outhouse
Atheistically
Non sequitur
The monotheistic god has literally never stopped evolving in various cultures changing its definition.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is simple, not complex
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Non sequitur
The monotheistic god has literally never stopped evolving in various cultures changing its definition.
outhouse
Atheistically
then one is now required to understand which Abrahamic deity you would like to debate
outhouse
Atheistically
Non sequitur
outhouse
Atheistically
You mean your classroom made definition of the god concept based on Greek understanding that discusses a god in a abstract and metaphysical sense?
Golly Gee I never heard of your man made definition
Most of the world follows the Abrahamic definitions, not ancient Greek philosopher's definition only argued in philosophy classes.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Must be hard work in the bedroom.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
The term "God" (with an upper case "G") is employed specifically to reference the monotheistic deity. The term "god" (with a lower case "g") is employed specifically to reference a polytheistic deity. (It is grammatically incorrect to use "god" to reference the monotheistic deity. And if you continue to do that, then you will fail to communicate effectively.)
Gambit
Well-Known Member
I had provided you with a link to the Wikipedia article on "classical theism" in my previous post. But it would appear that you have not taken upon yourself to learn about it. Below is a couple excerpts from that article. I would suggest that you read it.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Don't you agree that grammar lessons should be delivered privately?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
You mean your classroom made definition of the god concept based on Greek understanding that discusses a god in a abstract and metaphysical sense?
Golly Gee I never heard of your man made definition
Most of the world follows the Abrahamic definitions, not ancient Greek philosopher's definition only argued in philosophy classes.
The "straw man" God that you are hell-bent on dismantling here is not the God I am defending. I have attempted to explain this to you. But you are refusing to listen. I am arguing for a philosophical understanding of God, not a mythological one. If you want to argue against a mythological understanding of God, then you will have to find another thread.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
This grammar lesson is germane to the issue at hand.
outhouse
Atheistically
This could be viewed as simple theistic nitpicking
And its debatable. There is more to it then simple monotheism VS polytheism.
Even the bible has issues with this in Daniel 11:37-38 kjv
For our debates here it is my personal choice, as most people are not aware the monotheistic deity is a compilation of two major deities. Not only that adding Jesus can be viewed as a form of polytheism, despite the religious dogma in the trinity redefinition.
Any time we are referring to the fact that some being or alleged being is a member of this class, it is grammatically appropriate to use a lowercase 'g' but inappropriate to use an uppercase 'G' - just as it would be inappropriate to talk about Apples or Cats.
The same holds true if we are speaking very generally about Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Sikh beliefs. It is appropriate to say that Christians believe in a god, that Jews believe in a single god, that Muslims pray every Friday to their god, and that Sikhs worship their god. There is absolutely no reason to capitalize 'god' in any of those sentences.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its OK. He was not teaching it properly either.
outhouse
Atheistically
I have not even began with you. Your deity does not exist in reality. It is simply a philosophical classroom discussion on an Greek philosophical concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
In modern philosophy, classical theism is a theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being
In other words, it is another man made definition of god separate from the biblical gods
they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3]
Sorry that is not a historical discussion.
No sir.
This is not your thread, nor are you even on topic.
outhouse
Atheistically
So where is a definition of this specific god you would like to debate? or does it say specifically this is a narrow abstract and metaphysical view of the god concepts?
What are the similarities of the Abrahamic god/s with the classical theistic version of this classroom deity?
outhouse
Atheistically
You admit YOU are defending a different god?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
That's where you're wrong. Although this has already been explained to you, "God" (with an upper case "G") is not some being of a particular class.
outhouse
Atheistically
That came from a grammar lesson on the exact topic. I did not invent it.
Like I said, it is debatable and a bit nitpicking.
This is so true, Carlita!
A mystery, by definition, is unknowable. Yet the Bible says to "draw close to God"; but how could you, if He really is unknowable? Was Jesus 'unknowable'? No! Jesus loved people, and the common people (most of the time) loved him....even little children were drawn to him! And the Bible says "He is the image of the invisible God," and "the exact representation of His very being." --Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Meh.