False Gods

[lid2]

Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

For an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly most people too do not and should not believe in such false gods.

 

[Sam_777]

the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers.

I totally agree with you. :sad_yes:

For an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives.

If someone reads about the miracles in the Bible, then how would he/she deny the existence of God!, furthermore, if someone would deeply look at Jesus teachings then he/she would realize that there is God out there.

 

[mrhenrik]

If someone reads about the miracles in Silmarillion, how can they deny the existence of Eru Illuvatar? Furthermore, if someone would look deep into the teachings of Gandalf the Grey then he/she would realise Eru is there.

I really want to dig down an ornamented version of Tolkien’s Silmarillion with a time lock on some hundred years as a little fun experiment. Imagine the religion springing up when someone finds the book and realises everything comes from Eru Illuvatar and the Valars.

 

[reggieM]

If someone reads about the miracles in Silmarillion, how can they deny the existence of Eru Illuvatar?

Because the author offered a work of imaginary fiction, unlike the Gospels and historically-verified testimonies of those who observed and documented the lives of Catholic saints over the past 2000 years.

Perhaps in 100 years people will devolve and cease to be able to evaluate literature and do historical research any more. Universities will close because people are so ignorant that they can no longer read and write.

In that case, when they find Silmarillion they won’t make a new religion out of it, but rather sell it to a recycling center for the value of the paper and ornamentation.

Then again, people might actually improve their ability to recognize texts written in the 20th century and they might even be able to consult a reference book which explains who Tolkien was and what he wrote.

I don’t know – it could go either way.

 

[mrhenrik]

Still my point was, if the Silmarillion was presented as the truth and you weren’t able to prove otherwise, would you embrace the Valars as your saviors and Eru Illuvatar your father?

Why are the gospels different? Do you know that they are true? What difference is there between the Bible and Silmarillion, disregarding the obvious fact that Silmarillion is declared fiction, and that the Bible is declared non-fiction by a large number of people? Or, the Bible from any other religious text.

How does the Bible prove anything?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I totally agree with you. :sad_yes:

If someone reads about the miracles in the Bible, then how would he/she deny the existence of God!, furthermore, if someone would deeply look at Jesus teachings then he/she would realize that there is God out there.

Why would the miracles in the bible help any? The bible even says that they are not unique to followers of god anyway. I believe jews rejected the miracles of Jesus for the same reason, that they were in no way unique at that time. I guess many people were able to do miracles then.

 

[reggieM]

Still my point was, if the Silmarillion was presented as the truth and you weren’t able to prove otherwise, would you embrace the Valars as your saviors and Eru Illuvatar your father?

I would be very much able to prove otherwise – quite easily. But more importantly, with the teachings of the Catholic Church, the wisdom of Christ and the apostles and the writings of the saints – I receive a deposit of faith supported by testimonies and lives and documentation and real people who I can refer to. I can consult the writings of some of the greatest minds in history and see the rational support for the Catholic faith.
In a hypothetical world, where I didn’t know anything and I was brainwashed with lies about Tolkien’s writings and I was cut off from any possible means of understanding, and I was mentally incapacited, on drugs and in fear for my life … then what?
Well, if that’s the kind of analogy you’re giving us then I wouldn’t say it’s very realistic or sensible.

Why are the gospels different? Do you know that they are true? What difference is there between the Bible and Silmarillion, disregarding the obvious fact that Silmarillion is declared fiction, and that the Bible is declared non-fiction by a large number of people? Or, the Bible from any other religious text.

How does the Bible prove anything?

There are several questions here. Yes, there is that obvious fact, and it’s not only a large number of people but some very qualified people as well. Even some skeptics have recognized the historical accuracies of the Gospels.

There are many books that cover the topic of the validity of the Bible. I would recommend Henri Daniel Rops’ Daily Life in the time of Jesus as a superb book if you’re interested in this question.

But I’m more interested in your radical detachment from the roots of Western culture, Catholic tradition and trust in reason itself. How did you arrive at a point of such radical skepticism?

I don’t mean that as a personal criticism but just an attempt to understand.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I have seen the truth, it is out there and science not blind faith has shown the way, come to the Sanctuary of the True Path and read my insights- Prophet Thomas Kolter

Seriously quantum theory has demonstrated that parallel universes and the like are fully plausible just not at this point testable so that makes all religions case for exceptionalism mute. Even fictional deities and worlds exist somewhere as a real force. I’m just sensible if this is true and science has shown it is very plausible the its more likely than not that dieites in some form exist in our or another dimension. So I would say worship any diety you like odds are your right if humans have believed or imagined them.

I would say a faith started by science is better than faith just on faiths own merits, the fact is you cannot prove I’m wrong and I can’t prove your wrong. But when you add in infinite universes and untold copies of every person in many of these the concept of diety and soul and afterlife must change. That is what I explore in my work I’m beginning.

 

[manualman]

Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

For an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly most people too do not and should not believe in such false gods.

What about the children of atheists? If they are atheists too are they just dumb sheep like us believers?

Strictly speaking, it takes a complex math course to prove 1+1=2. But it simply isn’t necessary to do that before deciding to consider it fact. Same goes for the historical reliability of Jesus’ life.

True religion is not testable in the scientific sense. It is a union of experience, reason and science. Perhaps you just haven’t had the experience yet. When you hit rock bottom some day (and you will), consider praying for it. Surprising things happen…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers…

There’s a good case for including the Judaeo-Christian God among the false gods. It’s high time it was made.​

• He is called on - but does nothing
• Is hoped in - but does not deliver from evil
• Men trust in Him - & are disappointed
• He cannot speak
• cannot move
• cannot see
• cannot act
• cannot save
• cannot help
• He could not save the Jews from Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus IV, Titus, Hadrian, 1970 years of Christians, Hitler. The Jews died by the thousands, ten thousands, or millions. This God makes Baal of Carmel look hyperactive. He’s a sham - he can do nothing, so he must not be feared

A handmade image is no more disappointing, & no more of a let-down, than this god:

5 He has a mouth, but cannot speak,
eyes, but he cannot see;

6 He has ears, but cannot hear,
a nose, but cannot smell;
7 He has hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but he cannot walk;
nor can he utter a sound with his throat.
8 Those who trust in him will be like him,
and so will all who call on him.

(Adapted from Psalm 115.) Or as 1 Kings 18 puts it:

• **25 **Elijah said to the prophets…
• 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of the LORD from morning till noon. **“O LORD, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. **And they danced around the altar they had made.

• 27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them.** “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely the LORD is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”**
• 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.
• 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
• biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%2018;&version=31;

===============

Elijah was of course taunting the prophets of Baal, & he was ridiculing Baal - but his ridicule is absolutely accurate as a description of the inactivity of the Judaeo-Christian God. God is equally “deep in thought, or busy, or travelling, or sleeping”. As his abject & constant failure to help those who trust in him proves. He cannot save, cannot redeem, cannot help, cannot hear. If he exists at all, his inactivity shows that man is of no concern to him. Maybe he is impeded by a god greater than he - there is no way of knowing this is not so. This explanation would at least allow people to think he is well-disposed to them.

God is not credible, because he does not do what it says on the tin. Maybe once or twice, for a nun here, or an ecstatic there - but for the vast majority of those who belive in him, their children die of cancer no matter how agonised their parents’ prayers, their parents are struck down by Alzheimer’s disease, their relatives are swept away by tsunamis, & they are crippled for life by drunken drivers, or reduced to destitution by fraudsters, or raped by clergy, or blown to smithereens by bombs. Much good that is !

It is immoral to require people to believe in the All-Perfect paper Deity of Christian dogma, when this God shows no sign at all of being any of the things his publicity calls him. There is no greater condemnation of this “God” than the contrast betwen the ideas people are required to hold about him, & the facts of life as they really are. It is meaningless, it is a lie and a deceit, to call this God a Saviour of anything - where was this Almighty & All-Merciful Saviour when Serbs were being massacred in Croatia during WW2 ? During the Rwanda massacres ? When the people of Baghdad were getting some “shock and awe” ? A Swiss cheese would make a better God - at least it can be eaten; it does some good. This useless deity OTOH needs to be thrown out like the “lie”, the “thing of nought”, the “deception”, the “false god”, the “idol” he is, PDQ & ASAP.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Still my point was, if the Silmarillion was presented as the truth and you weren’t able to prove otherwise, would you embrace the Valars as your saviors and Eru Illuvatar your father?

Why are the gospels different? Do you know that they are true? What difference is there between the Bible and Silmarillion, disregarding the obvious fact that Silmarillion is declared fiction, and that the Bible is declared non-fiction by a large number of people? Or, the Bible from any other religious text.

How does the Bible prove anything?

The Silmarillion performs all the functions of the Bible. And it is no more errant. The difficulties in upholding the total inerrancy of the Silmarillion are fewer than those in upholding that of the Bible. There are one or two difficulties with the Kings of Numenor & their dates & names, & a couple of uncertainties in the identification of Elves, but that’s about it. Textual corruption is probably to blame.​

The Sil accounts for:

• orogeny (largely the action of Melkor)
• continental drift (the destruction of Numenor)
• the Flood (the destruction of Numenor)
• Bronze Age dwellings (they are based on Hobbit holes)
• prehistoric pictures of dino-like creatures (Melkor’s “creation” of Glaurung the Golden, Father of Dragons; also Ancalagon the Black a bit later)
• the motif of the “mountain of the gods” (the uprearing of Oiolosse & the Pelori by the Valar)
• orcs are the source for stories about ogres
• Cape Wrath (named after the War of Wrath)
• the Arctic & its environs (Thangorodrim)
• Eskimos (are descended from the Lossoth of Forochel)
• The boat supposedly ID’d as the Ark over the centuries is more likely to be one of the ships that escaped from the Downfall of Numenor: this would account for all the Flood traditions

Much argumentation for Total Inerrancy is about the status of the Bible as The Perfect Book - but this is not a truly religious issue at all; nor is it an idea peculiar to Christianity. Homer & Virgil had the same function, & the Sil fulfils it too. All those older works function as sources of information upon all things: so it is entirely possible that the Sil will be read in exactly this way. It already has the status of a holy book in an informal way for thousands of people: just read the reviews on Amazon.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

There’s a good case for including the Judaeo-Christian God among the false gods. It’s high time it was made. … [Evil and suffering exist in the world.]​

Just my :twocents:

Evil and suffering in the world have no effect upon the proofs for the existence of God. Rather, the existence of a God who gave us a marvelous gift - free will - goes a long way towards explaining th reason for both man’s capacity for evil and man’s suffering in this lifetime. Man’s misuse of his free will does not disprove the existence of God.

In addition, it can be argued that the suffering we endure is beneficial. I have experienced some profound suffering in my life, pertaining to my children and my extended family, which I will not disclose for their privacy. However, suffering through those issues with them, and with prayer and my faith has made me a better man and, I hope, more pleasing to the God who created all of us for eternity with Him.

I think that if one really wants to address the alleged falsity of christianity’s God, one really needs to address the proofs and not rely on the existence of evil and suffering, or a perception of inattention as the basis for denial of the christian God.

Moreover, one would assume from such an argument that Christianity promises relief from suffering in this life as the reward of faith. Rather, it promises suffering and persecution in this life as a result of giving yourself to God. And it promises suffering and evil will continue because that’s the nature of humanity - left to its own free will. But this condition does not disprove the existence of the Christian God.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Silmarillion performs all the functions of the Bible. And it is no more errant. The difficulties in upholding the total inerrancy of the Silmarillion are fewer than those in upholding that of the Bible. There are one or two difficulties with the Kings of Numenor & their dates & names, & a couple of uncertainties in the identification of Elves, but that’s about it. Textual corruption is probably to blame.​

The Sil accounts for:

• orogeny (largely the action of Melkor)
• continental drift (the destruction of Numenor)
• the Flood (the destruction of Numenor)
• Bronze Age dwellings (they are based on Hobbit holes)
• prehistoric pictures of dino-like creatures (Melkor’s “creation” of Glaurung the Golden, Father of Dragons; also Ancalagon the Black a bit later)
• the motif of the “mountain of the gods” (the uprearing of Oiolosse & the Pelori by the Valar)
• orcs are the source for stories about ogres
• Cape Wrath (named after the War of Wrath)
• the Arctic & its environs (Thangorodrim)
• Eskimos (are descended from the Lossoth of Forochel)
• The boat supposedly ID’d as the Ark over the centuries is more likely to be one of the ships that escaped from the Downfall of Numenor: this would account for all the Flood traditions

Much argumentation for Total Inerrancy is about the status of the Bible as The Perfect Book - but this is not a truly religious issue at all; nor is it an idea peculiar to Christianity. Homer & Virgil had the same function, & the Sil fulfils it too. All those older works function as sources of information upon all things: so it is entirely possible that the Sil will be read in exactly this way. It already has the status of a holy book in an informal way for thousands of people: just read the reviews on Amazon.

I’m sure there are many good books upon which a person can develop an entire set of doctrinal beliefs. The original Dune trilogy also comes to mind. However, with respect to Christianity a Church founded by Christ and the Apostles came first. The scriptures were then written and compiled after the founding of the Church to assist with the teaching of the doctrine, and they were collected and sifted over hundreds of years of development.

The Silmarillion hypothetical assumses the opposite… i.e. that a person would find and read a book upon which that person would then found a previously non-existent religion. Has that ever really happened? Hasn’t the belief system always come first, followed by the documentation?

Would it not have to be that a group of persons start the first Silmarillion-Believing Church, after which comes three or four centuries of evangelization and growth before the “revealed word” of the Silmarillion is canonized by the body of believers?

That being the case, where in time did (elves and) men start the first Church of the Silmarillion from which the book was compiled? And where is the present-day successor to that church? And if there is no present-day successor, then why should one accept that the orgins of that Church are a valid revelation from God to humanity? I just don’t think that this hypothetical has thought through all of the facts, nor has it made a valid comparison to Christian history. The bible didn’t fall from the sky into the hands of people who were unbelievers. The bible was compiled by a Church of believers to for believers. The bible did not start christianity. It documents part of the faith.

Peace,
Robert

 

[John7]

Most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers.

moohamadism

The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god.

Jesus is God
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

moohamad is not God

 

[reggieM]

Seriously quantum theory has demonstrated that parallel universes and the like are fully plausible just not at this point testable

You propose something that is supported by zero direct evidence. Thus, it’s a question of faith.

 

[reggieM]

The bible was compiled by a Church of believers to for believers. The bible did not start christianity. It documents part of the faith.

Excellent point. The religion was not created by a text but through witnesses of the revelation as given. Christ gave proofs that convinced his followers under the threat of death. A mere book does not do that. We’re not a sola scriptura organization.

 

[lid2]

I mean any atheists, in their endeavor try to find alternatives to God for explaining the existence of the temporal things we see around us, invent some imaginary entities and give them some of the essential attributes of God.

They say in a misleading way that they believe in God; but on inspection, their god turns out to be the god of the atheists. I am referring here to people like Einstein, who is said by some to have been a believer, but whose god was in fact not God the Creator in whom we all believe. Einstein declared that he believed in “Spinoza’s god,” i.e. in a god that is identical with the universe, and who does not thus interfere from outside in its working. “The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation, “says Einstein, “cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events.” [Quoted by Hans Kung, Does God Exist? Vantage Books, 1981, p. 629]

 

[Sam_777]

The bible even says that they are not unique to followers of god anyway.

I didn’t understand what you mean here , please provide reference for it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I didn’t understand what you mean here , please provide reference for it.

Didn’t the famous words of Jesus go something along the line of if they are not against us, they are for us? I’m remembering what led up to that statement Jesus made. Also, let’s remember the Maggi. I’d call it a miracle they could find the baby Jesus. There is no mention of them using God in any way to do so. The name Magic comes from Maggi I think.

 

[Borknagar]

Evil and suffering in the world have no effect upon the proofs for the existence of God. Rather, the existence of a God who gave us a marvelous gift - free will - goes a long way towards explaining th reason for both man’s capacity for evil and man’s suffering in this lifetime. Man’s misuse of his free will does not disprove the existence of God.

In addition, it can be argued that the suffering we endure is beneficial. I have experienced some profound suffering in my life, pertaining to my children and my extended family, which I will not disclose for their privacy. However, suffering through those issues with them, and with prayer and my faith has made me a better man and, I hope, more pleasing to the God who created all of us for eternity with Him.

I think that if one really wants to address the alleged falsity of christianity’s God, one really needs to address the proofs and not rely on the existence of evil and suffering, or a perception of inattention as the basis for denial of the christian God.

Moreover, one would assume from such an argument that Christianity promises relief from suffering in this life as the reward of faith. Rather, it promises suffering and persecution in this life as a result of giving yourself to God. And it promises suffering and evil will continue because that’s the nature of humanity - left to its own free will. But this condition does not disprove the existence of the Christian God.

Peace,
Robert

If God exists then free will is a myth. This hypothetical timeless being would have a non linear existence. It would be aware of past present and future and exist in all of them at the same time. That means that this God already knows how everyone is going to live their entire lives. This God would have to have known that Hitler was going to be responsible for the murder of millions of Jews and yet still chose to create him. The same thing goes for every human that inflicts suffering on others. God already knew they were going to hurt others but chose to create them anyway. This places the blame for all human suffering on God and no other. It’s a good thing he doesn’t exist, he’d have alot to atone for.