Forums » Theology

• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 26, 2012 6:33:54 PM EDT

  Kinda getting way off topic, me thinks.
  
  Dave, in all honesty, and with all due respect, you have a "goofy" interpretation of Christian doctrine and the Bible. Understandable, given that you arent in "the club." But, I would suggest that you not present your thoughts as fact. Maybe ask others if your interpretation appears correct, etc.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 26, 2012 6:40:52 PM EDT

  I guess the whole idea of God must be based in something other than feelings. I mean, if we are to put our eternity in the hands of a god, we should be able to point to something objective. Feelings have gotten me into a great deal of trouble.
  
  So, I would offer that there is objectivity to Christianity. Eric, I am really not familiar with your religion. Is there objectivity in it? Are there truths that can be proven? Something that can be objectively analyzed?
• Jonathan Cousar

  

  • Internet Czar
  • 2581 posts
   

  July 26, 2012 9:40:56 PM EDT

  Robert, good point about objectivity. I would also add historical verifiability and corroboration.
  
  Eric, I would add to Robert's questions about objective validation, are there historical claims made by the religion that can be verified?
• Tyler Ramey

  

  • 6 posts
   

  July 26, 2012 10:12:14 PM EDT

  Wow! There are so many rabbit trails in this discussion that I'm hard pressed wondering where the value lies. To consider:
  
  When it comes to the very concept of "God," the notion of MORE THAN ONE is an impossibility. Note: If one cares to discuss ancient Greek or Norse conceptions, that is an entirely different matter. I'm talking strictly about a monotheistic world view, which seems to be the main emphasis in this discussion. Since that is the case, let's dispense with other world views in order to advance to weighing and verifying historically reliable truth claims. Can we at least agree that if there is any God at all, he/it is ULTIMATE <~~(key concept), and that the defining qualities of what the very concept "God" means requires that there can be no equal. Thus, any notion of "gods" is erroneous, completely illogical, granting that the definition of what "God" means demands no equal.
  
  If there is no concession on this point, then we might as well "agree" to constructively argue that "up" is the same as "down," which is clearly ludicrous and total waste of time.
  
  Thoughts? And, please, by "thoughts" I mean to simply pull an "Agreed, good point, Tyler" from sincere truth seekers interested in both a reasoned dialogue and a challenge.
• Doug Walters

  

  • 126 posts
   

  July 26, 2012 10:28:28 PM EDT

  Agreed.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 12:02:22 AM EDT

  Well Tyler, as much as I would like to bestow an "Agreed," I cannot. Atleast, maybe, I cannot. It appears that Eric does not believe in a monotheist! So, how can we have a discussion where he gives his beliefs, if we "outlaw" the mentioning of his beliefs???
  
  However, I do agree, that the "atheist" viewpoint is a waste of time to discuss.
  
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 8:31:15 AM EDT

  Jonathan Cousar said:
  Robert, good point about objectivity. I would also add historical verifiability and corroboration. Eric, I would add to Robert's questions about objective validation, are there historical claims made by the religion that can be verified?
  The problem with proving anything is due to the fact that most mentionings of the old Gods were destroyed by Christian (not true Christians) zealots. What has survived are in the Eddas and Sagas. But everyday, at least, my religion is verified as I'm sure in your daily life Yahweh is verified. For example the idea of the world being round is symbolized by Ymirs skull and the existence of nine worlds all having varying environments coincides with the 9 planets of our solar system. So that there is enough objective proof for me just like the objective proofs that Hassan once pointed out about the Bible in concerns with a round earth instead of the often misinformed notion that Christians, as a whole, are flat earthers.
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 8:33:44 AM EDT

  Robert Watson said:
  Well Tyler, as much as I would like to bestow an "Agreed," I cannot. Atleast, maybe, I cannot. It appears that Eric does not believe in a monotheist! So, how can we have a discussion where he gives his beliefs, if we "outlaw" the mentioning of his beliefs??? However, I do agree, that the "atheist" viewpoint is a waste of time to discuss.
  What do you mean by me not believing in monotheists? Of course, I believe in monotheists. So, if you could explain that further. And who exactly outlawing mentioning of my beliefs? I think you are jumping to too many conclusions that aren't there unless I'm misunderstanding you. If that's the case, my apologies butnim notnreallymfollowing what exactly you are saying. It's kinda vague.
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 8:44:27 AM EDT

  Tyler:"Can we at least agree that if there is any God at all, he/it is ULTIMATE <~~(key concept), and that the defining qualities of what the very concept "God" means requires that there can be no equal. Thus, any notion of "gods" is erroneous, completely illogical, granting that the definition of what "God" means demands no equal. "
  
  I would be inclined to agree, however if you review the personalities and traits of each god, they have their faults and positive aspects. Surely, Thor is mightier than even the Allfather Himself, Odin, but Odin has more wisdom than Thor. Yahweh just happens every aspect of every God wrapped into one. A jealous vengeful God who can rain down destruction on sinners while being full of wisdom and love. This sounds like a combination of Zeus, Ares, and Athena.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 9:56:20 AM EDT

  Eric, you talk about your religion having multiple gods. I may be wrong. But, I dont think that is the definition of monotheism.
  
  My point was, if you believe in multiple gods and we can only comment on monotheistic traits, it would not afford you the opportunity to comment.
• Doug Walters

  

  • 126 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:01:14 AM EDT

  Thor, Zeus, Odin and the others are comic book book gods. Why would anybody worship them? Seriously, even Superman has no real powers.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:02:09 AM EDT

  What Im finding difficult to follow is your mentioning of different gods. You've mentioned "Ymirs" as a god of yours. However, you have mentioned Nose god's too. It might be easier to discuss this topic if we limit our examples to our respective religions.
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:23:48 AM EDT

  Robert Watson said:
  Eric, you talk about your religion having multiple gods. I may be wrong. But, I dont think that is the definition of monotheism. My point was, if you believe in multiple gods and we can only comment on monotheistic traits, it would not afford you the opportunity to comment.
  Your exact word were I don't believe in monotheists, so with your response you meant monotheism. My apologies for misunderstanding. That's why I ask for clarification before jumping to assumptions. Even though I'm a polytheist doesn't mean I don't believe in monotheism, which is the worship of one god. Out of the many gods one can pick one to worship. That's ones freedom to choose just one god to worship, so to say I don't believe it is plain false. The only difference is is that I don't believe there is JUST one god, but that's a matter of personal faith.
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:27:21 AM EDT

  Doug Walters said:
  Thor, Zeus, Odin and the others are comic book book gods. Why would anybody worship them? Seriously, even Superman has no real powers.
  These gods were around long before comic books, so unless there's archeological evidence that shows DC and Marvel comics produced these gods in comic book back in the BC era, then I can't images why you would say something like that that isn't constructive, because I could use the correlation between Yeshuah and Superman, but I won't dive that far into the muck. It would be disrespectful to Yeshuah and His followers.
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:28:17 AM EDT

  Robert Watson said:
  What Im finding difficult to follow is your mentioning of different gods. You've mentioned "Ymirs" as a god of yours. However, you have mentioned Nose god's too. It might be easier to discuss this topic if we limit our examples to our respective religions.
  Ymir is part of Norse theology.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:40:58 AM EDT

  Oh good grief! I type the wrong word and you run with it! As if everything I had said prior to and after that are irrelevant to the actual topic! I was simply trying to afford you the opportunity to tell us what you believe. I have no desire to waste my time engaging in mental gymnastics or word smithing! We have already spent way too much time on minutia. Best of luck and may you have a prosperous and happy life.

  
  This post was edited by Robert Watson at July 27, 2012 10:44:45 AM EDT
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:46:32 AM EDT

  Robert Watson said:
  Oh good grief! I left out a word and you run with it! I guess everything I had said prior to and after that are irrelevant to the actual topic! I was trying to afford you the opportunity to tell us what you believe. I have no desire to engage in mental gymnastics or word smiting! We are spending way too much time of minutia. Best of luck and may you have a prosperous and happy life.
  Where did I say it was irrelevant? And I did apologize for the misunderstanding, so what's the deal? This is the nature of discussion isn't it? I wish you would stay and keep contributing, but if it's too difficult I won't bother you. I do thank you for your words of well being and hope the best as well for you. Be safe, my friend.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 11:55:43 AM EDT

  Ok, Your last comment is a good example of what I am talking about. I never said....that you said...it was irrelevant. My comment was directed toward your misdirecting. I asked you, straight forwardly, to explain to me what your religion believes. You really have not done that. Instead, you focus on the periphery.
  
  What you are doing is most certainly not the nature of a discussion. It is, however, the nature of passive aggressive confrontation.
  
  "But, if it is too difficult..." Shame on you. A gentleman would not behave like that.
  
  At first, I thought that you were taking advantage of my openness and genuine desire to communicate with you. However, in reality, I had only afforded you more respect than you deserve.
• Eric Lundrbeck

  

  • 118 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 12:08:15 PM EDT

  Robert Watson said:
  Ok, Your last comment is a good example of what I am talking about. I never said....that you said...it was irrelevant. My comment was directed toward your misdirecting. I asked you, straight forwardly, to explain to me what your religion believes. You really have not done that. Instead, you focus on the periphery. What you are doing is most certainly not the nature of a discussion. It is, however, the nature of passive aggressive confrontation. "But, if it is too difficult..." Shame on you. A gentleman would not behave like that. At first, I thought that you were taking advantage of my openness and genuine desire to communicate with you. However, in reality, I had only afforded you more respect than you deserve.
  You asked if there was objectivity and proof to my religion and I did just that. Nowhere do you ask pointedly to explain the entire theology of my religion. And to accuses me of passive aggressiveness would be a pot calling the kettle black with your previous insistence of calling Dave's interpretation of Christianity as "goofy". You are the one who stated your difficulties, not me. The point of that was to state that I. Not going to belittle nor pester you to stay, so if you felt offense to that remark that wasn't my intentions. So I apologize deeply for any offense I caused you.
• ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave►

  

  • 41 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 1:17:27 PM EDT

  Let him go, Eric. Fanatical monotheists tend to be too small-minded to add much to a discussion of alternative worldviews. When one considers the mental gymnastics required to agglomerate all of the gods of Christendom into a single omnibus, omnificent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity, it is little wonder. Without even getting into their Devil and sundry other 'heavenly hosts,' just imagine what it would take, for an at least semi-rational mind, to reconcile conflating the angry, jealous, petulant, vengeful, wrathful, spiteful, bloodthirsty, and downright evil god of the Old Testament, with the pacific, kindly, benevolent, loving gospel of the New Testament, produced during its incarnation as Jesus. They speak of their loving God, yet they refer to themselves as 'God fearing Christians.' They must be; because they are fully prepared (some are even eager) for it to revert to the Old Testament version, to fulfill the prophesy of Revelations, to destroy the planet in the vengeful process of sorting out all of us sinners. For too many, their piety is not about love; it is about earning a ticket to the Rapture. ;-) ◄Dave►