I agree that when it comes right down to it, conceptions of god are so variable, subjective and idiosyncratic that you can’t find perfect theological syncronicity between even two people, much less across whole super-religions, but Hindu thought answers that by saying that “God” appears to each individual in the particular way they need it, and that it’s all ultimately the same thing if sincere devotion is pursued (it still leads to loss of ego, compassion, etc.). Even God isn’t really God. God is just a way for humans to think about Brahman, which is beyond all words or ability to conceptualize. The ultimate ground of all being. Existence itself.
Even Hinduism hasn’t come up with a good answer to why everyone else thinks God is a beardy man in a white robe, though.
How many people really think that?
Well, Michaelangelo, for one.
Well, science has proven the existence of a Higher Power (God), but whether It is the god of the 3 monotheistic religions remains to be seen. and as to what God looks like, and the Bible stating that God made us in It’s image, I do not think God looks like us, God is what ever It wants to be; I think that our minds are made similar to God’s. Does that make God a giant Brain? maybe.
Science has proven the existence of God? I must have missed the memo.
If angels and saints are ruled out of court, Islam falls well short as well. Angels (as well as oddities like Khidr) are right there in the Qur’an, and while some Wahhabi types frown on cults of saints, they’re probably more prevalent than not as the religion is actually practiced.
Not just right there in the Qu’ran - the angel Gabriel is supposed to have dictated the Qu’ran to Mohammed.
When did this happen?
That’s true. I guess it’s all about how you define what a “god” is. Certainly angels and demons have their roots in polytheistic beliefs.
It probably does not serve as an example of a true monotheistic religion as such, but isn’t Spinozan god basically that. For Spinoza, there is really just one thing existing, god, which makes everything a part of god. Whether this counts as monotheism is up for discussion I guess. I guess we all would just be confused and minute parts of god trying to get along.
I have to ask, how did science proving the existence of God? Even as a Christian myself, I don’t think that it’s possible to prove his existence scientifically.
Second, I think the idea of “what God looks like” is as nonsensical as asking what any non-physical concept looks like. Appearance is a high-level property of matter. To imply that God has some sort of appearance is to imply that he’s made of matter which goes against most common concepts of the nature of God.
As a thought experiment, imagine you ask two kids to draw something, like a tree or a house or a dog; chances are they will share many characteristics in common and anyone looking at the images will be able to tell what they’re pictures of. Now ask the same two kids to draw happy or love or some other non-physical concept. Chances are the two pictures will have little in common where one kid my draw happy as himself at an amusement part and the other might draw himself getting presents at Christmas or whatever. I believe that the appearance of God is much like this latter example, where we represent his appearance through related concepts. For instance, we need to personify him and being a traditionally patriarchal society, obviously an old man represents many of the concepts of God to Western culture. I think this is also why God or gods in many Eastern religions have different appearances.
And as a bit of an aside, I specifically interpret the idea of being made in God’s image not to say we look like him but rather we are made so as to generally want to be like him and share many of the same values. That is, not a physical image, but a spiritual one.
In Christianity, Angels=minor gods and Jesus=demigod?
I would say so, but Christians get highly agitated if you suggest that to them.
I don’t think the Jesus=demigod thing quite works; he and the Spirit are supposed to be essentially co-equal with the Father. Also, I’d draw a distinction beteween Christian Trinitarianism & classical (as in ancient Greek, as passed down through various writings) polytheism in that the three elements of the Trinity are not ever at odds with one another - there’s a sort of informal sense in which the Father is the kick-ass smiter while Jesus is all about the mercy stuff, but I don’t think any Christian would say that they’re really at odds if brought up against it.
My understanding is that the three parts of the Trinity are different aspects of the same God, much as a person (Bob) might be the treasurer of their home owner association, a high school baseball assistant coach, and regional sales manager of XYZ corp at different times but all at the same time as well. If you lived in Bob’s subdivision and wanted to know the financial status, you likely wouldn’t call up his office and ask for the regional sales manager, nor would you likely go to a practice he was coaching. Not a perfect or even great analogy, but my understanding of the concept.
The saints in Christian worship are considerably different from other lesser gods in that they are (generally) historical people who lived and died like any other. The special thing about them is that the church has recognized that by the way they lived their life their souls must be in heaven. They are prayed to due to their being previous humans along with their proximity to God. While in sorta it doesn’t make much logical sense to think about God being “too busy” to deal with all the prayers directed at him, it’s more for the worshipers’ benefit - they feel like their prayers are more likely to be heard by someone who isn’t being “burdened” by the entirety of existence.
–
Christianity developed directly out of Judaism. Jesus was, as a human, a Jew. His contemporary followers were all Jews. Mohammad was not specifically Jewish or Christian, and one tradition holds him to originally be from another monotheist faith that existed along side of them in Arabia. Additionally, there was vague awareness of a supreme god called Allah in pre-Islamic Arabia, but most worship was directed toward more specific deities. Thus while Islam is (or claims to be) an Abrahamic religion, it is reasonable for Christians (and Jews for that matter) to believe that they are not: unlike Christianity, it did not develop directly from Judaism.
But to answer the question of whether they worship “the same God”, Chessic Sense made a very good point despite its seemingly critical tone. Every person has a different conception of God due to their personal experiences. I personally believe that organized religion is a complete waste of time because it makes no sense to tell other people how to experience something that must be by its very nature intensely personal. If you’re going to tell people to have faith in something with practically no evidence, it makes very little sense to tell them how exactly that faith should be expressed. I personally have faith that there is some “first cause”, but that’s about it. If there’s other people who have similar beliefs about the nature of the universe, it makes little sense to say we believe in the same God, because we probably have slightly different conceptions of what exactly our beliefs mean for the origin of the universe and whether there exists a reality beyond our material universe. If I claim that the “God” the Abrahamic religions worship is the same as the “first cause” I believe in, it makes little sense to say that we believe in the same God because their natures are only very vaguely similar. Since it’s only via similar claims that one can say that religions worship the same god, I personally believe everyone worships their own God(s) as revealed to them in the course of their life.
Certainly there’s another kind of answer, one that’s more historical and social in nature, wherein you investigate the development of different religions and attempt to determine whether their concepts of the divine developed continuously or whether there was some abrupt discontinuity wherein someone came up with a completely radical new idea that was never before even considered. And in such a study, you’d really be talking about how much the new religions were influenced by the old, and could only give estimates of how much of the previous idea of a deity was retained. You could give changes ratings on a scale from Anglicanism (where the original change was only in how the church was being administered on Earth) to Akhenaten (who attempted the most radical change I am aware of). But it’s definitely a sliding scale and not something where you can say yes or no or draw a line between when a change in belief means a change in god and when it doesn’t.
Actually, I think that’s quite a good analogy. That’s always been my understanding of the triune godhead as well…three different manifestations of one supreme being. However, many Christians - especially those of fundamentalist bent will argue that point ad infinatum. They’ll say "no, it really is three distinct entities…but all three are one…but there’s really three of 'em… I used to spend a lot of time arguing with fundamentalists, but I’ve pretty much given it up. Makes my brain hurt.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most so-called polytheistic religions also acknowledge some sort of “Great Spirit” or uber-I-am, or something that’s over all the other gods? If so, that would indicate that most religions are ultimately monotheistic, but with rituals to acknowledge the lesser powers as well, call them saints, angels, spirits, djinns or what have you.
SS
For the record, this is incorrect. Sikhism stands on its own … yet highlights resonant views among other beliefs.
Just to let you know that you won’t get answer because this thread us 2 1/2 years old and Dio is, alas, no longer posting.
And would have responded with another episode of the Dio Show were he still with us.
Regards,
Shodan