Monotheism Compatibility

[ReFLeX]

What are the arguments for and against the argument that "it's all the same God"? That is, Yahweh, Allah and every capitalized deity out there are all one thing that humans interpret differently, and that all theists, whether they deny it or not, worship the same being. I've read that Zoroaster began the first monotheistic religion, with a god which contained all good and evil, which seems incompatible with modern theism, but what else is there? I'm talking strictly about monotheism, of course, and not pantheism or other less conventional views.

[Beerina]

Well, you could do it the biological classification way, wherein arms, wings on a bird, and fins on a fish all evolved from the same structure in common ancestors, whereas legs and wings on a bug evolved from a different ancestor, i.e. when the split occured, there was no "armish" type thing on that common ancestor, yet.

In that sense, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same God, whereas of Hinduism, it would not be.

Although records are incomplete, you could in theory trace Yaweh back into an even earlier religion where he was just a member of a pantheon (I'm sure the loss of the Great Library at Alexandria had something to do with this. :(). And you could continue to trace as various gods and goddesses mutated, were removed (typically via conversion into a (super)human like Samson, or an angel, i.e. a created, if still supernatural, but no longer divine, being.)

You could then see the relationship to Odin, Zeus, etc. Actually, unlike biology, the situation would be even murkier as two completely separate religions might "interbreed", so to speak. In fact, this is well known to be the case as the gods in one religion would be the demons in the next door neighbor's culture.

[Ryokan]

As for Jehova and Allah, they were both Abraham's god. And Abraham only had one god.

[Iacchus]

In that sense, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same God, whereas of Hinduism, it would not be.Abraham = Brahmanism? (http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html)

[Tricky]

The big sticking point is when religions argue that their god only allows one path to them. That makes the idea that they are all the same quite silly. I mean, how stupid is it to say that Muslims cannot be with Allah unless they are Christians.

It is like saying, "Your God is the same as mine, but I'm right about him and you're going to hell for being wrong."

It would make a lot more sense if the various descriptions of God didn't seem quite so intolerant of each other.

[Marquis de Carabas]

This question has the same answer as:

Is the Thor in Stan Lee's Avengers the same as the Thor in Douglas Adams's The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul, Gaiman's Sandman, and the original Norse myths?

[Iacchus]

The big sticking point is when religions argue that their god only allows one path to them. That makes the idea that they are all the same quite silly. I mean, how stupid is it to say that Muslims cannot be with Allah unless they are Christians.

It is like saying, "Your God is the same as mine, but I'm right about him and you're going to hell for being wrong."

It would make a lot more sense if the various descriptions of God didn't seem quite so intolerant of each other.No, it doesn't seem silly at all, really. People will pick up just about any lame excuse they like in order to fight about something. If it wasn't religion, I'm sure they could just as easily find something else.

[Ryokan]

I just wanted to state for posterity that I agree with Iacchus. Who'd've thunk it, huh?

[Iacchus]

I just wanted to state for posterity that I agree with Iacchus. Who'd've thunk it, huh?Well, you do so at your own risk. ;)

[Ladewig]

No, it doesn't seem silly at all, really. People will pick up just about any lame excuse they like in order to fight about something. If it wasn't religion, I'm sure they could just as easily find something else.

I still see a difference. People will fight about lots of different things. People will fight to the death about religion and little else.

[Belz...]

Abraham = Brahmanism? (http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html)

Abrahamanism ?

[Iacchus]

I still see a difference. People will fight about lots of different things. People will fight to the death about religion and little else.Would you classify Communism or Fascism as a religion then? Or, how about racism?

[Ryokan]

Would you classify Communism or Fascism as a religion then? Or, how about racism?

Or nationalism/patriotism?

Or oil? :D

[Tricky]

I just wanted to state for posterity that I agree with Iacchus. Who'd've thunk it, huh?
Well, I agree with his statement too, but unfortunately it in no way addresses the issue of if montheistic gods are compatable with each other.

And people actually can disagree without fighting.

[Iacchus]

Well, I agree with his statement too, but unfortunately it in no way addresses the issue of if montheistic gods are compatable with each other.In the hands of the zealots, no, monotheistic gods are not compatible. For those who are capable of demonstrating tolerance, the answer would be yes.

And people actually can disagree without fighting.How about bickering then? Would you consider that a form of fighting?

[Ladewig]

Would you classify Communism or Fascism as a religion then? Or, how about racism?


I didn't say nothing else, I said little else. Fanatical communists don't strap explosives to themselves and kill people. If a capitalist walks through the most communist country on the planet, he doesn't have to fear for his life the way a woman has to fear for her life if she walks through the streets of the strictest Muslim country on the planet exposing her knees and her leaving her head uncovered.

As for racism, I imagine that I've run into a few people who would, if they could get away with it, kill a minority. I don't expect there are many racists that are willing to die for their beliefs.

[Tricky]

In the hands of the zealots, no, monotheistic gods are not compatible. For those who are capable of demonstrating tolerance, the answer would be yes.
I agree with you again. (Twice in one day!:eek: )

However, this seems to say that the characteristics of God or gods are totally determined by what people believe about them. Which is what we atheists have been saying all along. God has no characteristics that you can pin down. Hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin, it is people who determine what God is. He is made by us, not vice versa.

How about bickering then? Would you consider that a form of fighting?
Would you consider it a form of disagreeing?

No, I don't consider it fighting. I don't consider any kind of verbal interchange to be fighting (though it may be sometimes be used that way). To me, fighting is physical. Sticks and stones, ya know.

[Iacchus]

I agree with you again. (Twice in one day!:eek: )

However, this seems to say that the characteristics of God or gods are totally determined by what people believe about them.Oh, would you say the same thing about the reality that exists beyond whatever it is that we "think" is there?

Which is what we atheists have been saying all along.Puleeze. Why don't you just admit that it's a dumb argument and drop it.

God has no characteristics that you can pin down. Considered as a backdrop against the reality that we do understand, I would say at the very least, consistency.

Hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin, it is people who determine what God is. He is made by us, not vice versa.And so are the laws of physics are they not? ... Or, at least this is what I keep hearing from Mercutio.

Larry King: Do you believe in God?

Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

Larry King Live, December 25, 1999 What is so difficult to understand about this?

Would you consider it a form of disagreeing?

No, I don't consider it fighting. I don't consider any kind of verbal interchange to be fighting (though it may be sometimes be used that way). To me, fighting is physical. Sticks and stones, ya know.Well, if you continue to argue the same old worn out argument as you have here, might I suggest that there really isn't much to discuss? Or, let me put it this way, at what point are you going to turn around and insist that you soundly refuted what I had to say? That's just plain chicken sh*t in my book.

[Mercutio]

Oh, how cute! Iacchus is getting all blustery an' stuff...
Oh, would you say the same thing about the reality that exists beyond whatever it is that we "think" is there?

Puleeze. Why don't you just admit that it's a dumb argument and drop it.
He was agreeing with your assessment, and pointed out something that follows from it. If you want to "admit it's a dumb argument", are you retracting the first thing you have said that multiple people have agreed with?

Considered as a backdrop against the reality that we do understand, I would say at the very least, consistency.
Consistency? You beg the question of the thread with that. Note that the thread had to explicitly exclude pantheist views to even be able to ask the question about consistency. Whether or not I agree with them, I have heard arguments that the god of the Old and New Testaments are inconsistent with one another...and that is, in theory, the exact same god!

And so are the laws of physics are they not? ... Or, at least this is what I keep hearing from Mercutio.
The laws as written are written by us, yes. They change as new evidence comes to light. Can you say the same with our descriptions of gods?
Well, if you continue to argue the same old worn out argument as you have here, might I suggest that there really isn't much to discuss? Or, let me put it this way, at what point are you going to turn around and insist that you soundly refuted what I had to say? That's just plain chicken sh*t in my book.At what point? Don't worry, Iacchus, you won't recognise it when it happens. Or rather...you didn't.

[Tricky]

Oh, would you say the same thing about the reality that exists beyond whatever it is that we "think" is there?
I try not to make positive statements about the reality that we "think" exists but only that which we have evidence for. Here, we differ.

Puleeze. Why don't you just admit that it's a dumb argument and drop it.
Because it is not a dumb argument. In fact, you have never provided a single piece of evidence to refute it. You've made lots of claims...

Considered as a backdrop against the reality that we do understand, I would say at the very least, consistency.
LOL. Consistancy? You think God has consistancy? You can't even give a consistant definition of God. One minute He's a sapient entity, the next minute He's the laws of physics. And the saddest part is that you don't even seem to know the difference.

And so are the laws of physics are they not? ... Or, at least this is what I keep hearing from Mercutio.
I think you have misunderstood him. What we call "the laws of physics" are man's attempt to describe nature. The Newtonian laws of physics were one such man-made attempt, which, under further investigation, were revised in other man-made attempts. They will certainly be revised too. To describe the nature perfectly, you'd have to be perfect. I'm not.

What is so difficult to understand about this?
I'd rather discuss it with Hawking to see exactly what he meant. I have very little faith that you understand what he is saying, considering how very little you understand about the laws of the universe.

Well, if you continue to argue the same old worn out argument as you have here, might I suggest that there really isn't much to discuss? Or, let me put it this way, at what point are you going to turn around and insist that you soundly refuted what I had to say? That's just plain chicken sh*t in my book.

I don't have to refute your claim. You have to prove it. You have not done so, and you have used circular arguments, non-sequiturs and bad metaphors to support your claims, which I and others have repeatedly pointed out. And I will continue to do so because I hate letting that BS go unchallenged. But even if we were face to face, I would never hit you, unless it were in self defense. You calling me chicken sh*t doesn't bother me at all. I just consider the source.

However, if you are interested in swapping insults, I suggest we do it in the Flame Wars section. Cleopatra and I are having a war at this moment.

[Iacchus]

I don't have to refute your claim. You have to prove it.Oh, but we both agree that there is an absolute assessment behind the nature of reality, do we not? So what else is there to prove? Who can make a bigger ass out of himself perhaps?

[Tricky]

Oh, but we both agree that there is an absolute assessment behind the nature of reality, do we not?
No we do not. In fact, I consider this to be at best a meaningless statement, and at worst, a claim unsupported (as always) by either logic or evidence.

So what else is there to prove? Who can make a bigger ass out of himself perhaps?
I yield.

[Iacchus]

No we do not. In fact, I consider this to be at best a meaningless statement, and at worst, a claim unsupported (as always) by either logic or evidence.Logic? What is that? Even if we were to deem something were logical, on what "grounds" would you base it? That which is wholly imaginary, as you seem to suggest?

I yield.Chicken sh*t.

[Tricky]

Logic? What is that? Even if we were to deem something were logical, on what "grounds" would you base it?
As always, evidence. Logic works whether or not you have evidence for your assumptions, but unless your assumptions are based on evidence, it's GIGO.

That which is wholly imaginary, as you seem to suggest?
I never suggested any such thing. That is your
http://www.eclecticala.com/figurals/Strawman.jpg


Chicken sh*t.
LOL. Getting all blustery again, I see.

[Iacchus]

It's purely a matter of noumenal versus phenomenal, as HypnoPsi suggests (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1277032#post1277032). So this "all is relative" crap is not going to cut it.

[Tricky]

It's purely a matter of noumenal versus phenomenal, as HypnoPsi suggests (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1277032#post1277032). So this "all is relative" crap is not going to cut it.
Who said that? You're the first person on this thread to use the word "relative".

But I must say I find it amusing that the person who has continually said that everything is relative to some hypothetical "absolute" is now calling that sort of comparison "crap".

[Iacchus]

Who said that? You're the first person on this thread to use the word "relative".

But I must say I find it amusing that the person who has continually said that everything is relative to some hypothetical "absolute" is now calling that sort of comparison "crap".Yes, "meaning" is relative but, relative to what? This is usually where it cuts off you see. And then we go on about explaining our own little "pet theories." For example, there's no relation between one God and another in terms of what they represent.

[fruit_loup]

I ,personally, do not believe that any of the monotheistic religions are truly monotheistic. In Zoroastrianism you have Ahura mazda, the creator god and all powerful. But you also have his antithesis Angra Mainyu. For them to truly be monotheists with an all powerful deity the existence of Angra Mainyu would not be a tolerable idea. By giving him someone even remotely powerful enough to psoe a challenge to the system you move into duotheism. It does not end just there as there are various angelic spirits which are rather powerful in their own right. This is comprable to the systems used in many polytheistic soscieties. You could look at Hellenic paganism for example and see a similar rift between Mt. Olympus ruled by Zues and the underworld ruled by his brother Hades. The main difference is that the split in traditional monotheism has one side of the rift "good" and the other "evil". Judaism is the same way, with even the ten commandments acknowledging the existence of other deities(an interesting aside, most Jews do not consider Satan to be on the side of "evil"). This rift is also evident in Christianity and Islam. Essentially we are not seeing on deity but several deities with the toughest lording over the title of "one true god".

[Iacchus]

Well, yes, but we must also remember that we're speaking in terms of God's relationship with man, not the other way around ... Unless of course we wish to use this as a means discount the notion that such God(s) exist. In essence, however, it is all one and the same.

[Tricky]

Well, yes, but we must also remember that we're speaking in terms of God's relationship with man, not the other way around ... Unless of course we wish to use this as a means discount the notion that such God(s) exist. In essence, however, it is all one and the same.
I'm curious. Where did you garner this information about God's relationship to man? I'd say you'd have to be God in order to speak authoritatively on that issue. It appears that you think you are God sometimes.

[Iacchus]

I'm curious. Where did you garner this information about God's relationship to man? I'd say you'd have to be God in order to speak authoritatively on that issue. It appears that you think you are God sometimes.Listen, you can fit this scenario into the known Universe with or without a God, in which case it's just a matter of trying to keep the logic consistent.

[Beerina]

This question has the same answer as:

Is the Thor in Stan Lee's Avengers the same as the Thor in Douglas Adams's The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul, Gaiman's Sandman, and the original Norse myths?

It's clear San Lee's Thor is a major league wimp as far as gods go, though he is fairly powerful in the Marvel Universe. He's hardly deserving of having a day of the week named after him.

[Beerina]

Would you classify Communism or Fascism as a religion then? Or, how about racism?

I classify religions and politicial .isms as belonging to the same category of "streams of words goofballs believe in when following power hungry leaders". Just as I wish to be free from your religion to live my life the way I want to, I wish to be free from your politics and economic theories to live my life the way I want to.

[Iacchus]

Just as I wish to be free from your religion to live my life the way I want to, I wish to be free from your politics and economic theories to live my life the way I want to.An anarchist, huh?

[Ryokan]

An anarchist, huh?

Actually, that's the definition of liberalism, an ideology that favors religious, political and economical freedom for individuals.

Anarchism and liberalism may share a few common values, but they are quite different.

[Iacchus]

What is so difficult to understand about this?I'd rather discuss it with Hawking to see exactly what he meant. I have very little faith that you understand what he is saying, considering how very little you understand about the laws of the universe.Faith? ... You don't even know what faith (http://dionysusforums.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=atheism&action=display&thread=1124735692) is.

[kmortis]

Actually, that's the definition of liberalism, an ideology that favors religious, political and economical freedom for individuals.

Anarchism and liberalism may share a few common values, but they are quite different.


Actually, I've found that concervatism, taken to its most logical extreme, is more like anarchy. WHat with the emphasis on personal responsibility that the traditional concervatives are always going on about.