http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gods.png

Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe).

Some of my favorites? Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis. Or Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. Or Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration.

Anyway, here’s a handy comparison between the gods Christians deny and the gods atheists deny. We’re not so different, after all. Let us celebrate our vast agreement on the non-existence of thousands of gods!

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=285

That's a nice post Nail.
It shows how similar we all are in beliefs.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

That's a nice post Nail. It shows how similar we all are in beliefs.

and it shows how people have a poetic license to make up any god they like and automatically assume that it is real whilst any other God must be false ;)

But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 10:07pm:

But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist.

not according to the dictionary definition ;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist


Quote:

a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That just makes Christians Monotheists, not atheists....

Bobby. wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

That's a nice post Nail. It shows how similar we all are in beliefs.

And how weird you 2? are.

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 8:41am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:55pm: That's a nice post Nail. It shows how similar we all are in beliefs. And how weird you 2? are.

Why?
Who are you to say that others are weird?

Its not just her... EVERYONE says you two are weird/gay/dogs/insane/undeucated/unemployed.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

Its not just her... EVERYONE says you two are weird/gay/dogs/insane/undeucated/unemployed.

Those are their finer points too.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 9:52pm:

Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe).

Christians deny nothing of god's existence. Their dispute is with the worship of (what they'd term) false gods over their one god. All supernatural faculties attributed to the many gods, for Christians, are all vested in the one... They have more common cause with Muslims and Hindus than atheists, who disbelieve in the proposition that god/s exist.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

Its not just her... EVERYONE says you two are weird/gay/dogs/insane/undeucated/unemployed.

That from our resident unemployed inquisition denier -
his name is longweekend.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). Christians deny nothing of god's existence. Their dispute is with the worship of (what they'd term) false gods over their one god. All supernatural faculties attributed to the many gods, for Christians, are all vested in the one... They have more common cause with Muslims and Hindus than atheists, who disbelieve in the proposition that god/s exist.

Surely, if there is a doG then there could only be one - and that the core problems are that: people can neither agree on a common name for the same deity nor come to a common agreement as to what that deity wants for humanity, what it has or has not done to date and what it is capable of doing in the future (with particular emphasis on the all-important after-life)...

Oh, and then there's the issue of which group/s of worshipers were right in the first instance - and which ones need to back off an reject everything they've ever been indoctrinated about in the past...

Alternatively, there really could be competing doGs out there - hell-bent on creating havoc amongst us mere mortals...

These and more questions are what keep religious doGmatists arguing amongst themselves and perpetrating violence under the false banners of their respective doG-worshiping institutions...

Seriously, the world might just be a better place without all this bickering over mythological beings, self-conflicting ancient (re-written) texts and mutual distrust-cum-hatred...

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm: But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist. not according to the dictionary definition ;) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Quote: a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You see, we all have common ground. TLN has an irrational belief too - Lexicophilia - the belief that the dictionary (any dictionary) will enable us to derive precise meanings for any term, religious included and solve the deepest philosophical quandaries, stop interpersonal conflicts, global nuclear wars and annoying personal itches.  

All you have to do is to say the definition out loud three times to the offending politicians, philosophers or pathogens and the problem goes away.

According to Lexicophiles, dictionaries are a kind of oracle. if you feel the sudden urge to ask the opinion of some old Greek bird in Delphi who is half crazy from breathing volcanic gases, then forget it.  Let's just use the dictionary as an oracle instead.    

The next time somebody quotes reams from St Thomas Aquinas, just approach him, dictionary in hand, finger strategically placed on the offending noun, verb or adverb, and point out the errors of his ways.

TLN has at last revealed himself to be as human as anybody else. Lexicophilia is a rather quaint, albeit immature religion.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). Christians deny nothing of god's existence. Their dispute is with the worship of (what they'd term) false gods over their one god. All supernatural faculties attributed to the many gods, for Christians, are all vested in the one... They have more common cause with Muslims and Hindus than atheists, who disbelieve in the proposition that god/s exist.

The Hindu religion was invented by the British Empire when they gave a name to a strange collection of local and national religious and cultural practices and beliefs (mainly cultural practices) which are often in conflict with each other.

Quote:

Surely, if there is a doG then there could only be one

Why only one???....surely there can be as many as the different human tribes/cultures feel like inventing....

After all Man makes Gods in his own image....

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). Christians deny nothing of god's existence. Their dispute is with the worship of (what they'd term) false gods over their one god. All supernatural faculties attributed to the many gods, for Christians, are all vested in the one... They have more common cause with Muslims and Hindus than atheists, who disbelieve in the proposition that god/s exist.

The saying 'man creates god in his own image' should be turned around: 'man creates his world it his god's image'. It makes much more sense.

All metaphysics is about the nature of this world and us in it. Disputes over gods are disputes over the justifications of human actions, laws, social organisations and relationshi[ps among people.

No, soren, I'll stick with my version thanks....

Muso.

Quote:

Thelastnail has at last revealed himself to be as human as anybody else. Lexicophilia is a rather quaint, albeit immature religion.

On the other hand - you can't just make up your own meanings of
words to suit you argument.

muso wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:28pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm: But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist. not according to the dictionary definition ;) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Quote: a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. You see, we all have common ground. TLN has an irrational belief too - Lexicophilia - the belief that the dictionary (any dictionary) will enable us to derive precise meanings for any term, religious included and solve the deepest philosophical quandaries, stop interpersonal conflicts, global nuclear wars and annoying personal itches.

what's the point of debating an issue if you keep wanting to change the meaning of the words to suit your argument ??

Also you should refrain from using fallacies in your replies :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

muso wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 11:23am: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:28pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm: But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist. not according to the dictionary definition ;) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Quote: a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. You see, we all have common ground. TLN has an irrational belief too - Lexicophilia - the belief that the dictionary (any dictionary) will enable us to derive precise meanings for any term, religious included and solve the deepest philosophical quandaries, stop interpersonal conflicts, global nuclear wars and annoying personal itches.   what's the point of debating an issue if you keep wanting to change the meaning of the words to suit your argument ?? Also you should refrain from using fallacies in your replies :(

The meaning of words like religion, God, believe, etc depend very much on the religious position of that person. A Muslim will define and comprehend these terms differently from an Atheist or a Buddhist.

I used to be an active member of Atheists.com a long time ago, until I realised that I can't take a position on something that is cognitively meaningless to me. These recycled arguments are meaningless too.

Your arguments are not very subtle, and I have a strong feeling that the subtleties of the cosmological argument would be lost on you.

You choose a single definition from a dictionary that usually has many, and you expect everybody else to agree that the definition is the one true definition. It's a dishonest position to argue from. You don't apply your own principles, but expect others to.

If I were a theist, I'd probably give a damn. I was an atheist once, and as I see it, the quality of atheists has gone downhill since then.

"De gustibus non est disputandum" is my personal opinion. A statement like "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" has as much relevance to me as "I take two sugars in my coffee".

Belief in God is by necessity a personal thing. I won't debate whether somebody takes two sugars in their coffee or not, and I certainly won't waste my time debating an equally personal position, such as "I believe in God" where God and religion can really be whatever you choose to define them as.

Muso - if you can just make up your own meanings of

words to suit you argument then you can say that

A=B=C  therefore A=C  and you can prove anything

because you have provided the equivalence with your own definition.

That doesn't mean it's right.

The meaning of words like religion, God, believe, etc depend very much on the religious position of that person. A Muslim will define and comprehend these terms differently from an Atheist or a Buddhist.

I used to be an active member of Atheists.com a long time ago, until I realised that I can't take a position on something that is cognitively meaningless to me. These recycled arguments are meaningless too.

Your arguments are not very subtle, and I have a strong feeling that the subtleties of the cosmological argument would be lost on you.

You choose a single definition from a dictionary that usually has many, and you expect everybody else to agree that the definition is the one true definition. It's a dishonest position to argue from. You don't apply your own principles, but expect others to.

If I were a theist, I'd probably give a damn. I was an atheist once, and as I see it, the quality of atheists has gone downhill since then.

"De gustibus non est disputandum" is my personal opinion. A statement like "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" has as much relevance to me as "I take two sugars in my coffee".

Belief in God is by necessity a personal thing. I won't debate whether somebody takes two sugars in their coffee or not, and I certainly won't waste my time debating an equally personal position, such as "I believe in God" where God and religion can really be whatever you choose to define them as.

- Global Moderator Muso

Some very interesting and valid points raised there.

Your response prompted me to recall the "Johari Window" concept.

I may need to start a separate topic on that though.

Lisa,
then you are saying:

If A = B and if B=C then A=C.

The debate then is all about the " if "

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm: But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist. not according to the dictionary definition ;) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Quote: a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Are you SURE about that nails???
Even you're own dictionary definition contradicts you...

"–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

Lisa,
then you are saying:

If A = B and if B=C then A=C.

The debate then is all about the " if "

- Bobby

NO NO NO!! Before we even get to the "IF" debate .. we need to look at A, B, C a little closer because YOUR construction/perception of A (or B or C) may not equal MY construction/perception of A (or B or C).

This isn't maths Bobby. If only it were ..

muso wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:

I used to be an active member of Atheists.com a long time ago, until I realised that I can't take a position on something that is cognitively meaningless to me.

Atheism has been confused with anti-theism.

Disbelieving is not an act of believing nor in itself a "call to arms" against those who do.

If you disbelieve the proposition that god/s exist then there's not much more to be said.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 9:52pm:

Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe).

You realise that does not make christians athieists, it makes them monotheists.

Thank god they invented velco shoes or you would never be able to go outside.  ;D

Bobby. wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:52pm:

Muso - if you can just make up your own meanings of words to suit you argument then you can say that A=B=C  therefore A=C  and you can prove anything because you have provided the equivalence with your own definition. That doesn't mean it's right.

You're trying to apply rigorous logic to the human condition. Let me explain it from my 'window'.

A guy in a restaurant (let's call him Alan) says to his colleague   "This curry is delicious, you should try some". He is obviously enjoying the meal judging from his body language.

Person B (Barry) then decides to order a curry. He takes the first bite, splutters and gasps. His body language indicates extreme disgust.

"You defined this curry as being delicious", he protests. "This is the worst thing I've ever had in my mouth. How could you lie like that? You can't just make up your own meanings of words. "

Meantime Barry's boyfriend Charlie arrives and sits down next to them at the table.

- This is my boyfriend, Charlie, isn't he a sexy guy?

By his body language, and the fact that he's choking on his curry, Alan clearly disagrees. In fact, he's trying to think of an excuse right now to get home to his wife and kids.

Now do you understand what I'm saying? Those terms that are subject to individual human taste, perception, culture etc are not possible to define as rigidly as you would want in order to win an argument.

Religion is one of these things. De gustibus non est disputandum.  

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:58pm:

Your response prompted me to recall the "Johari Window" concept. I may need to start a separate topic on that though.

Yes. Lao Zi invented the concept of individual windows on the world in the "Daodejing" about 2500 years ago, but that's a separate topic again.

He extended the concepts of windows or frames of reference to relative good and bad. Now I know that we see different things out of our windows in that respect, but "de gustibus non est disputandum".


Quote:

The Horse Once upon a time in a village in ancient China there was an old man who lived alone with his son. They were very poor. They had just a small plot of land outside the village to grow rice and vegetables and a rude hut to live in. But they also had a good mare. It was the son's pride and joy, and their only possession of value. One day the mare ran away.The old man's friends came to him and commiserated. "What a wonderful mare that was!" they said. "What bad fortune that she ran off!" "Who can tell?" the old man said. Two weeks later the mare returned accompanied by a fine barbarian stallion. Friends and neighbors all came around and congratulated the old man. "Now you have your mare back, and that stallion is as fine as any in the land. What a stroke of good fortune!" "Who can tell?" the old man said. Two weeks later the son fell off the stallion while riding and broke his leg. Friends of the old man came to him to express their sympathy. "It's too bad your son broke his leg, and right before the planting season, too. What bad luck!" "Who can tell?" the old man said. Two weeks later, war came to the land, and all able-bodied young men were drafted. The troop that contained the men from the village was at the front in a bloody engagement, and the entire troop was lost. All the men from the village died in battle. The young man with the broken leg stayed home. His leg healed. He and his father bred many fine horses, and tended their fields.

(Huai Nan Tzu)

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 7:41am:

De gustibus non est disputandum.

What Barry's really into is abducting prostitutes and slashing their genitalia with a kitchen knife... Alan reckons he's a sick psychopathic bugger but Barry reckons he's just an average bloke getting his rocks off best way he can on a Saturday night.

I dunno... there's no accounting for taste, I reckon.

Mental illness probably deserves another thread. The best we can do is to live our lives in such a way as not to harm others. If there is an individual who obviously doesn't live their life in that way then we need to protect society from that person.

A seed will only grow into a fully formed plant if it's watered and fertilised, but some people are so far gone that that there is nothing that can break through. Others are not. You can't know until you try. I don't think anyone should be given up on, but no one formula is going to work for everybody.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:28pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm: But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist. not according to the dictionary definition ;) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Quote: a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Are you SURE about that nails??? Even you're own dictionary definition contradicts you... "–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

how does it  ??

muso wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 5:03pm: muso wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 11:23am: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:28pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm: But atheism is the absence of belief that ANY deities exist. not according to the dictionary definition ;) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Quote: a·the·ist    /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. You see, we all have common ground. TLN has an irrational belief too - Lexicophilia - the belief that the dictionary (any dictionary) will enable us to derive precise meanings for any term, religious included and solve the deepest philosophical quandaries, stop interpersonal conflicts, global nuclear wars and annoying personal itches.   what's the point of debating an issue if you keep wanting to change the meaning of the words to suit your argument ?? Also you should refrain from using fallacies in your replies :( The meaning of words like religion, God, believe, etc depend very much on the religious position of that person. A Muslim will define and comprehend these terms differently from an Atheist or a Buddhist. I used to be an active member of Atheists.com a long time ago, until I realised that I can't take a position on something that is cognitively meaningless to me. These recycled arguments are meaningless too. Your arguments are not very subtle, and I have a strong feeling that the subtleties of the cosmological argument would be lost on you. You choose a single definition from a dictionary that usually has many, and you expect everybody else to agree that the definition is the one true definition. It's a dishonest position to argue from. You don't apply your own principles, but expect others to. If I were a theist, I'd probably give a damn. I was an atheist once, and as I see it, the quality of atheists has gone downhill since then. "De gustibus non est disputandum" is my personal opinion. A statement like "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" has as much relevance to me as "I take two sugars in my coffee". Belief in God is by necessity a personal thing. I won't debate whether somebody takes two sugars in their coffee or not, and I certainly won't waste my time debating an equally personal position, such as "I believe in God" where God and religion can really be whatever you choose to define them as.

Fallacy of special pleading.


Quote:

Form: Rule: Xs are generally Ys. x is an X. x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic). Therefore, x is not a Y.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

Lisa, then you are saying: If A = B and if B=C then A=C. The debate then is all about the " if " - Bobby NO NO NO!! Before we even get to the "IF" debate .. we need to look at A, B, C a little closer because YOUR construction/perception of A (or B or C) may not equal MY construction/perception of A (or B or C). This isn't maths Bobby. If only it were ..

I suggest that you keep giving the church money until one day the penny will drop and you will finally realize that you have been ripped off all of these years ;)

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 6:48am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). You realise that does not make christians athieists, it makes them monotheists. Thank god they invented velco shoes or you would never be able to go outside.  ;D

no it makes them atheists towards other Gods ;)

monotheism ˈmɒnəʊθɪˌɪzəm]
n
(Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief or doctrine that there is only one God
monotheist  n & adj
monotheistic  adj
monotheistically  adv

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

Fallacy of special pleading. Quote: Form: Rule: Xs are generally Ys. x is an X. x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic). Therefore, x is not a Y.

Yours is the fallacy of composition (the dictionary fallacy) combined with the fact that you have no idea what I'm arguing for. (the headless chook fallacy)

Nail,

Quote:

Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do.

No one has yet disproved the above statement.
Once again Nail is right.

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 11:55am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:29am: Fallacy of special pleading. Quote: Form: Rule: Xs are generally Ys. x is an X. x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic). Therefore, x is not a Y. Yours is the fallacy of composition (the dictionary fallacy) combined with the fact that you have no idea what I'm arguing for. (the headless chook fallacy)

Yep you got that right. Your posts don't make any sense.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

monotheism ˈmɒnəʊθɪˌɪzəm] n (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief or doctrine that there is only one God monotheist  n & adj monotheistic  adj monotheistically  adv

are Christians atheists towards other Gods ??

muso wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 10:19am: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). Christians deny nothing of god's existence. Their dispute is with the worship of (what they'd term) false gods over their one god. All supernatural faculties attributed to the many gods, for Christians, are all vested in the one... They have more common cause with Muslims and Hindus than atheists, who disbelieve in the proposition that god/s exist. The Hindu religion was invented by the British Empire when they gave a name to a strange collection of local and national religious and cultural practices and beliefs (mainly cultural practices) which are often in conflict with each other.

I am not sure about that. What about the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita?

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 11:48am: monotheism ˈmɒnəʊθɪˌɪzəm] n (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief or doctrine that there is only one God monotheist  n & adj monotheistic  adj monotheistically  adv are Christians atheists towards other Gods ??

Christians, are apolytheistic.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

Nail, Quote: Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do. No one has yet disproved the above statement. Once again Nail is right.

As I said before - composition or dictionary fallacy.

# Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
# Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 11:48am: monotheism ˈmɒnəʊθɪˌɪzəm] n (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief or doctrine that there is only one God monotheist  n & adj monotheistic  adj monotheistically  adv are Christians atheists towards other Gods ??

Not really, no.....there is a great difference between not believing in ANY supreme beings (atheists), and considering other supreme beings to be demons, or devils/evil spirits etc ( monotheists)...

Christians believe (or used to) that 'pagan gods', which are basically any gods worshipped by non christians, are all facets of satan, the devil or whatever.....so they technically believe in their existence, just not that they are deities....

It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs....

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:01pm:

muso wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 11:35am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 10:19am: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). Christians deny nothing of god's existence. Their dispute is with the worship of (what they'd term) false gods over their one god. All supernatural faculties attributed to the many gods, for Christians, are all vested in the one... They have more common cause with Muslims and Hindus than atheists, who disbelieve in the proposition that god/s exist. The Hindu religion was invented by the British Empire when they gave a name to a strange collection of local and national religious and cultural practices and beliefs (mainly cultural practices) which are often in conflict with each other. I am not sure about that. What about the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita?

What I'm saying is that the collective term for these Indian religions is Hinduism, and before the British came along, nobody really placed all these religions in one basket. A Hindu is a follower of one of many non-Vedic Indian religions. The Brits started using the term in that way in the 18th Century. Prior to that a Hindu was a non-religious term that just meant an Indian.

Hinduism is much more diverse than (say) Christianity.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:18pm:

Not really, no.....there is a great difference between not believing in ANY supreme beings (atheists), and considering other supreme beings to be demons, or devils/evil spirits etc ( monotheists)...

A god doesn't have to be a supreme being. You'd hardly call Bacchus a supreme being, and followers of the cult of Bacchus were theists, not atheists, however I agree that the original premise is a gross generalisation. I realise that it's not original either.

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:18pm: Not really, no.....there is a great difference between not believing in ANY supreme beings (atheists), and considering other supreme beings to be demons, or devils/evil spirits etc ( monotheists)... A god doesn't have to be a supreme being. You'd hardly call Bacchus a supreme being, and followers of the cult of Bacchus were theists, not atheists, however I agree that the original premise is a gross generalisation. I realise that it's not original either.

Perhaps I should have used the terms gods or deities instead of 'supreme being'????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Perhaps I should have used the terms gods or deities instead of 'supreme being'????

Yeah. Bacchus is more of a supremely pissed being.

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 7:53am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 10:58pm: Your response prompted me to recall the "Johari Window" concept. I may need to start a separate topic on that though. Yes. Lao Zi invented the concept of individual windows on the world in the "Daodejing" about 2500 years ago, but that's a separate topic again. He extended the concepts of windows or frames of reference to relative good and bad. Now I know that we see different things out of our windows in that respect, but "de gustibus non est disputandum". Quote: The Horse Once upon a time in a village in ancient China there was an old man who lived alone with his son. They were very poor. They had just a small plot of land outside the village to grow rice and vegetables and a rude hut to live in. But they also had a good mare. It was the son's pride and joy, and their only possession of value. One day the mare ran away.The old man's friends came to him and commiserated. "What a wonderful mare that was!" they said. "What bad fortune that she ran off!" "Who can tell?" the old man said. Two weeks later the mare returned accompanied by a fine barbarian stallion. Friends and neighbors all came around and congratulated the old man. "Now you have your mare back, and that stallion is as fine as any in the land. What a stroke of good fortune!" "Who can tell?" the old man said. Two weeks later the son fell off the stallion while riding and broke his leg. Friends of the old man came to him to express their sympathy. "It's too bad your son broke his leg, and right before the planting season, too. What bad luck!" "Who can tell?" the old man said. Two weeks later, war came to the land, and all able-bodied young men were drafted. The troop that contained the men from the village was at the front in a bloody engagement, and the entire troop was lost. All the men from the village died in battle. The young man with the broken leg stayed home. His leg healed. He and his father bred many fine horses, and tended their fields. (Huai Nan Tzu)

Excellent post! I do believe it's time we started a new topic regarding this. There is much to be said for WINDOWS .. and so much to be learned :)

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:32pm: Perhaps I should have used the terms gods or deities instead of 'supreme being'???? Yeah. Bacchus is more of a supremely pissed being.

LOL but he was the supreme being who made wine ferment....so.......I feel that is a supreme idea...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs....

It has been a long time since I basically came to the conclusion that: there are as many religions in this world as there are religious people - since each and every religious person both adopts and rejects a range of moral and theological ingredients for their life (and death), according to what most suits their own ego and personal agenda/s, to cook up their own religious recipe...

Only an ignoramus and/or dogmatist would believe otherwise!

BTW, the same goes for Agnostics and Atheists - who will also devise their own moral code but will make a conscious decision to either remain ambivalent or to reject all religions - and who may or may not adopt a different form of 'spirituality'...

Equitist wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:21pm: It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs.... It has been a long time since I basically came to the conclusion that: there are as many religions in this world as there are religious people - since each and every religious person both adopts and rejects a range of moral and theological ingredients for their life (and death), according to what most suits their own ego and personal agenda/s, to cook up their own religious recipe... Only an ignoramus and/or dogmatist would believe otherwise! BTW, the same goes for Agnostics and Atheists - who will also devise their own moral code but will make a conscious decision to either remain ambivalent or to reject all religions - and who may or may not adopt a different form of 'spirituality'...

Yes, that's why there are so many different versions of each religion....Just look a how many different 'churches' exist within christianity (for example)...each is slightly different.

Equitist wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:21pm: It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs.... It has been a long time since I basically came to the conclusion that: there are as many religions in this world as there are religious people - since each and every religious person both adopts and rejects a range of moral and theological ingredients for their life (and death), according to what most suits their own ego and personal agenda/s, to cook up their own religious recipe... Only an ignoramus and/or dogmatist would believe otherwise!

Exactly. That sums up how I feel too. I find anti-theists to be as irritating as evangelicals these days.

Atheists and Christians are really not that different. The important thing for me is the thought processes rather than the beliefs.

Who cares if you believe in God or not? Such a belief (or lack of) doesn't say anything about the person and how they go about their life.

Here's a poignant illustration of today's tangent: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297475999/47#47


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 2:41pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 9:13pm: tln, I agree. Luke is from the new testament, so for christians. Levicitus is from the old testament, so for jews. Both of you are wrong. ANY sin excludes you from heaven - from the smallest to the largest.

Ahh many thanks Equitist for bringing that contentious topic to my attention.

I've sorted that little discrepancy out now.

>> pensively ponders why it must take a woman to correct/reassure men .. sighs <<

Everyone's religion is right and all the others are wrong. Enlightenment comes from within.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

Ahh many thanks Equitist for bringing that contentious topic to my attention. I've sorted that little discrepancy out. >> pensively ponders why it must take a woman to correct/reassure men .. sighs <<

LOL...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297475999/47#47


Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 2:41pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 9:13pm: tln, I agree. Luke is from the new testament, so for christians. Levicitus is from the old testament, so for jews. Both of you are wrong. ANY sin excludes you from heaven - from the smallest to the largest. Actually both of you are right. Remember the Old Testament is a shadow of and is confirmed by the New Testament.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

Ahh many thanks Equitist for bringing that contentious topic to my attention. I've sorted that little discrepancy out now. >> pensively ponders why it must take a woman to correct/reassure men .. sighs <<

It doesn't....we men just let you THINK it does...LOL (sarcasm)

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:43am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:48am: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). You realise that does not make christians athieists, it makes them monotheists. Thank god they invented velco shoes or you would never be able to go outside.  ;D no it makes them atheists towards other Gods ;)

The christian, jews and muslims believe in the same god, so why are only the christian atheist and not the other 2?

(comment deleted by Mod: personal attack)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:17pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 3:10pm: Ahh many thanks Equitist for bringing that contentious topic to my attention. I've sorted that little discrepancy out now. >> pensively ponders why it must take a woman to correct/reassure men .. sighs << It doesn't....we men just let you THINK it does...LOL (sarcasm)

Hmmm .. is that so lol ???

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 3:17pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 3:10pm: Ahh many thanks Equitist for bringing that contentious topic to my attention. I've sorted that little discrepancy out now. >> pensively ponders why it must take a woman to correct/reassure men .. sighs << It doesn't....we men just let you THINK it does...LOL (sarcasm) Hmmm .. is that so lol ???

LOL, no, but it sounded good, didn't it???

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:43am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:48am: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:52pm: Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, Yahweh. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do (or three, maybe). You realise that does not make christians athieists, it makes them monotheists. Thank god they invented velco shoes or you would never be able to go outside.  ;D no it makes them atheists towards other Gods ;) The christian, jews and muslims believe in the same god, so why are only the christian atheist and not the other 2? (comment deleted by Mod: personal attack)

what have i stated that is false ??

muso wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

Equitist wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:47pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:21pm: It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs.... It has been a long time since I basically came to the conclusion that: there are as many religions in this world as there are religious people - since each and every religious person both adopts and rejects a range of moral and theological ingredients for their life (and death), according to what most suits their own ego and personal agenda/s, to cook up their own religious recipe... Only an ignoramus and/or dogmatist would believe otherwise! Exactly. That sums up how I feel too. I find anti-theists to be as irritating as evangelicals these days. Atheists and Christians are really not that different. The important thing for me is the thought processes rather than the beliefs.

That's right. Atheists just deny the existence of one more God than Christians do ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 6:14pm:

muso wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 2:31pm: Equitist wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:47pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:21pm: It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs.... It has been a long time since I basically came to the conclusion that: there are as many religions in this world as there are religious people - since each and every religious person both adopts and rejects a range of moral and theological ingredients for their life (and death), according to what most suits their own ego and personal agenda/s, to cook up their own religious recipe... Only an ignoramus and/or dogmatist would believe otherwise! Exactly. That sums up how I feel too. I find anti-theists to be as irritating as evangelicals these days. Atheists and Christians are really not that different. The important thing for me is the thought processes rather than the beliefs. That's right. Atheists just deny the existence of one more God than Christians do ;)

I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:14pm: muso wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 2:31pm: Equitist wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:47pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 1:21pm: It's very hard to be specific about it, since there are as many different versions of christianity, as there are christian churchs......and they all have slightly different beliefs.... It has been a long time since I basically came to the conclusion that: there are as many religions in this world as there are religious people - since each and every religious person both adopts and rejects a range of moral and theological ingredients for their life (and death), according to what most suits their own ego and personal agenda/s, to cook up their own religious recipe... Only an ignoramus and/or dogmatist would believe otherwise! Exactly. That sums up how I feel too. I find anti-theists to be as irritating as evangelicals these days. Atheists and Christians are really not that different. The important thing for me is the thought processes rather than the beliefs. That's right. Atheists just deny the existence of one more God than Christians do ;) I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did!

but it's true though isn't it :) LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:05pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:23pm: I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did! but it's true though isn't it :) LOL

They're a-polytheists.

All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same... Otherwise you've got two. The argument is not about the existence of the one god, just the nature of the the one god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:16pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:05pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:23pm: I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did! but it's true though isn't it :) LOL They're a-polytheists. All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same... Otherwise you've got two. The argument is not about the existence of the one god, just the nature of the the one god.

and the fact they are quite ready to deny the existence of any other God or Gods ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:05pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:23pm: I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did! but it's true though isn't it :) LOL They're a-polytheists. All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same... Otherwise you've got two. The argument is not about the existence of the one god, just the nature of the the one god. and the fact they are quite ready to deny the existence of any other God or Gods ;)

It's all a question of semantics and definitions. The Ancient Romans would have classified angels, demons, saints etc etc as deities (gods). Christians don't.  The definition of god depends on the religious tradition. In Christianity, it's all very well to believe that other supernatural beings exist. They just reserve the term God for a kind of three-in-one supreme being which is the only one that they worship.

It's a very long bow to draw in comparing them to Atheists, who don't believe in anything that's called god, but they "could" believe in Angels, Astrology, superstition etc.

After all, TLN, if you can use the dictionary, then so can anybody else. I can't find a definition anywhere that says an Atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods or any other supernatural entities. No, you can't back out of that one.

That's why the term 'atheist' is just not very useful.    


Quote:

All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same

Not according to my dictionary.

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 11:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:05pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:23pm: I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did! but it's true though isn't it :) LOL They're a-polytheists. All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same... Otherwise you've got two. The argument is not about the existence of the one god, just the nature of the the one god. and the fact they are quite ready to deny the existence of any other God or Gods ;) It's all a question of semantics and definitions. The Ancient Romans would have classified angels, demons, saints etc etc as deities (gods). Christians don't.  The definition of god depends on the religious tradition. In Christianity, it's all very well to believe that other supernatural beings exist. They just reserve the term God for a kind of three-in-one supreme being which is the only one that they worship. It's a very long bow to draw in comparing them to Atheists, who don't believe in anything that's called god, but they "could" believe in Angels, Astrology, superstition etc. After all, TLN, if you can use the dictionary, then so can anybody else. I can't find a definition anywhere that says an Atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods or any other supernatural entities. No, you can't back out of that one. That's why the term 'atheist' is just not very useful.

My point is that Christians are atheists to all of the other 2800 Gods ;)

If you think that is a moot point then you have to ask Christians why do they deny the existence of these other 2800 Gods when there is no more evidence for the existence of their own God ??

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

My point is that Christians are atheists to all of the other 2800 Gods ;) If you think that is a moot point then you have to ask Christians why do they deny the existence of these other 2800 Gods when there is no more evidence for the existence of their own God ??

I'm getting bored with this.  Let's say that a person only worshipped the Christian God but acknowledged that all other gods existed, would that mean that they were not a real Christian? You're making all sorts of general statements about Christians without even looking up Christian in your dictionary. What kind of Lexicophile are you exactly?

Right that's it. No Christmas presents for you  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo


Some Christian texts show evidence of monolatry:


Quote:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (New International Version) 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

and henotheism:

Psalm 135.5:
Quote:

For I know that the Lord is great, and our Lord is greater than all gods.

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Quote: All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same Not according to my dictionary.

Yeah, well, yknow... dictionaries!!

"We believe in one god" - the first line of the Nicene Creed...

Anyone who makes that statement is in agreement with all Christians and Christians with them...

The disagreement comes quickly enough after that (the attributes and nature of the one god), but not at the profession of faith in one god itself.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:10pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 11:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:16pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 10:05pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 6:23pm: I think you're taking Dawkins' little joke more seriously than he did! but it's true though isn't it :) LOL They're a-polytheists. All Christians accept the god of all monotheists must be the same... Otherwise you've got two. The argument is not about the existence of the one god, just the nature of the the one god. and the fact they are quite ready to deny the existence of any other God or Gods ;) It's all a question of semantics and definitions. The Ancient Romans would have classified angels, demons, saints etc etc as deities (gods). Christians don't.  The definition of god depends on the religious tradition. In Christianity, it's all very well to believe that other supernatural beings exist. They just reserve the term God for a kind of three-in-one supreme being which is the only one that they worship. It's a very long bow to draw in comparing them to Atheists, who don't believe in anything that's called god, but they "could" believe in Angels, Astrology, superstition etc. After all, TLN, if you can use the dictionary, then so can anybody else. I can't find a definition anywhere that says an Atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods or any other supernatural entities. No, you can't back out of that one. That's why the term 'atheist' is just not very useful.     My point is that Christians are atheists to all of the other 2800 Gods ;) If you think that is a moot point then you have to ask Christians why do they deny the existence of these other 2800 Gods when there is no more evidence for the existence of their own God ??

It makes them a-polytheists, not atheists.

BTW - The Last Nail doesn't exist... There's always another bloody nail!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

BTW - The Last Nail doesn't exist... There's always another bloody nail!

Thanks for the reminder that I've lost 2 car tyres to nails over the past year - one of which had 3 nails in it...

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 3:32pm: My point is that Christians are atheists to all of the other 2800 Gods ;) If you think that is a moot point then you have to ask Christians why do they deny the existence of these other 2800 Gods when there is no more evidence for the existence of their own God ?? I'm getting bored with this.  Let's say that a person only worshipped the Christian God but acknowledged that all other gods existed, would that mean that they were not a real Christian? You're making all sorts of general statements about Christians without even looking up Christian in your dictionary. What kind of Lexicophile are you exactly? Right that's it. No Christmas presents for you  ;D

Now all of a sudden the dictionary definitions are relevant when it suits your arguments !! WTF !!

Also how can more than one omnipotent God coexist ?? Christians must deny the existence of other Gods simply because the definitions of these Gods make them conflict with each other such that they cannot coexist together.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 10:05pm:

Now all of a sudden the dictionary definitions are relevant when it suits your arguments !! WTF !!

In Australia, it's what's known as taking the piss. How much of this did you think was serious?  


Quote:

Also how can more than one omnipotent God coexist ?? Christians must deny the existence of other Gods simply because the definitions of these Gods make them conflict with each other such that they cannot coexist together.

What's this thing about omnipotent? I didn't say anything about it. Gods don't have to be omnipotent as I've said before. Bacchus was more impotent than anything else. I have an African god that doesn't do anything except sit on a shelf.



NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

BTW - The Last Nail doesn't exist... There's always another bloody nail!

Actually your challenge is to prove that The Last Nail is actually a Christian. Use dictionary references to back up your case.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:56pm:

Yeah, well, yknow... dictionaries!! "We believe in one god" - the first line of the Nicene Creed... Anyone who makes that statement is in agreement with all Christians and Christians with them... The disagreement comes quickly enough after that (the attributes and nature of the one god), but not at the profession of faith in one god itself.

Do you know what Christians generally mean when they say "believe in"?

Within the Christian context, to believe in means to have personal trust and faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean "believe he exists"

muso wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 8:56pm: Yeah, well, yknow... dictionaries!! "We believe in one god" - the first line of the Nicene Creed... Anyone who makes that statement is in agreement with all Christians and Christians with them... The disagreement comes quickly enough after that (the attributes and nature of the one god), but not at the profession of faith in one god itself. Do you know what Christians generally mean when they say "believe in"? Within the Christian context, to believe in means to have personal trust and faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean "believe he exists"

Bupp boww... ahh no sorry, What Christians mean when  they recite the first line of the Nicene creed is "We believe in one god"... That 's what separated them from Roman polytheists after 325AD as decreed by the Emperor Constantine, to define the Christian faith.

He was a sun worshipper after all, of which, in our solar system, there is only one.

If they think its meaning something else... well then they just ain't Christian folk.

Helian - I believe only in the Sun God.
I can see him - he rises every day & he goes down every night.
He never fails to appear when I ask him in the morning.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 10:25pm:

Helian - I believe only in the Sun God. I can see him - he rises every day & he goes down every night. He never fails to appear when I ask him in the morning.

I'm pretty sure you've angered the CLOUD God as well as the RAIN God with that remark Bobby :P

NB I never modified anything in your original remark either (I merely pressed the wrong key here lol).

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 15th, 2011 at 10:25pm: Helian - I believe only in the Sun God. I can see him - he rises every day & he goes down every night. He never fails to appear when I ask him in the morning. I'm pretty sure you've angered the CLOUD God as well as the RAIN God with that remark Bobby :P NB I never modified anything in your original remark either (I merely pressed the wrong key here lol).

No I haven't - even when clouds & rain appear his light still shines through
enough to turn night into day.  :)

I do believe the French word touche may need to be inserted here Bobby lol :)