i get the cosmological arguments, but how do you justify that god being the same god as characterised in your faith and not any other
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
i get the cosmological arguments, but how do you justify that god being the same god as characterised in your faith and not any other
You're not supposed to ask that question.
up
The cosmological argument themselves are extremely shaky; I've no Idea why people bother with them
Idk maybe Monotheism haha. Have you thought about it at all?
Are you genuinely moronic?
Did you really not understand the question?
IQ and religiosity are negatively correlated.
We all worship the same god, just some people worship god wrong.
How do you know your understanding is the correct one?
I don't. But the issue is worshiping god the wrong way, not worshiping the wrong god.
???
>here's an argument for why you should be a Christian
>but this argument applies to Muslims israelites JWs Mormons ect also
>uh not my problem
???
Also doesn't the argument also work for a large god that then creates smaller gods like Chaos from greek mythology?
So there is no reason to pick Christianity over islam?
Is the israeli Adonai identical to the triune god of Christianity, Ahura Mazda, Brahman, the form of the good and Aristotle's unmoved mover?
my question was more about how do you leap from ‘god is real’ to ‘my god is real and yours is not’
>my question was more about how do you leap from ‘god is real’ to ‘my god is real and yours is not’
Do you have any examples of that? I've never really seen that. Most people are monotheist and believe in the same god even though they have different religions like Christianity and Islam. So it really comes down to monotheism vs polytheism but you would have trouble finding any polytheists since 90% of world is Christian or muslim
god is characterised differently in each abrahamic religion ie the trinity, they are not the same god
i think you are misunderstanding something about my question
We've had this discussion for thousands of years already
Christians have apologist scripts given to them by smarter bullshitters that are tailored to stop their church members from leaving.
They are not meant to convert outsiders, but that fact is hush hush to stop Christian’s from getting suspicious.
The Christians that parrot these lines do not think so that’s why you’re not getting any coherent responses
Only a handful religions claim the prime mover. And with that narrow of a selection you can afford to inspect all of them as to their historical and theological consistency.
>Islam
Source: 1 dude who never even saw God
Theology: Shallow, barely existent
>Rabbinical Judaism
Source: Rabbis that fought tooth and nail to purge Judaism of Christian-compatible features
Theology: Pretty consistent
>Christianity
Source: Eye-witnesses that supposedly met God incarnate
Theology: The most consistent and can account for other religions (vice versa isn't true)
>Zoros
Died out.
The only problem with Christianity is you have to navigate between a couple denominations, but even there the historical-theological method will guide you to the truth rather quickly.
Guess what anon, none of them can be correct. God could not fit into any of those religions
Then good thing none of them claim to contain God in his entirety, but merely the Way to connect with Him.
They attribute characteristics like human emotions frankly undeveloped ones that are easy to see as fiction, and if you claim you can connect with god you are very bad at proving it.
Emotions, moods, deliberation etc. are all figures of speech. Source: Isaac the Syrian. In reality God does none of these, since he is outside time: Source: Pseudo-Dionysius
>very bad proving it
How so?
Just retcon after retcon.
You claim you’re communicating with the architect of the universe but provide nothing in the way of proving it.
The cat is out of the bag, we now know that the Old Testament is like that because it descends from Mesopotamian polytheism, despite the sincere and serious attempts of later philosophers.
You mistook a cat for a tiger, Anon. We have known for a long time that the OT (mainly Genesis and Exodus) mirror textual and mythical structures of other cultures and religions. And that is intentional. It's a rebuttal. Just like this reply you're reading does not "descend" from your post, the OT cannot be said to "descend" from Babylonian, Egyptian or Sumerian religions because it opposes them more than anything.
Christianity is very clearly not monotheist. If God can’t defeat the devil then the devil is a god too. Not to mention Jesus and Yahweh are clearly not the same
Christianity has one God, therefore monotheist. If you don't see connections between Jesus and YHWH, I encourage you to not close your historical-theological investigation yet.
>If God can’t defeat the devil then the devil
He can. But he allows him time to repent. Source: Gregory Nazianzen, Catechetic Speech
I need you to pause and think about the possibility that part of the job of high ranking Catholics is to dismiss any logical problems with the faith with a defense lawyer stance. Not unlike a defense lawyer defending a client he knows is guilty
I thought about it but I don't really have anything to show for such an accusation besides pre-existing bias. Their answers are consistent with the rest of the theology and I don't suppose either one of us is in the habit of rejecting answers just because they solve things all too well.
>retcon
Again, the historical-theological analysis might serve you very well. Ephrem the Syrian, who like Isaac explicitly teaches that moods are a metaphore, is a 4th century theologian. I don't see how he was forced to write a retcon as opposed to an honest treatsie.
>nothing in the way of proving it
Again, how so?
You can’t just name a guy and say he was a theologian as if that means he wasn’t trying to find a way to protect faith in a given god.
What do you mean how so? Christians don’t prove God is their god.
>protect faith
Against what? You can't just dismiss a widely quoted theologian because he debunks your idea of Christian theology.
>Christians don’t prove God is their god.
In
I describe a historical-theological method that you are clearly yet to apply, which will yield pretty solid conclusions about which religion is likely to be about the prime mover. If you want some proof beyond finding the right religion, beyond the possibility to see God for yourself, beyond miracles etc, name the method you want proof to be established with and I will try to provide. But you were given plenty of evidence and I don't see that you've really processed any of that.
A retcon by a Christians 1000-1500 years after the Bible was written does not make it fact.
You didn’t provide any methodology to show your god is God. It could easily be a being or entity known in no religions. It could be a black hole in another dimension or an energetic particle for all we know
Calling it a retcon and a "defense" doesn't make it fake either. Especially when you can't make a case against whom he was defending the scripture. My source is a well-recognized theologian. Your source is a pre-existing bias...
>You didn’t provide any methodology
Please see list of evidence in
And again, if you are unsatistied with what you got, name the method you prefer and I will try to provide. Dismissing evidence based on nothing but bias and then insiting I convince you anyway doesn't really make a very good case for you.
>black hole
>particle for all we know
So I take it you're not the OP, who said "i get the cosmological arguments"? It seems both the cosmological and the historical-theological arguments are still slightly above your grasp, how do you expect to be convinced of anything in this thread? I can fill my burden seven times over and you'll walk away no wiser.
>You didn’t provide any methodology to show your god is God. It could easily be a being or entity known in no religions. It could be a black hole in another dimension or an energetic particle for all we know
This is nonsense
>Zoros
>Died out.
They're still around, and the faith "dying out" isn't a mark against the faith being correct.
Particularly a God that doesn't intervene in the world, like a Deistic God.
Are you aware that Christians argue against other religions?
>i get the cosmological arguments
The only one of those that's proven to a historical standard is the crucifixion.
The nativity is particularly dicey, and I'm not talking about the supernatural parts.
There is zero evidence of the census in Matthew taking place, in fact we have zero evidence of any similar census taking place.
All we have is small regional censuses which did not require anyone to return to their "home town", let alone their ancestor's home town from centuries prior.
Who gets to decide what "historical standard" are?
Historians.
You're free to make the argument here for why those other events are historical, but you can't just declare that they are historical when historians don't even support that conclusion.