I fully expect there to be debates of some sort or another, considering the topic. I’m just noting that this particular atheist didn’t have any ulterior/antagonistic motive in starting this thread. I thought that if those who were religious got to present their various views on this subject without feeling that it was a “trap” of some sort, some even-handed debating on those views might be possible.
I’d like to suggest again the idea I mentioned earlier that for some religious people, such as myself, statements of belief are not meant to function primarily as objective claims about reality, but rather as instruments of practice.
What this means is that when I say “I believe in the Trinitarian God” I am not intending to say that the Trinitarian God objectively exists to the exclusion of others. Rather, I am performing an action that helps me find what I ultimately believe are higher truths about the reality in which I am participating. The results of performing the action make up the evidence for me to continue performing it.
I hesitatingly compare it to when I started to play soccer as a kid. There was no evidence to prove to me that I would like soccer, and indeed, some of my friends hated it from the start. But I played it, and I liked it and benefited from it, and that provided experiential evidence to propel me to keep playing it. I have no trouble making and believing the claim “Soccer is fun” or even at times “Soccer is the best sport.” I recognize that others, even people who might know or play soccer better than I do, disagree, and might think other sports are more fun. I also recognize that some people are soccer snobs, or hooligans or whatever. Still, I like to play soccer, I get a lot out of it.
The idea of religion as a series of true/false statements to which one gives their assent is heavily influenced by Christianity, but it is not the only idea the world, or even in Christianity itself. I prefer to think of religion as the practice of making meaning in the world, of taking actions, concepts, relationships, objects, and even beliefs, and assigning them value.
In Catholicism, the Lateran Council of 1215 ruled that no concept of God can ever be more than analogical. For any understanding, dissimilarity with the true God is always infinitely greater than likeness. Yet everyone there would have equally asserted that they believed in the Trinitarian God, and most of them probably favored imposing doctrine with force if necessary. Why? I don’t agree with the latter assertion at all, but the reasoning above has been for me a good start to understanding those men.
The more I watch this thread, the more it looks like a solicitation for opinions rather than a debate. There may be a touch of witnessing, here and there, but it has not turned into a list of confessional declarations regarding god(s).
Therefore, I am sending it to IMHO.
[ /Moderating ]
Fair enough.
I personally feel that most gods across cultures are reflections of a true god or spirit of creation. The “true” god is not knowable. It is simply too big for us to understand.
Since I think that most religions are basically saying the same thing about God (through whatever filter they choose to use), I have a hard time understanding the squabbling that takes place between the various brands of religion.
I am basically Christian, but believe in a kind of limited reincarnation that I can’t adequately articulate. However, I admit my beliefs are a little weird.
I have no problems if people don’t believe what I believe, as long as they don’t attack me for my beliefs.
I’m sorry if that sounds wishy-washy, now that I read it over. That’s not my intent. I just don’t see the point of attacking someone’s religious beliefs as long as they’re not hurting themselves or anyone else (physically or psychologically).
I’ve read many times in history that when missionaries went into an area they would use whatever dieties represented thru the local religions to help explain Christ and the Christian God. Paul did that himself in Rome when he walked up to a statue to “The Unknown God” and told people that this “God” was his God and he sent his son Jesus to the world.
I’m Christian, and in my mind the 1st Commandment pretty much settles the fact that there are ‘other gods’.
It seems to me that if there were no other gods, that last verse there would simply read something like “Thou shalt have no other gods.”
The fact that we’re told that there is a hierarchy, IMO, indicates that there must be multiple entities to be ranked. Maybe all of the ‘other gods’ are simply manifestations of the one God. Maybe they are independent entities with dominion over certain aspects of the world, but they’re all subservient to the one God. Maybe they’re just a bunch of upstart junior deities who thought “watch this…I’ll show those mortals a thing or two!” and started hurling thunderbolts down from on high.
For all I know, Zeus (or should it be Uranus?), and Atum, and Odin, and Brahma, and all of the other ‘creator gods’ are all the same God, manifesting himself to different cultures in different ways that were appropriate to the time and place…and all of the other gods in the various pantheons are represented by the Christian angelic hierarchy.
I have no problem believing in the existence of other gods; I just don’t worship them.