Other religions aware of Judeo-Christian deity?

Post Reply New Topic

This is profoundly interesting to me. Assuming that the Judeo-Christian deity is the one true God, as the Bible claims, would other religions apprehend, not to necessarily say comprehend, this deity in their theology?

Those advocating one-world faith / all-faiths-are-one will want to respond in this thread, because you have an opportunity to persuade me somewhat. Not all the way, certainly, but somewhat. Not all the way, because I do believe that many religions are simply mutually exclusive in even the most basic of their claims about their deities. But I also believe that certain other religions are not so dissimilar in the basic ways they view their deities, i.e. the attributes "good" and "powerful".

Much of the world believes in a powerful, good (or at least non-evil) deity. One of my questions is this: Given a "one true God" who is both good and powerful exists, exactly how mistaken does one have to be about the attributes of this deity to be said to definitely not be thinking of this deity, but rather, of a different one? In other words, who (which religions) might actually be focusing their attention upon my God, but simply have very different views of His attributes? Versus, which deity-holding religions could be said to be definitely, absolutely, and unequivocally not looking at or toward my God at all, but rather to a completely and utterly different deity instead? Ach, this question simply can't be answered by humans with 100% certainty..............

I just imagine this possibility: I'll get to Heaven, find people of other religions there, and hear God say to them, "No, you had this and that all wrong about me, but you were still believing in me, just with a few errors in the specifics. I recognized it wasn't your fault, and so here you are in my Kingdom, just like the Christians."

("Ach" is my favorite German word. There's just not an exact parallel for it in English.)

Last edited by Ragtime on 08 Jan 2009, 3:47 pm, edited 5 times in total.

a lot of people think no matter what God your worshiping-its all the same thing
if there really was a loving God-and he made us-he or she-I think its both and neither-I am too simple to comprehend it-would have made us...not so stupid
and he woudln't be so damn evil and sadistic

I think the myths in the bible where actually based on other faiths, and got lost in translation to become the bible as it is today.

The idea of a 'one-true-god' came from ancient egypt when the pharoah (forget which one) called upon the people to worship only Ra, the sun god. There are MANY gods and goddesses in egypt, all worshiped in different dynasties, one was horus, who was born a virgin birth.

People who claim the bible to be original material really need to do their research to back it up.

yeah its a weak founded religion, hence why I went to paganism-multi god religions always make more sense to me

Most of the evidence is against that, such as the extremely scrupulous care with which the ancient Jewish scribes perserved, with the highest of holy reverence, every single letter forming each and every word of their Scriptures, but anyway...



^ Two contradictory sentences you have there...

Also, the Horus-Christ connection is scant, and often very much inflated by those wishing to debunk Christianity.
If you disagree, list all the similarities you can find between Horus and Jesus, and we'll go through them one by one.
I've also heard from a doctored theologian whom I know personally that it was the other way around -- that some of the Christ-like attributes of Horus actually came into existence after Isaiah's virgin birth prophecy was written:
(Isaiah 7:14)



And Mozart should have known that Bach had already used all 12 tones in the standard musical scale,
and thus none of Mozart's works are original.

Small (and I mean small) elements found in the Bible which predate the Bible prove nothing. There are many large and intricate tapestries of theology that are found in the Bible which are totally original, unreduceable, and frankly unexplainable for an ancient people of incredibly antiquated understanding of the natural world.

yeah but it does seem rather stupid for an invisible man who lives in another plain of existence
and jesus went zombie and flew up to heaven

oops

Last edited by Ragtime on 12 Jan 2009, 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Imagine for a moment that you had a computer. And in this computer you had the ability to create instances of artificial intelligence. Now lets say in this hypothesis you're kind of bored and you want to create a game or maybe just a "simulation" to entertain yourself. So you decide to create a virtual environment in your computer with a bunch of artificial intelligences. Think "sim earth".

Which simulation would be more interesting?

a) Artificial intelligences know that you created them and are generally very intelligent and experience very few "problems" of any kind because they're smart enough to solve any given "problem" the moment it arises. They dance around and sing happy songs. Tada.

b) Artificial intelligences are limited in their intellectual capacity, confused about who or what created them (or even if such a creator exists), experience various different problems such as physical illness, resource scarcity, anger, violence, etc.

Further... knowing that these artificial intelligences are etheric, could you consider any morality in the decision of which simulation to create? In other words, would it be evil to create either simulation?

So imo, if there is a god (which I'm not necessarily convinced there has to be one, but there might), then I'm thinking "god" created a B-style simulation just to have the experience of it. In this scenario the artificial intelligences (us) may from time to time propose various hypothesis about "the creator" and there may be some truth in them, but there's never really any need or intent for any of them to know the whole story or for that matter to know any specific part with any accuracy. Hence, while ideas expressed in something like the Bible may be accurate, there's no necessity for accuracy. Nor is there ever any necessity for any "savior", because the simulation doesn't need to be "saved" from anything. The idea of "damaging" the simulation is, although possibly interesting, not something that can actually happen.

well, I believe that the issue about wether all monotheistic religions serve the same god or a different god might differ and can be debatable I suppose. In one hand, I used to assume that all abrahamic religions should be worshiping the same god, just that they view it differently, I have heard few people stating that G-d (Jewish god), God (Christian) and Allah (muslim) to be the very same deity, I suppose that might have something to do with religious tolerance and in order to promote peace, but that's a guess of mine.

An issue I see about this, that seems to be a bit problematic is about the "Holy Trinity", jews and muslims, and few christian denominations, don't believe in the Trinity, and only take one single entity as the only God, which that differs from most christians, one may argue that to be an example of different deities, as some suggest the Trinity to be pagan influenced.

In the end, I am not sure, given this, if it could be fairly and accurately said if they all worship the very same god or not, I see that for convenience, it can be said that they all follow the same deity.

But that's just my roughly take on this.

Sorry but I really have to disagree with this. The bible doesn't resemble anything like it was thousands of years ago because there are books missing out the current version. It is VERY easy to get lost in translation because if you where to play the game whisper, the phrase is very different when it gets to the end of the circle, can you imagine doing something like that for 2 thousand years? Chances are the bible is a collection of re-written myths from other faiths like the ancient Egyptian for example.



How is it scant? I didn't make that stuff up, Horus is a real myth that the Egyptian believed in. Debunking christianity is very easy to do, the people who defend it are believers, if you believe in something naturally you will defend it and will be biased to the religion.


The god Osiris impregnated Isis with Horus and Isis was a virgin, and thus this was a virgin birth. Much more can be seen here = http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

It depends. Like for example, although this is basically the opposite, Jesus shares the same exact biography of Mithra. However, Mithra came before Jesus. Are Christians worshipping Mithra and are completely unaware of it? Or is it just that Mithra happens to be Jesus and they're just worshipping Mithra with a different name and wrong birth year.

Last edited by z0rp on 08 Jan 2009, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RI57N9h8Zk[/youtube]

As a Baha'i, I believe that Heaven is closeness to God, and that Hell is distance from his mercy.

Peace.

There's nothing to be saved from? What about all the painful problems you listed which characterize the B-style simulation? What about death, which you didn't include in your list? Most people fear death, so I'd say it's a problem worth working to solve, or at least continuing to investigate for clues about it. Death into non-existence might be easy for the individual dying, but it's horrible for those who are close to that person, not to mention highly disruptive to the flow of life for all those connected with that person.



True. But that's only true about a simulation, not real life.

Um, would you care to rephrase?

Gladly, read here: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

yes but its very hard convincing some people any religion can save them, just my personal experience anyways
because the person telling you is just as unsure as you are