Why One God

[LuisDantas]

Then you just made that up.

Nevertheless, you should read at least a little bit on Islam or any other theology for that matter prior to making expert claims you made.

Islamic scholars even generally say that even Hinduism is very much aligned with the Islamic concept of God at fundamental levels. Hindu scripture make repeated claims like nathasya prathima asthi, Ekam evadivityam, in Yajurvedh and Chandogya upanishad. Absolutely the same as the Islamic concept of God and the so called Shema in the Tanakh. Traditionally as I said scholars have done this for over a thousand years and celebrated it. Even atheist scholars in modern times have written about it. Just that you have no knowledge of it.

I can, by your previous responses you don't care about any of this. But what has to be said has to be said.

Right you are. I do not care about your claims anymore.

Once more, I _have_ learned.

 

[firedragon]

Suuuure I did.

No, wait. Muhammad did.

Irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Right you are. I do not care about your claims anymore.

Once more, I _have_ learned.

Good.

 

[The Hammer]

I disagree with your reasoning, your hypothesis and your conclusion. Regardless of how complex our universe is - you don't need multiple gods to create it. All you need is one omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful) God.
To me - your "complexity argument" has no merit because your example show a bunch of human beings are making complex things like car, cell phone etc. Who made these human beings? So, your example shows - creations can also invent things.
Although you need a creator to bring something into existence - his creations can also bring new ideas into existence. So, there is no need for multiple gods concept.
A monotheistic concept makes more sense to me because A God can create a bunch of angels to facilitate him with whatever project he undertakes.

Mmk

 

[stvdv]

Okay. What you are saying is that the attitude is trouble, not evangelism per se. It's the oppression that's trouble causing. Not evangelism.

Not exactly.

It's a subtle feeling. Took me a few years on RF and being in such a Church who belittles, to really feel and understand it's impact

IF evangelism originates from "my way (faith) is the highway" and when this is imposed on children then it causes trouble.

Do remember that evangelism is done because the evangelist believes the faith of the other is wrong and he should convert. If evangelism is done w/o this underlying belittling attitude then it's different. But evangelism implies the belief "the other's faith is wrong, and mine is the best"

IF evangelism is done in a way of sharing one's Faith without belittling other's (non) Faith and/or feelings THEN I don't see much trouble

 

[stvdv]

Right you are. I do not care about your claims anymore.

Once more, I _have_ learned.

#MeToo

 

[firedragon]

IF evangelism originates from "my way (faith) is the highway" and when this is imposed on children then it causes trouble.

So it's the attitude, not evangelism per se. It's the imposition, not evangelism per se.

Do remember that evangelism is done because the evangelist believes the faith of the other is wrong and he should convert. If evangelism is done w/o this underlying belittling attitude then it's different. But evangelism implies the belief "the other's faith is wrong, and mine is the best"

Okay. Do you have any studies that say this causes trouble? Because you are making a general claim, not an anecdotal claim.

IF evangelism is done in a way of sharing one's Faith without belittling other's (non) Faith and/or feelings THEN I don't see much trouble

What is the trouble caused by that? Is there any study whatsoever?

 

[BrightShadow]

Or as I like to put it: why would a supremely transcendent god have any trouble manifesting as three-in-one? And why would humans have any reason to expect to know or understand any reasons that said deity might have for or against doing just that?

I don't think that it is logically coherent to claim belief in the God of Abraham and somehow also claim certainty that it could not possibly have a triple nature.

What are you trying to promote? Jesus was god or the three god in one concept?
If you could create ants - would you come down to their habitat (nest) as an ant and then die to erase their sins? Even if you could do it - why would you deny being their creator? Why go up the mountain and pray to the actual creator? Why announce that you can do nothing on your own? Why not tell rest of the ants that you are the manifestation of their creator?
So, what reason do you have to believe that God manifested in such a manner? Why still buy what Constantine sold in 325 A.D.?

Furthermore - if you believe in any God or believe you have a soul then ask yourself why you weren't sent in your soul form? Why were you sent in your physical body?
If you can figure out the answer to that question then you should also figure out the reason why God must be a singular supreme entity! IMO
In my opinion - anyone claiming and adhering to a single God concept - is on the right path and I also believe there is nothing wrong in having confidence in that belief! For the rest of the details - one could crosscheck different dogmas! IMO

 

[cataway]

No there's only Three and they are all One.
I don't understand why you need a bunch of God's unless you have puny gods who aren't too bright.

if you was to read your bible you would find out there are many gods mentioned in the bible . even your belly could be a god

 

[LuisDantas]

What are you trying to promote? Jesus was god or the three god in one concept?
If you could create ants - would you come down to their habitat (nest) as an ant and then die to erase their sins? Even if you could do it - why would you deny being their creator? Why go up the mountain and pray to the actual creator? Why announce that you can do nothing on your own? Why not tell rest of the ants that you are the manifestation of their creator?
So, what reason do you have to believe that God manifested in such a manner? Why still buy what Constantine sold in 325 A.D.?

Furthermore - if you believe in any God or believe you have a soul then ask yourself why you weren't sent in your soul form? Why were you sent in your physical body?
If you can figure out the answer to that question then you should also figure out the reason why God must be a singular supreme entity! IMO
In my opinion - anyone claiming and adhering to a single God concept - is on the right path and I also believe there is nothing wrong in having confidence in that belief! For the rest of the details - one could crosscheck different dogmas! IMO

Personally, I am neither a theist nor a believer in the literal existence of the Bible's Jesus.

But I don't think that claims that the trinity is anathema to Abrahamic monotheism are logically sound either.

 

[firedragon]

if you was to read your bible you would find out there are many gods mentioned in the bible . even your belly could be a god

Hmm. In that case, in some of the literature in the Qumran documents call pots and pans as Gods.

Nevertheless, which verse in the bible are you referring to? Sorry I ask because I don't know hebrew and I would like to see this verse. Thanks in advance.

 

[BrightShadow]

But I don't think that claims that the trinity is anathema to Abrahamic monotheism are logically sound either.

Well! To consider it - you have to turn a man (or messenger) into a God! Why is that not a problem?

 

[Wildswanderer]

if you was to read your bible you would find out there are many gods mentioned in the bible . even your belly could be a god

Those aren't actual gods... rather things that people worship instead of God. That doesn't mean they actually exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well! To consider it - you have to turn a man (or messenger) into a God! Why is that not a problem?

I never allow gods to be problems to me.

 

[BrightShadow]

I never allow gods to be problems to me.

I see - in that case is it fair to say you float around superficially? With out considering anything on a deeper level?

 

[LuisDantas]

I see - in that case is it fair to say you float around superficially? With out considering anything on a deeper level?

You may say whatever you want, I suppose.

As long as it is based on god-concepts, no rules apply.

And I am certainly not going to make myself vulnerable to any criticisms on how I relate to them. That would make no sense - and does not.

 

[Truthseeker]

Just reality, and
I agree, I don't like it either
Too bad it still happens too much

Bringing to the surface
Until it goes into the background
That's all we can do

That all sounds cryptic to me. I don't know what you are getting at. Please clarify.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Doesn't make sense to me.

I am of the opinion that there is more than One God. The Gods if you will.

This is because as I see it, something as complex as the Universe, with as many functioning and moving parts as it has, would take Many hands to Create; just like a complex open world RPG takes Many programmers to Create.

As things increase in complexity (cars, phones, houses), the number of creators always increases.

A Perfect Universe, does not mean we have only One perfect God. (I also don't think the universe is perfect, but that's a seperate issue).

Or another way to put it for @firedragon

1. Gods are Necessary beings for an Ordered universe and are Creators
2. To create, the creators have to have a will.
3. If there are two or more Gods there has to be two or more different wills.
4. Two or more wills bring about cooperation, and increase the overall complexity of the finished product (much like our cosmos)
5. The Gods are Many

The question is about whether the Divine is unified or fractured. If unified, we have one consistent morality. If divided, we have competing moralities. It makes no sense to follow the goddess of love one day and the god of war the next.

 

[stvdv]

Trying to convince others I call debating, which I don't like at all. Introspection is fine as long as it illumines your being, and leads to action.

Don't like this stereotyping of Abrahamic religions.

Bringing to the surface
Until it goes into the background
That's all we can do

That all sounds cryptic to me. I don't know what you are getting at. Please clarify.

Well, like you, I also don't like stereotyping

But when there is something really, and I mean really bad happening, it needs to be addressed until it's gone.

In this case, if more than 50% is into evangelizing of the Christians, whether in action or believes it's good, needed or not harmful, then it's still much too much of a "sin" and urgency as to not address it.

And finally, stereotyping Christians as evangelizing is created because of evangelizing, so it's created and kept alife by Christians

Blame me for addressing (labeling) it, is like blaming God that humans are so violent. Rather blame Christians who still evangelize and believe it's good and needed even, right?

I am sure that evangelism is part of many troubles in the world. Maybe it has had its use in the past for the purpose of evolution, as human used to be quite barbaric, but now we live in an age that it definitely works against humanity and humanism
@stvdvRF

 

[LuisDantas]

The question is about whether the Divine is unified or fractured. If unified, we have one consistent morality. If divided, we have competing moralities. It makes no sense to follow the goddess of love one day and the god of war the next.

If we work with the premises that morality comes from divine decree and that divine authority can be at odds with itself, I suppose.