What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

@Lustig Andrei,

Sorry if I have offended

2 Replies

@neologist,

Oh, no offense. Just amusement.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

G4Racer wrote:
. . . . Why the blood sacrifices? . . .
Reasonable explanation here:

Neo...that is absolute tripe. There are no "reasonable" explanations for the sacrifices supposedly demanded by the gods.

0 Replies

My original intention was to limit my posts to this thread.
Looks like my original intention was correct.
Embarrassed

0 Replies

@neologist,

If the Bible is true then my acceptance of it would be that of "Progressive Revelation". With Christianity being the next or final stage that would make the OT basically of some historic value only. If you want to accept the Creationist view I will support your right to do it, I have some pretty serious problems with "Big Bang" as do many that accept it. The Big Bang would be the 2nd step of the process. "Creation" is the 2nd step of the process. The 1st step in the process is still a problem, they both require something to exist.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Perhaps, I'm not a subscriber to the domino rally god concept but it is plausible if scripture is rendered invalid.

I was more interested in what your definition would be. If a God was purely an observer, would you still classify it as "God"?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Interesting question Ros, if a god created the universe only to watch on, I imagine I'd classify it as more of a deity than a God.
I guess this also means that my definition of what "God" is would have to include an aspect of rulership or sovereignty

2 Replies

The possibility of a "non-interventionist God" has been raised for example by some pantheists such as Spinoza and endorsed by later celebrities such as Einstein. But IMO, the problems with such a concept are that (a) it requires a certain degree of intellectual sophistication to handle it and (b) it does not tick the "caring" box for those wishing to "trust" in a supportive deity. This may account for the relatively poor take-up of such a concept which at least avoids the normal plethora of ritualistic religious trappings.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Interesting question Ros, if a god created the universe only to watch on, I imagine I'd classify it as more of a deity than a God.
I guess this also means that my definition of what "God" is would have to include an aspect of rulership or sovereignty

I'm not at all sure I understand the distinction between 'deity' and 'a God.' My understanding has always been that any god is a 'deity.'

1 Reply

@G4Racer,

G4Racer wrote:

... the OT basically of some historic value only.

At 2nd Timothy 3:16, Paul asserted "all scripture is inspired". That seems to include the "OT".

Actually, the Hebrew texts contain many prophecies having double fulfillment.
The destruction of Jerusalem and Babylon have anti-typical fulfillments yet to occur. The prophecy of Genesis 3:15 regarding execution of 'the serpent' has yet to be fulfilled.

Other points include
The condition of the dead (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6)
The pre human life of Jesus (Proverbs, ch 8)

More, of course.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

I guess I'm giving my own definitions here, From my own perspective alone, I would assert that all gods are deities, but not every deity could be given the title God

0 Replies

@neologist,

What part of New England do you live in?
I didn't say the OT was not inspired. The major difference between the OT & NT is the difference between the Law & Grace.
The difference between them is:
The Law is external and requires you to obey the Law.
Grace is internal ("I believe" is something that is active, not passive.)
Augustine said that the Sermon on the Mount was "a perfect standard of the Christian life". I was pleased to find Augustine's opinion as it agreed with mine. The "Be Attitudes" do not provide one attribute to an individual; but all to each.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

….."non-interventionist God" …….. requires a certain degree of intellectual sophistication….

Thanks Fres, I had assumed it was my own idea

It's not everyday..,...

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

What would you say?

I'd say that you'd qualify your own religion regardless of the violence you've described when your god will settle scores.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I'd be a fool not to think that way

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Interesting question Ros, if a god created the universe only to watch on, I imagine I'd classify it as more of a deity than a God.
I guess this also means that my definition of what "God" is would have to include an aspect of rulership or sovereignty

Ok. I was just curious.

Your original definition was very concise, so I wanted to understand it's degree of accuracy as a description of your viewpoint as well.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I'd be a fool not to think that way

So, what instruments of violence will your priests be blessing in that event?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

So, what instruments of violence will your priests be blessing in that event?

Easy
None

1 Reply

I've not found out yet what a "correct" religion is.

I'm sure it's a contradiction in terms.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Showing me a link does nothing for me in defining God. You know how much stuff is there?

0 Replies

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know