined as an 'infinite being'. Anything finite is by that definition beyond the comprehension of finite beings (i.e., humans) God, therefore, is infinite, unknowable, and indescribable. Even giving Him/Her/It/Them the name of God(s) fails in a sense, because one name, or one human concept, cannot contain within itself Infinity. All other titles for this Absolute, or All (the Great Spirit, the Principle, etc.) face the same incapacity to contain that which they describe.

Therefore, all we can know of God is images, and metaphors. The various religions are all pointing toward one All, however they describe that All in different terms of reference that would be comprehensible to their immediate culture. Therefore no one's 'God' can be privileged over any others', because all we have are images of God that make sense to our finite capacity. If you would like to describe God as a sky-Hobgoblin, and that metaphor makes sense to you, I am in no position to refute it, because my 'God' is likewise an image or abstraction that does not comprehend the All.

Therefore, everyone's 'God' is right.

If God exists, then God would have attributes such as essence, thoughts, logic, etc.; and His attributes would be perfect - since God, by definition and default would be the standard of perfection - hence, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator.

By necessity, then, God's attributes such as logic would therefore be based on His forever existence. And since God is unchangeable (immutability being another attribute) His attribute of logic, as well as His other attributes, would also be unchangeable. And I think it follows that the reason logical truths are always true everywhere by their nature is that God is always true everywhere by His nature.

Otherwise, if logic were not of God's nature, but just the product of people's thoughts and material things, then when those people and material things are no more, then logic would be no more.

Yes... if God exists. You can't start with a premise then work backwards. Logic works and needs no God to validate it.

Impossible. What you're suggesting is that Yahweh is right in addition to any/all other gods. To say that is to contradict 1) what is known about Yahweh, and 2) what Yahweh demands of His followers.

The love for Allah, duh



well, Islam has its golden rule as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Islam

Not love. Rather, fear and submission. Allah is not lovable.

ruveyn

I am suggesting that Yahweh is one image, or name for God, that made the infinitude that is God explicable to one particular culture (in this case, the Hebrews c. 1000-700 B.C.E.) He is the way that concept was articulated in terms of reference understandable to one particular culture.

Yes, Yahweh (YHVH in the original) does make exclusivist demands - however, consider these in the historical context. This is revelation that was given to a tribal people nearly three millennia ago, to an entirely different culture. That was the revelation and guidance for that time. God in His Essence is unchanging, however the representations of Himself he makes to humanity change with our understanding - just as a teacher would adjust his instruction of the same topic for children of different age groups

What about that for edit?

OK. But that suggests that all religions/views are correct, only different perspective of the same One.

But that also means that Yahweh has to be accepting of any/all alternative views in which He revealed Himself to the Israelites. So how do you explain that the Canaanites were worshiping Moloch? Surely Yahweh would accept their practices as being in praise of Him--the offering of child sacrifices, ritual prostitution, living in excess, and so on. The Canaanites weren't doing anything wrong because they were demonstrating their love for Moloch/Yahweh/God. So why did Moloch/Yahweh/God order the Israelites to wipe them all out?

In other words, if you are doing what is right, why should God exact His wrath and vengeance upon you if you are doing what you're supposed to be doing?

It ONLY makes sense when you accept that there is a single morality, a single "right" way to perceive God, a single "right" way to approach God, a single right way to understand God, and a single right relationship with God. Anything aside from that is wrong and evil in God's sight. God ordered the destruction of who we in this day and age might think of as innocent people because what they were doing was EVIL. Yahweh's act of destruction demonstrates who He wants to be understood to be: THE God above whom there is no other.

Obviously, in today's world, most world religions do not practice ritual child sacrifice. Sex rituals are nearly universally accepted as taboo. Even "sex magick" within Wicca is most often performed in the context of a coven as a purely symbolic ritual with no actual intercourse between a priest and a priestess--though I'm sure such rituals involving intercourse may freely be performed in private between two close friends or lovers. Because our moral and ethical codes overlap, it is difficult to accuse one practice or another as sin or abhorrent to God.

Christianity is unique. First, Christianity shows that there isn't a single person alive who isn't guilty of sin on some level. Specific sinful predispositions may vary from one sinner to the next, but there is no one who leads a life perfectly devoted to carrying out the will of God. Other religions fail to emphasize the inherent evil in all people. They stress being good but don't provide any really good reason why we should be concerned with being good people. Inevitably, the motives for good and proper behavior lie within the individual. And because being good is all that is necessary, we allow ourselves to become conceited, fooling ourselves into thinking that being good is good enough. Religion has traditionally been a means through which requests can be made of a worthless, imaginary being in such a way that being or related beings are manipulated into granting wishes and favors. The Bible informs us that man-made pictures and carvings are worthless and the gods they represent have no power. Only the true God can help us if He wills it to be so. God can't be manipulated, and God cannot accept anything less than the demands He has put upon us.

Because God is good and just, although He cannot accept us in our sinful state, He has provided a means through which He can reconcile Himself with mankind through the person of Jesus. Our sins are atoned for. There is no need for any "ritual," only faith.

Do the gods of other religions show any interest in reaching down to sinful human beings? No. Do other religions provide the necessary atonement for sin in order to reconcile us with a god or gods? No. Do other religions adequately show that there is life after death and hope for the afterlife through the promise of the resurrection? No. All other priests and prophets died and were disposed of in some way. Christ ascended to Heaven after ministering to His followers AFTER He himself died and was resurrected.

To say that all religions are the same, that all gods are the same God, is to accept what Christ and Christianity asserts as being true, which is that Christ is the ONLY way to the Father and that all other gods/religions are false. But you can see that this is a contradictory statement. Either all other religions have to be true and correct, or ONLY Christ can be the way to salvation. There is no room for middle ground here.

"MY god" is the one true and only god.

"YOUR God" is either a myth or the Devil.

Therefore I must either convert you or kill you.

Which means Wombat's "MY god," using Wombat's words verbatim, is a false god.

Jesus never says that His followers are obligated to kill those who oppose them. In fact, Jesus said that those who oppose them would put them (His followers) to death. Further, the Bible informs us that ALL are destined for death. Jesus offers the promise of eternal life beyond death for believers. Therefore Wombat's god is false.

Plus, Wombat's logic provides no reason why Wombat's god requires death. God/gods who are "myth or the Devil" as reasoning alone do not provide a reason why such a believer must be put to death by human hands.

I had a similar discussion with my mother. I pretty much said something along the lines of "I already have one father that does nothing for me, why do I nee another absent Father?" She now refers to me as a heathen. "You think that you're so smart just because you're going to college. God will still judge you!" Personally, I don't really care. I'm in this state where I believe in a Maker, I just don't respect the oppressive nature of most religions. :/

well yeah, you have to control people's behaviour somehow, and religion was a clever thing to do that.