The One True God™

[The Kilted Heathen]

Then explain where the cloud formations and precipitation come from.

All you're really proving with the meteorological cycle (in a theological sense) is parentage. The thunderstorm, born of sky and earth, yet neither; just as you are not the same as your father or mother, yet have both of them in you.

Protip: Lightning =/= Thunderstorm

That is acutually just what a thunderstorm is; there can be no thunder without the lightning. A "lightning storm" is the same thing as a "thunderstorm." That's why when a thunderstorm is imminent, you are also warned of high winds, severe rain, hail, etc; because those things are in addition to the thunderstorm.

And yet, the thunderstorm is still distinct from the ocean.

Nor is what we wish to hold true.

Like all gods being an aspect of One God?

 

[SalixIncendium]

]

All you're really proving with the meteorological cycle (in a theological sense) is parentage. The thunderstorm, born of sky and earth, yet neither; just as you are not the same as your father or mother, yet have both of them in you.

Precisely.

That is acutually just what a thunderstorm is; there can be no thunder without the lightning. A "lightning storm" is the same thing as a "thunderstorm."

Nope. In order to have thunder, you need an atmosphere such as ours. Lightning storms on Mars do not produce thunder.

And yet, the thunderstorm is still distinct from the ocean.

I think we already covered this. Save us the logical fallacy.

 

[Ubon]

If god exists he came way before religion

 

[paarsurrey]

If god exists he came way before religion

Please elaborate one's viewpoint.
Regards

 

[Ubon]

Please elaborate one's viewpoint.
Regards

If god exists would he be concerned with Religion and Ritual as much as ones individual behavior

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Precisely.

You've defeated your monotheistic outlook, then. Because for a god to have parents, there needs to be many of them.

In order to have thunder, you need an atmosphere such as ours. Lightning storms on Mars do not produce thunder.

Mars does have an atmosphere. And where there's lightning, there's thunder.

I think we already covered this. Save us the logical fallacy.

You're saying that this:

Is the same thing as this:

They are clearly not.

 

[paarsurrey]

If god exists would he be concerned with Religion and Ritual as much as ones individual behavior

All three are important aspects to mold ones personality. Please
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

To me personally this whole idea of god and especially a true god has made a fool of the human species.

 

[paarsurrey]

To me personally this whole idea of god and especially a true god has made a fool of the human species.

I don't agree with one, "no-god" stance might have? Please
Regards

 

[firedragon]

That's a stretch.

Maybe its not.

 

[firedragon]

If god exists would he be concerned with Religion and Ritual as much as ones individual behavior

He is concerned more of behaviour. Much much more. Read Quran.

I am not kidding.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't agree with one, "no-god" stance might have? Please
Regards

I don't agree with you also.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You've defeated your monotheistic outlook, then. Because for a god to have parents, there needs to be many of them.

That's great, since I haven't had a monotheistic outlook since I was in my early teens. Perhaps you should go back and read the OP (and my profile [and my intro post on the forum]) and come talk to me when you're done.

Mars does have an atmosphere. And where there's lightning, there's thunder.

I read your article really, really, really hard and saw no mention of thunder. I wonder if Voyager and Galileo had microphones.

You're saying that this:

Is the same thing as this:

They are clearly not.

Yeah, 'cause that's what I said.

 

[Ubon]

He is concerned more of behaviour. Much much more. Read Quran.

I am not kidding.

How can you be sure what God is concerned with.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That's great, since I haven't had a monotheistic outlook since I was in my early teens. Perhaps you should go back and read the OP (and my profile [and my intro post on the forum]) and come talk to me when you're done.

I am of the opinion that all gods worshiped/revered by all religions are merely aspects of one God.

Monotheism.

I read your article really, really, really hard and saw no mention of thunder.

"Q: Can Earth-like lightning and thunder occur on a planet or Moon that exhibits storms in its atmosphere? A: Yes!"

What is thunder? The sudden increase in pressure and temperature from lightning, which produces a rapid expansion of the air surrounding and within the bolt of lightning, which in turn creates a sonic shock wave which produces the sound of thunder.

If a planet has an atmosphere - as Mars and Jupiter do - then the lightning will produce thunder. It's not rocket science, here.

Yeah, 'cause that's what I said.

Actually, yes. Yes you did.

Actually your post supported my opinion by demonstrating that a thunderstorm is an aspect of the ocean.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Monotheism.

Bzzzt. Wrong again. It's only monotheistic if I don't recognize other gods. I made it clear ITT that I was not invalidating the gods of other religions. Also, you have very limited knowledge of my views on divinity, so you are operating primarily on assumption (or mere obtuseness). If you want to know my beliefs and views on the divine, simply ask (or simply read without taking words out of context).

"Q: Can Earth-like lightning

and thunder occur on a planet or Moon that exhibits storms in its atmosphere? A: Yes!"

...and the rest of the story...

"The cameras on both the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft detected lightning in Jupiter’s atmosphere. In 2011, the Cassini probe cameras detected a faint flash of lightning on Saturn, as well. The flashes on both gas giants were associated with recognizable storm systems."

...which makes no mention of thunder whatsoever.

What is thunder? The sudden increase in pressure and temperature from lightning, which produces a rapid expansion of the air surrounding and within the bolt of lightning, which in turn creates a sonic shock wave which produces the sound of thunder.

If a planet has an atmosphere - as Mars and Jupiter do - then the lightning will produce thunder. It's not rocket science, here.

Thunder sound will only be produced if the atmosphere is thick enough for the expanding and collapsing gasses to create sound upon collapse. Venus would likely produce thunder. Not likely on Mars. But since you persist, perhaps you'd be kind enough to share with us a sound-byte that contains the sound of thunder on another planet.

Actually, yes. Yes you did.

Yes, only if "an aspect of" means "the same as".

Let's use the word "aspect" in a sentence: "My favorite aspect of the movie is the scene where the dead hero jumps out of his casket."

So by your logic, the whole move is the same as the scene.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's only monotheistic if I don't recognize other gods. I made it clear ITT that I was not invalidating the gods of other religions.

And yet you said that you are of the opinion that all gods that have been worshiped by man are aspects of One God.

"The cameras on both the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft detected lightning in Jupiter’s atmosphere. In 2011, the Cassini probe cameras detected a faint flash of lightning on Saturn, as well. The flashes on both gas giants were associated with recognizable storm systems."

...which makes no mention of thunder whatsoever.

Now who's being obtuse? Jupiter has an atmosphere. This is a fact. If there is lightning, then by it's very nature, it would produce thunder - the sound of that atmosphere rapidly expanding around the lightning bolt. Your apparent claim that there would be no thunder because a camera on a rocket didn't hear it (which then seems to claim that there is no thunder, and thus no sound) is preposterous and scientifically ludicrous.

Thunder is the expansion of an atmosphere - regardless of density. Granted, it would sound different, but there would not be no sound, as Mars does have an atmosphere.

Yes, only if "an aspect of" means "the same as".

Let's use the word "aspect" in a sentence: "My favorite aspect of the movie is the scene where the dead hero jumps out of his casket."

So by your logic, the whole move is the same as the scene.

And yet, just like you "don't believe for a minute" that my intent was to refer to any and all thunderstorms - just your impression of them - I do not believe that was the definition of "aspect" that you meant. Especially since you're talking about figures and beings, not an experience.

as•pect n
1. a particular part or feature of a situation, an idea, a problem, etc; a way in which if may be considered
The book aims to cover all aspects of city life.
the most important aspect of the debate
She felt she had looked at the problem from every aspect
This was one aspect of her character he hadn't seen before.
The consultancy gives advice to manufacturers on the health and safety aspects of their products
2. [singular] (formal) the appearance of a place, a situation, or a person
Events began to take on a more sinister aspect
the dirty and seedy aspect of the bar
3. [usually singular] (formal) the direction in which a building, window, piece of land, etc. faces; the side of a building that faces a particular direction synonym: orientation
Our room had a western aspect.
The southern aspect of the school was dominated by the mountain.
4. (grammar) the form of a verb that shows, for example, whether the action happens once or repeatedly, is complete or still continuing. See also: perfect adj (7), progressive adj.

(Source: the Oxford English Dictionary)

As you are discussion gods - figures, persons, or beings - you were then using the second definition. Thus, the appearance of a god. Ergo, saying that the thunderstorm is the same as the ocean; Thor to Ran.

 

[buddhist]

I know many that believe the god of their religion is the One True God™. Holy wars, jihad, etc. have resulted in countless deaths due to this concept.

I am of the opinion that all gods worshiped/revered by all religions are merely aspects of one God. In my view, this God is non-sentient, non-judgmental, and does not control one's fate or destiny, and has no interest in the outcome of humanity or any other species. It just is. I believe most gods are injected with human characteristics to facilitate human relation with them, but do not actually possess these characteristics in a stand-alone version. The "god" concepts that are born of human emotion/character (loving, angry, caring, judging,etc.) come from man, not god. However, these emotions/characteristics manifest in one's personal god due to the energy put forth by a particular god's adherents. This opinion does not lend any more or any less credence to the existence or validity of one's personal god, nor is it saying that your god is any more or less real than another's. I just think most that identify themselves as religions and subscribe to the One True God™ mentality are missing the bigger picture. I am more than willing to elaborate on my thoughts on this should one ask.

I am looking to read responses from people that disagree with my opinion ITT. If you view my concept as invalid and believe your god is separate from or is not an aspect of a greater God, I would like you to provide your thoughts as to why he/she/it is not or cannot be. I am not looking for Scripture quotes or any other references to holy texts. These are man-made by people other than you (check local listings) and simply promote bias. I am also not looking for comments based on something someone else has told you to think. I am looking for real-life comments based on experience, contemplation, or personal enlightenment. Of course, hard evidence is always welcome.

If, with the word "God", you are referencing an almighty, infinite, active creator, then I would suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil.

All of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) which brings greater pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with this imagined "God".

 

[SalixIncendium]

And yet you said that you are of the opinion that all gods that have been worshiped by man are aspects of One God.


Now who's being obtuse? Jupiter has an atmosphere. This is a fact. If there is lightning, then by it's very nature, it would produce thunder - the sound of that atmosphere rapidly expanding around the lightning bolt. Your apparent claim that there would be no thunder because a camera on a rocket didn't hear it (which then seems to claim that there is no thunder, and thus no sound) is preposterous and scientifically ludicrous.

Thunder is the expansion of an atmosphere - regardless of density. Granted, it would sound different, but there would not be no sound, as Mars does have an atmosphere.



And yet, just like you "don't believe for a minute" that my intent was to refer to any and all thunderstorms - just your impression of them - I do not believe that was the definition of "aspect" that you meant. Especially since you're talking about figures and beings, not an experience.

as•pect n
1. a particular part or feature of a situation, an idea, a problem, etc; a way in which if may be considered
The book aims to cover all aspects of city life.
the most important aspect of the debate
She felt she had looked at the problem from every aspect
This was one aspect of her character he hadn't seen before.
The consultancy gives advice to manufacturers on the health and safety aspects of their products
2. [singular] (formal) the appearance of a place, a situation, or a person
Events began to take on a more sinister aspect
the dirty and seedy aspect of the bar
3. [usually singular] (formal) the direction in which a building, window, piece of land, etc. faces; the side of a building that faces a particular direction synonym: orientation
Our room had a western aspect.
The southern aspect of the school was dominated by the mountain.
4. (grammar) the form of a verb that shows, for example, whether the action happens once or repeatedly, is complete or still continuing. See also: perfect adj (7), progressive adj.

(Source: the Oxford English Dictionary)

As you are discussion gods - figures, persons, or beings - you were then using the second definition. Thus, the appearance of a god. Ergo, saying that the thunderstorm is the same as the ocean; Thor to Ran.

As much as I've enjoyed our tango, I've afforded you enough latitude to derail this thread.

So since you chose to toss in your two cents, perhaps you'll share with us your thoughts on the pantheon you revere/worship as it relates to the OP. Do your believe your pantheon are the true gods, did you select them because they facilitate your connection to the divine/your higher self, or do you truly feel that this pantheon are the true gods?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

As much as I've enjoyed our tango, I've afforded you enough latitude to derail this thread.

Shifting the blame, eh? This just translates as you being unable to assert your claim in the presence of countering points. Not to mention that it was you who became so focused on the existence of thunder after your backflip away from post #31, where you recognized the distinction between a thunderstorm and the ocean.

So instead of Batmaning™ out of this, let's see you show - invariably - that Þórr is the same deity as, say, Kali. Then, maybe I'll be a little more forthcoming about my personal beliefs.