Do we all worship the same God?

[Katzpur]

No, we don't at all. They say we do, but since when was Yaweh residing near the Star Kolob, which our Mormon friends insist he,oops, it is doing. I mean how many light years away is that !!

K

1) I believe that God resides in Heaven. Where do you believe He resides?

2) I believe that God, our Father in Heaven, should be referred to as "He." Why do you refer to Him as "it"?

3) Why do you care where Heaven is? Shouldn't getting there be more important to you than how many light years away it is?

4) Are you ever courteous to people whose beliefs are different from yours? Or is your intolerant and belittling attitude directed exclusively towards the Latter-day Saints?

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Every so often I see someone say that we all worship the same God...but how can that be if the basic philosophies differ? For example, how can a muslim or Christian ever believe they worship the same God since there is a vast difference in the belief systems?

Looking forward to the responses.

When I studied other religions, I found fast amounts of similarities, not differences. Maybe it's the glass is half-full thing. I believe that we all are worshipping the same God. And the way I explain the differences to those who don't understand is this . . .

Melody, your body is made up of a gajillion different cells. The body of Christ is made up of a gajillion different people.

Cells are pretty much the same, nucleus, cell wall and such, but each one is also somewhat unique, just like people.

Groups of similar cells stick together to form all the different organs of the body. With people, similar souls will come together to form soul groups. This includes the religion you choose as well as the friends you surround yourself with.

Every cell in your body has the purpose of serving the body as a whole. And each group of cells has a different set of rules and guidlines. The heart cells work continuously from birth to death, however, the ovaries only work for a limited amount of time within the life of the body. The brain cells need rest, while the lungs and blood work constantly.

Now if our cells had minds of their own, the heart would probably feel like it was the most important cell group and believe that the blood is the only nurishment for the body. The stomache would feel it was most important and that the nurishment it provides the body is the only nurishment for the body. The skin would feel that it was the most important group and that moisture and sunlight was the only nurishment for the body.

The human body could not survive if one group of cells convinced all the other cells that their way was the only way. And the spiritual body that we are all a part of could not exist if we were all the same, with the same requirements for living, and giving to the whole.

We cannot make rock stew if we all bring the stones. We will all bring something different to add to the pot, and it's going to be delicious.

 

[Sabio]

When I studied other religions, I found fast amounts of similarities, not differences.

Enhanced,

This is similar to what Chrisitians believe about the body of believers in Jesus referred to as "The Church".

Sabio

1 Corinthians 12
12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14For the body is not one member, but many.

15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=Mr_Spinkles]
............"I get your drift, in the sense that that is what you are comfortable with and therefore that is what you choose to beleive. However, any claims regarding which configuration of supernatural entities is "more likely" or "makes more sense" are utterly baseless. It's a bit contradictory, I think, to reject polytheism on the grounds that it "doesn't make sense" while embracing a theism which is "incomprehensible". Theists, of all people, should know that the supernatural is in no way constrained by what "makes sense" to us."................................. :tsk: [/color][/PART QUOTE]


Hey, but since you think the whole Idea of theism to be baseless, and it is what I am comfortable with it, I may as well 'go the whole hog' in the rules concerning my irrational, and to you - baseless- beliefs. Why should I introduce your logic into my illogical (to you) beliefs.

 

[Sabio]

When discussing the supernatural, what one person "finds more reasonable" is entirely irrelevant. I don't find an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god who allows evil to exist to be "reasonable", but believers in the aforementioned deity will simply dismiss that concern with "I don't pretend to comprehend god's ways....etc, etc." Most theists concede that some of what they believe may not seem "reasonable", but they believe it anyway, because what kind of arrogant know-it-all would reject something simply because it doesn't make sense to them?
[/color]

Mr_Spinkles,

God is a "Spirit", what appropriate methods have you used to disprove that God is "reasonable"?

Sabio

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey, but since you think the whole Idea of theism to be baseless, and it is what I am comfortable with it, I may as well 'go the whole hog' in the rules concerning my irrational, and to you - baseless- beliefs. Why should I introduce your logic into my illogical (to you) beliefs.

I never said you should. Do you agree or disagree that the supernatural is not constrained by what is rational/makes sense to us?

God is a "Spirit", what appropriate methods have you used to disprove that God is "reasonable"?

The question posed is moot; I did not claim to have disproved that God is "reasonable". My point is that, by definition, that which is supernatural is not contrained by what is reasonable/makes sense to us. Therefore, arguments along the lines of "There can be only one God because it wouldn't make sense to have more than one god" are baseless.

 

[kreeden]

My point is that, by definition, that which is supernatural is not contrained by what is reasonable/makes sense to us. Therefore, arguments along the lines of "There can be only one God because it wouldn't make sense to have more than one god" are baseless.

I believe that you and I have different definations of " supernatural " , and " reasonable ". Or perhaps not so much a difference in defination , as how we apply such definationations ? Any abstract idea could be considered " unreasonable ". And as such , reason has little to do with what one may find logical . Is it reasonable to assume that a " black body " sucks up all light , and yet emits it's own light ? Science appears to think so .

Besides , I don't claim to be " reasonable ".

 

[michel]

I never said you should. Do you agree or disagree that the supernatural is not constrained by what is rational/makes sense to us?

The question posed is moot; I did not claim to have disproved that God is "reasonable". My point is that, by definition, that which is supernatural is not contrained by what is reasonable/makes sense to us. Therefore, arguments along the lines of "There can be only one God because it wouldn't make sense to have more than one god" are baseless.

It's late (In England), I am tired, and I had to read your question three times;
Having said that, I think the answer is "That I agree that the Supernatural is not constrained by what is rational." - which I suppose leads to the conclusion that my thoughts are irrational. Having said that, my love for my son who cannot seem to be able to be learn that money does not grow on trees (a irrational thought) is irrational.

I would further suggest that we humans 'accept' irrational thoughts - eg those frightened of spiders (Who, if rational would know that the little spider cannot hurt them)- doesn't this mean that we all have some propensity fot being irrational ?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's late (In England), I am tired, and I had to read your question three times;
Having said that, I think the answer is "That I agree that the Supernatural is not constrained by what is rational." - which I suppose leads to the conclusion that my thoughts are irrational.

Actually, no. My point is simply that the "reasonableness" of the existence of many gods (as opposed to one single god) is irrelevant.....if there can be one god, there can just as easily be one hundred. I'm not attacking theism here, I'm defending polytheism, you could say.

I would further suggest that we humans 'accept' irrational thoughts - eg those frightened of spiders (Who, if rational would know that the little spider cannot hurt them)- doesn't this mean that we all have some propensity fot being irrational ?

Absolutely! I totally agree--myself included. I did not say it is "bad" to be irrational....I didn't even say that theism was irrational. I'm just saying there is no reason to assume there can only be one god....even if one thinks that many gods is "irrational".

 

[Kowalski]

Every so often I see someone say that we all worship the same God...but how can that be if the basic philosophies differ? For example, how can a muslim or Christian ever believe they worship the same God since there is a vast difference in the belief systems?

Looking forward to the responses.

They all worship money, the universal God.

Cheers

K

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They all worship money, the universal God.

Christians too? But, aren't you Anglican, Kowalski--a Christian sect?

 

[michel]

Actually, no. My point is simply that the "reasonableness" of the existence of many gods (as opposed to one single god) is irrelevant.....if there can be one god, there can just as easily be one hundred. I'm not attacking theism here, I'm defending polytheism, you could say.

Absolutely! I totally agree--myself included. I did not say it is "bad" to be irrational....I didn't even say that theism was irrational. I'm just saying there is no reason to assume there can only be one god....even if one thinks that many gods is "irrational".

Ah; O.k; I see what you mean; No, there is no reason for someone other than a Christian to believe in Multiple Gods - he can have as many as he likes, as far as I am concerned, just as you seem to not want to believe in any, wich is your right too.

But from my perspective, to believe in my one 'true' God of Christianity is what I believe is tue, and therefore 'correct' for me.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

I do alot of graphic arts. And the picture I have posted on my personal webpage is perfect for this conversation. God is Love, right?

Well, here is my personal interpretation of the whole thing.

 

[Kowalski]

Christians too? But, aren't you Anglican, Kowalski--a Christian sect?

I am indeed Sprinkles, but that doesn't mean I buy into all. far from it. I'm like David Jenkins, ex Arch-Bishop of Durham, who questioned all the basic tenets of the Faith.

Cheers

K

 

[Sunstone]

I'm with Spinks in this respect: I think if I were to become a theist, it would be emotionally and intellectually easier for me to be a polythiest than it would to be a monotheist. For one thing, when I look at nature, I am struck by how diverse it is. How can such myraid diversity be the product of just one god?

 

[Katzpur]

I do alot of graphic arts. And the picture I have posted on my personal webpage is perfect for this conversation. God is Love, right?

Well, here is my personal interpretation of the whole thing.

Wow, Spirit! That's gorgeous! I love it! I've seen similar representations before, but yours is really beautiful.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I'm with Spinks in this respect: I think if I were to become a theist, it would be emotionally and intellectually easier for me to be a polythiest than it would to be a monotheist. For one thing, when I look at nature, I am struck by how diverse it is. How can such myraid diversity be the product of just one god?

Well said. Furthermore, one might ask why only "Masculine principles" are represented in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim gods. It is also strange to me to think that anyone could completely conceive divinity in the form of a single conept. That just doesn't make much sense. I've studied most every god and goddess out there and I still do not have a total and complete understanding of divinity.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

When I was a little girl. Mom always made us eat dark meat chicken, while she and dad got the white meat. For a very long time, I thought there were two different kinds of chicken involved. I thought there was white meat chicken and dark meat chicken.

I suppose how we view the Source is somewhat similar. We each only see a certain side of the Source, and define it through our own experience. But the God I seek is way too big for any one religion, and I seek him EVERYWHERE. His next message might even come from a Satanist here on RF. You never know where God will reveal himself to you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When I was a little girl. Mom always made us eat dark meat chicken, while she and dad got the white meat. For a very long time, I thought there were two different kinds of chicken involved. I thought there was white meat chicken and dark meat chicken.

I suppose how we view the Source is somewhat similar. We each only see a certain side of the Source, and define it through our own experience.

Do those sides come with the chicken, or are they extra?

 

[michel]

Well said. Furthermore, one might ask why only "Masculine principles" are represented in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim gods. It is also strange to me to think that anyone could completely conceive divinity in the form of a single conept. That just doesn't make much sense. I've studied most every god and goddess out there and I still do not have a total and complete understanding of divinity.

Well, like it or not, for a Christian, the Bible is pretty clear on the roles of Men and women in the Faith - and I do want to accept 'the whole package' - I can't be happy picking and choosing what I like and what I don't like. With me, it's all or nothing - and I have made my bed, for me it is 'all'.

Slightly off - topic, my wife sees the roles of men and women in the 'classic' style - she has a problem with women who insist on totall equality - and that is nothing I have said; it is her thought.