My question is in bold at the bottom of this post:
Often I refer to the god a person believes exists in the small case 'g' (as I just did then) Firstly, I don't do this out of defiance, mockery, mischief, I do this because I am of the conviction that the god I'm refering to is most likely not representative of a god that exists; instead this god is a construct formed in the mind of this person, which at best is only an approximation of some existent god (based upon their particular interpretation of some holy book, or the teachings they have received from their peers, or what they would like a god to be, etc...). Moreover to use the term "God" is to suggest one is discussing a unique entity when in fact almost every reference to this deity is made by people who on an individual basis hold it to have at least one characteristic disjoint from the god of their neighbours.
- Some will think it lets people burn for eternity, others will think otherwise.
- Some will think this god transcends logic, some will think otherwise.
- Some will think it's a "He", some will think otherwise.
- Some will think it hates homosexuality, some will think otherwise
- Some will think this god has a purpose for *them*, some will think otherwise.
- Some will think it cares about no living creatures other than humans, some will think otherwise.
- Some will think it regularly interacts with them on a personal basis, some will think otherwise.
- Some will think it dislikes meat eaters, some will think otherwise.
- Some will think all human morality is sourced from this deity, some will think otherwise
- Some will think it dislikes blood transfusions, some will think otherwise.
- Some will think this god is "timeless", some will think otherwise.
- .
- .
- .
and so the list goes on... (and I could suggest many attributes of my own with varying magnitudes (perhaps unrelated to popular gods) such to bear out the claim there are *lots* of different types of gods that can be summoned to ones thoughts)
Whenever I'm discussing some god, at the forefront of my mind is that I'm discussing some person's notion of this entity (and should quickly try to establish which properties they assign to it); and that this entity may be a good fit, or a bad fit for some god that may or may not exist.
I've never really been a believer so I'd like to ask: Is it the case with many of the theists among you that the only point at which you're discussing a "notion" of god is when you're discussing with someone who disagrees with you - and it is only they who have some notion of it (as opposed to the "real deal" like you have(?)) and is deserving of the sort of criticism that would be wholly inappropriate if redirected back to your god; and finally that this notion of theirs contains all the errors?
Originally posted by AgergSubstitute religion rules the world because this is the age of Kali, and everyone is bewildered and in illusion, and they dont know what to do, or what not to do.
My question is in bold at the bottom of this post:
Often I refer to the god a person believes exists in the small case 'g' (as I just did then) Firstly, I don't do this out of defiance, mockery, mischief, I do this because I am of the conviction that the god I'm refering to is most likely not representative of a god that exists; instead this god is a constr ...[text shortened]... r god; and finally that this notion of theirs contains all the errors?[/b]
In this condition they go shopping for a religion that suits there life style, or subscribe to a religion because they were born into it.
The world has many religions to choose from, all contradicting each other, because substitute religion is not authentic.
Substitute religion is newly fabricated from the minds of unenlightened superstitious men who have fabricated much of what has been presented.
Substitute religion being fabricated, is only a few thousand years old.....how can that be? because God is eternal and life is eternal.
Authentic religion must also be eternal along with God and the living beings.
Vedanta Sutra, Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita and other Vedic literatures are those eternal teachings of God and life.
Who is taking instruction and living by those authentic teachings....practically no one.
Theres your problem right there, everyone is subscribing to false substitute religions, and are being misdirected from true spiritual life and true knowledge of God.
Substitute religion will give no true knowledge of God, but give false knowledge and with that false knowledge, the people will fabricate their particular notions of God.
Their notions of God are produced from their minds and are mainly false.
True understanding of God is described in the Vedic teachings, and the process to realize these teachings are also given.
Without applying the process of spiritual living, the person will not come to realize the truth of those authentic teachings.
Why do persons reject authentic religion and subscribe to substitute religion .....because they are insincere and dishonest with themselves in their spiritual life, and take to the easier and softer path, the path of error.
Authentic spiritual living produces in the person a sensitivity and respect to all life, and they see the hand of God in all things....this is why the cannot kill for the satisfaction of their tongue.
The authentic spiritual life, is living a pure life without sin (error)....and this they cannot do, so they subscribe to a substitute religion, which allows them accept all manner of error and still go to their heaven.
This is fanciful and they will not go to their heaven, but return to this world of suffering time and time again.
Originally posted by AgergIf not even christians within themselves can agree of what god is, then Christianity is not only one religion, but as many as there are believers.
My question is in bold at the bottom of this post:
Often I refer to the god a person believes exists in the small case 'g' (as I just did then) Firstly, I don't do this out of defiance, mockery, mischief, I do this because I am of the conviction that the god I'm refering to is most likely not representative of a god that exists; instead this god is a constr ...[text shortened]... r god; and finally that this notion of theirs contains all the errors?[/b]
Originally posted by FabianFnasIndeed; though the point I wanted to tease out with this thread is that for arguments that Robbie Carrobie and other theists make that:
If not even christians within themselves can agree of what god is, then Christianity is not only one religion, but as many as there are believers.
If we (atheists or theists alike) challenge their formulation of "God" then we are apparantly making ourselves as better than "God" so to judge it.
then the same argument can be thrown right back in their direction (as I'm doing currently in the "The Bible is immoral" thread), and consequently it has zero weight unless one unique formulation can always be shown to fare better in this battle of "God"s than all others.