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.
Monotheism Compatibility
- Thread starter ReFLeX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- compatibility monotheism
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,323
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.
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.
Abraham = Brahmanism?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
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.
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
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
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?
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?
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.
Well, you do so at your own risk.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
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...
Fiend God
Abrahamanism ?
Would you classify Communism or Fascism as a religion then? Or, how about racism?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
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.
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.
How about bickering then? Would you consider that a form of fighting?
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
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
Briefly immortal
I agree with you again. (Twice in one day!
)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.
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.
Oh, would you say the same thing about the reality that exists beyond whatever it is that we "think" is there?I agree with you again. (Twice in one day!
However, this seems to say that the characteristics of God or gods are totally determined by what people believe about them.
Puleeze. Why don't you just admit that it's a dumb argument and drop it.
Considered as a backdrop against the reality that we do understand, I would say at the very least, consistency.
And so are the laws of physics are they not? ... Or, at least this is what I keep hearing from Mercutio.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
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 ◊◊◊◊ in my book.
Oh, how cute! Iacchus is getting all blustery an' stuff...
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?
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!
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?
At what point? Don't worry, Iacchus, you won't recognise it when it happens. Or rather...you didn't.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 ◊◊◊◊ 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.