Neo-Pagan Apologetics

[rlg94086]

Ian,

Thank you for clarifying. Also, thanks to KarenNC and dawnpiper. You have all helped me understand more. The nine virtues look like a good start toward holiness to me - as adapted to one’s own beliefs - IMO it may be missing a few, like Humility.

At this point, I’ve reached the limit of my interest in Neopaganism. I pray your spiritual journeys will some day lead you to the Truth, which of course I believe is through the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Robert

What ADF, along with most/all of Neopaganism, has tried to avoid is the promulgation of specific ideas and belief positions as mandatory for proper observance of our path. This does not mean that ADF does not have teachings - about the Gods, about ritual, about the way humans can live well together. We have teachings on all these things, and we even encourage members to work with some of the ideas, whether they exactly agree with them at the outset, or not.

The terms ‘doctrine’ and ‘dogma’ derive from the same Latin root, meaning ‘opinion’. The ‘Doctrines’ of the Roman Church are the opinions it has agreed on, and which it expects its members to agree with it on. The most-agreed-on opinions have come to be called by the other variant of the word - dogma. Dogma, to me, seems to imply legislated opinion - that is what Pagans don’t, generally, do.

Paganism does generate doctrine, but we don’t demand doctrinal agreement to be able to work together spiritually. Since we know that the reality of the spiritual world is multiple, we expect different individuals to perceive it differently, to relate to it differently, even when they are doing spiritual work in a group together. When I know that the divine takes many forms, it is no threat to the truth of my experience when my neighbor’s experience varies from mine.

ADF does propose certain opinions as the basis of rules of practice. For instance, we encourage members to think about the Gods as persons more than as abstractions, or archetypes, or aspects of some All-One. We encourage a formal, repeatable approach to ritual. We encourage members to choose a specific Indo-European culture and work within it, rather than mix-and-match a personal pantheon out of many cultures. We nearly require that public ceremonies be done within one specific culture.

All of these things we enforce - but only in terms of ritual practice that defines itself as ADF. We do not - ever - ask members what they believe, or require them so state their personal beliefs, or even require them to agree with the general opinions of the organization. We some times say we are not a ‘credal’ religion - no-one is ever required to recite ‘credo’ - ‘I believe’. On the other hand, we might, in certain cases, hold a local group to account for what they do in their ritual work - we require that ritual forms follow certain guidelines.

So - we sometimes say that we have an orthopraxy - ‘right practice’, rather than an orthodoxy - ‘right opinion’. We do teach a body of ideas about the spiritual world and how it works, but we don’t stake our validity on them, or require members to agree with them.
Ian

 

[KarenNC]

**My sister is bound by the spirits of Wicca. She is so confused she can’t even articulate what she believes in…and it certainly doesn’t help her in her personal life; with her husband, with whom she constantly fights; with her children, which parenting seems to be a non-issue and “self” all-important. **

I am sorry your sister is in a bad situation. I would, however, not be so quick to place all the blame on Wicca. I am sure we could all fairly without effort point to numerous people in any given religion who have less than ideal lives, or attain the ideals of their religion imperfectly.

I say look at the fruits of someone’s life! …
"By their fruits, you shall know them."

We may disagree on specifics (ie political stances, or the "correct’ answer on specific “test” issues), but I agree that the best witness one can have is through one’s actions, even more than one’s words. Remember that our Neopaganism is about orthopraxy (right action) rather than orthodoxy (right belief). For me, my actions are paramount. I may believe something very strongly, but if I do not act upon it, then what’s the point? Faith without works is dead.

You will likely not find many covens, Groves, or other Neopagan groups who are large enough yet to independently operate shelters, soup kitchens, etc. They simply don’t have the congregational base yet. Also, many of us do not live physically close enough to others who share our particular religion to form formal groups. That said, there are some formal Neopagan-based charitable groups out there, such as Avalon Cares.

Also, “charity begins at home.” We do endeavor to provide assistance needed by our members and friends, as any group does. What you will likely see from a coven is a network of people who help each other as much as possible and will do what they can to help those outside their group. If a family in your congregation, for instance, suffers a fire, what does your congregation do? Form a 501(c)3 charitable organization to administer assistance to them? No, you organize food and clothing drives, help them find shelter, try to meet the immediate needs until their insurance, etc can kick in. We would do the same.

As for needs in the larger society, what I have seen, time after time, are Neopagans, individually and in groups, supporting a wide variety of charitable causes, whether physically (labor, food drives, etc), financially (money) and spiritually (prayer, ritual). In many cases (like ours), Neopagans have seen no need to “reinvent the wheel” and prefer to support organizations who already have infrastructure in place (in some cases, even Christian-based ones). Personally, we have a greater interest in our charitable resources and efforts actually going to assist those in need than a vested interest in creating something that is specifically Pagan or requires a faith test for assistance.

 

[Dawnpiper]

The problem with your argument is that “god” is an equivocal term.

Well, yes it is.

one traditional Christian belief holds that salvation involves our becoming divine–through participation in God’s nature, we become gods ourselves.

Using “God” in the ground-of-being sense, I personally believe that we all already participate in God’s divine nature, inasmuch as I reject the concept that it is possible for there to be anywhere that God in this sense is not (you could call me a panentheist - I’ve used the term to describe myself before, although not lately as I have come to feel it encodes the assumption that the theos being referred to is necessarily a Person).

Here are a few of the possible things we might mean when we speak of God or a god:

a being worthy of respect or reverence
a being greater and nobler than humans
a being on whom humans are dependent

When I speak of our Gods, I mean the first two at minimum; there is some element of the third as well. I also recognize other spiritual beings (nymphs and other nature spirits, etc.) that may fit one or the other of those criteria but that I would not regard as Gods per se.

a being who created humans and/or the entire cosmos
the ultimate ground of all being–the First Cause from whom all things proceed, the One in whom all being participates and without whom/which nothing would exist.

There are at least two stories of the origin of the cosmos in the Hellenic tradition, but in neither one are the Gods that were commonly worshipped responsible for that; they are always seen as existing within the cosmos, albeit at a much higher plane than we do. Opinions also vary regarding the origins of humanity, but always we were created after the cosmos, and not by the same creator.

I recognize that these stories are pure speculation, but the religious understanding they encode does inform my view of the nature of the Gods.

Christians believe that the “Ground of Being”–“God” in the last sense mentioned–is also the Creator

This statement, to my mind, carries us past the point where we humans are capable of any sort of meaningful pronouncement.

It seems to me that the points at issue between us are the following:

1. Is there one ultimate reality behind the many beings humans experience as “gods”?
2. Is that Ultimate Reality itself directly knowable as an object of worship and a participant in a personal relationship, or can it be accessed only through the various beings who derive from it?
3. If Ultimate Reality can be known and worshipped in its own right, then what kind of reverence/worship can or should be paid to the other, derivative “gods”?

Nice summation!

1. I believe so, but freely admit that it is impossible to validate that belief.
2. The second. The exact nature of their derivation (whether they are completely independent beings, simply avatars or emanations, or something else) is also unknowable by us save through direct private revelation, which I hold to be non-binding except to the person experiencing it.
3. Given my answer to 2, I have to say this question does not apply.

I was not previously familiar with the terms latria and dulia, but given what I see in the Catholic Encyclopedia, I estimate that the worship I offer to my Gods is somewhere between the two. I have known pagans who were essentially henotheistic, being completely dedicated to the service of one member of a pantheon, who might be described as offering latria to their patron.

So we have two levels of “incarnation,” in a sense–the Ground of Being becoming “incarnate” as a god, Yahweh, who thunders and whispers and does all the normal stuff gods do; and then this same ultimate Divinity becoming incarnate as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

I would say that - in your terms - if the ground-of-being were directly knowable, and if it were the God of the Jews, that I would view Jesus as a derivative being worthy of dulia but not latria.

This is probably not the place to get into the reasoning behind my initial rejection of the Christian truth claim, but it would be interesting to discuss that with you. Do you mind if I PM you?

Erik

 

[Joe_Monahan]

A Caution!!!

This thread is here, rather than in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, because Ian posted originally in response to an article in “This Rock”. Let me quote from his original post:

In my web-searching, I ran across this site’s Anti-Neo-Pagan Apologetics article. Let me say at the outset that I was pleased to see our ways given a thoughtful and unsensational treatment. For that you have my thanks.

I’m unconvinced how thankful he remains as some posters to the thread have gratuitously proclaimed him to be hell-bound, etc., a judgement that - last I looked - was left to God, not internet posters. Remarkably though, the OP has continued a civil and charitable conversation with those interested in doing so, ignoring those whose contributions to the thread hardly satisfy those standards.

Be advised that this sub-forum, albeit less in the limelight than some others, is subject to the same requirements, restrictions, and rules as others on this site.

Members are expected and required to be respectful to the faith of others- whether their faith be Catholic, non-Catholic, or even non-Christian - yes, even if it is Animism, Druidism, Neo-Paganism, or Wiccan.

The purposes of this forum site include educating and being educated as to the multiplicity of faiths to which persons subscribe. You are free to dialogue, disagee with, or debate.those of other faiths - but such must be done in a manner that is civil, charitable, and consistent with the expectations of discourse in polite society.

Failure to adhere to these standards and expectations is likely to have consequences relative to posting privileges.

Joe Monahan

 

[Contarini]

Erik,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Please do feel free to PM me.

Edwin

 

[dessert]

Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life.
He is the way to the Father, this is what we believe.
he shows us the way to live the path to His righteousness not ours.
He is the Truth as through the Holy Spirit we are shown our sin which is a blessing and He is our high priest and intercessor to the Father but as they are one. We call it sin as I think you call being out of your guidelines where we need forgiveness and are yess dependant so to speak. This keeps us in oour humility and compassion for one another which I suppose you could say you have for each other.
You have a remarkable attitude toward your gods if I might say so? It is sort of like, and I don’t intend to be mean but you knd of act like you can take your god or leave him or her whatever in a way like they really don’t mean a lot now pleasse don’t get me wrong but yoou act like you clould change a god like changing your clothes for the day.
I hope this isn’t too much but it is too matter of fact like oh well. So you don’t really love your gods?Are they just to please you? I hope you don’t get the idea that our Father doesn’t do anything for us as His word is full of promises and I’m sorry I have not listed them but yu seemed to be put off by scripture a little.
Jesus brought, or bought paid the price for us to have eternal life. We have a soul so you have not mentioned soul either so I’m not sure what we have in common. As my dic says life is the union of body and soul and we do have this individually and together when we come to the table of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

God breathed into man the breath of life in genesis which we considered our soul and He did that one more time later in it is told.

One Trinity, God the Father, the base belief many agree to this even Islam, but you do not correct? Islam does not believe in the Trinity. But see you don’t really deny that you do not believe, do you? You state your belief on other gods.
We believe in God the Son as he cast many spirits out.
And we belive in God the Holy Spirit as this is the power of God they all three work together.

Another analogy the electicity has to have a power source naspa?
It isn’t just created, It has to have fuel a generator to keep it going. Our God is the poweer source and He has always existed from the beginning.
Yes you could say our faith is the generator as you could claim you have faith but not on your virtue list oh well, but the fuel we have is our LOVE and which you stated this whole thread off with some over 100 posts ?ago which you mention agape and I sense you are seeking. This LOVE

I sense also you are not geting from your gods LOVE which my dic defines as deep affection and devotion I don’t think this will come to you from a rock or tree or thunder cloud. I’m sorry I feel real compassion for you hope you continue to talk to us.
desert

Now can I beg you to read some more thanks
Whoever says, "I am in the light " while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light. 1 john ;9,10
I wish for you this new year Peace
word among us publ.

 

[IanCorrigan]

Using “God” in the ground-of-being sense, I personally believe that we all already participate in God’s divine nature, inasmuch as I reject the concept that it is possible for there to be anywhere that God in this sense is not

Here we reach a basic vocabulary problem. I think it is entirely a mis-speaking for a polytheist to refer to the Ground of Being as ‘God’. To use the term ‘God’ in the singular is to inevitably bring to the english-speaking mind the idea of the old Biblical fellow. That old Biblical fellow can’t be, to my understanding, the Ground of Being.

The Ground of Being must be the Ground of All Being - of Gods, of stones, of sponges, of music, of the individual beings that are humans and that are Gods and Spirits. The Ground of Being cannot prefer one thing to another, can’t love more than hate, or prefer virtue to sin. It can’t be a person. Persons are all individuals, while the GoB must be general.

So, I prefer to use the general term ‘the divine’ to speak of the Ground of (spiritual, but material as well) Being. ‘The divine’ is a continuum, that contains many (all) things, all things are divine as they partake of that continuum.

As to how/why some beings are plainly superior to others - the Gods, ancient in human awareness, existing cross-time and in multiple presences, etc - we have tales about that, but I don’t suppose there’s any knowing for certain. I wouldn’t believe anyone who thought they had the Real Truth about it anyway… In any case we have the Shining Ones (which is the root of the term ‘deity’) and all sort of spirits and minor expressions of the divine, right down to the holy things in ourselves and in our homes.

It seems to me that the points at issue between us are the following:

***1. Is there one ultimate reality behind the many beings humans experience as “gods”?
2. Is that Ultimate Reality itself directly knowable as an object of worship and a participant in a personal relationship, or can it be accessed only through the various beings who derive from it?
3. If Ultimate Reality can be known and worshipped in its own right, then what kind of reverence/worship can or should be paid to the other, derivative “gods”? ***

**Nice summation!

1. I believe so, but freely admit that it is impossible to validate that belief.**

Many philosophers of the ancient world taught that there was, certainly including the vedic seers. In Hindu lore the GoB is called ‘the brahman’. It is not a deity, but rather the underlying holiness (wholeness) of all things. It is sought by mystics, but never worshipped, though worship of anything is worship of it.

That doesn’t sound much like ‘God’, does it?

2. The second.

Agree. Worship is for beings that can enter into personal relationships. The GoB cannot, except in it’s presence as individual beings.

3. Given my answer to 2, I have to say this question does not apply.

The GoB can be known, say some schools of mysticism. It subsists in us, and can be reached through the work of personal spiritual practice. What it cannot do is love us, or concern itself about us, except in the manifestation as some individual being. Individuals love, and have relationship, the GoB does not. So, we open to the Other through worship of the divine expressed in/as the beings of the worlds, and we deepen into the All in ourselves, where it is closest to us. That’s one available formula, anyway.

As to latria and dulia, I just don’t know whether that spectrum applies to polytheistic worship. In polytheism, each household, each individual’s life, will have a constellations of expressions of the divine that are central to their practice. With the most central of these thee will be a real, personal relationship - whether of ‘love’, affection, respect, awe, and/or all of those.

Life often brings us into contact with Gods and spirits outside our personal relationships - with them we have a perhaps more formal, less affectionate relationship, that can still produce moments of powerful spiritual awareness and growth.

Since we don’t really have much of a concept of ‘the Highest’ or think it desires a special sort of worship reserved for it, we deal with each being as our life brings us to.

Ian

 

[rcwhiteh]

This may not fit squarely in the discussion of neo-paganism, but an interesting thought occurs to me.

Many scientists believe that at some point in the distant, distant past, all of the matter in the universe (and by extension, all the energy) was bound up in the one single mass called the Monobloc.

Then came the Big Bang.

Now: If the Big Bang occurred independent of any “outside” agency, then everything within the universe that expanded after that mind-mangling explosion is essentially on an equal footing; nothing “called” into existence, things just sort of happened.

I think that Neo-Pagans and persons of more mainstream beliefs might balk at this.

However, if the Big Bang happened because of an outside agency, then we have to consider whether that agency was One or Many. Reason militates against Many, if for no other reason than because a multiplicity of deities would be in conflict from the very beginning of things - indeed, before the beginning - as they would have their own interests at heart. If these deities were not perfectly united in their will and purpose, I surmise that they would interfere with one another, and nothing would get done.

To call the universe into being out of the Monobloc is not, I think, something that yields to a committee decision. It would require one will, one vision, one actor - one God.

It is not at all plain to me (I say to the OP) that there is a god of trees and another god of rocks; that smacks of a primitive, superstitious worldview that sees life as a crazy quilt, rather than the insightful mind that sees the manifestation of a single Will in all of creation.

What I plainly see is that everything proceeded from one point at the command of one Prime Mover, and all the heavens proclaim His handiwork.

Maybe that’s a somewhat “cut and dried” view of the universe, but it fits. There cannot be both many gods and only one God; I believe in the One.

 

[latin_rite]

One we don’t want to stop you. You are free to do as you wish, and as fast as you think it’s growing it still isn’t growing as fast as Christianity, islam or judaism

Could you elaborate on how the growth rate of Islam and Judaism should be considered a good thing or victory for Christianity? The only thing I can possibly see is that you consider any monotheism, even one you (or at least your Church) considers blasphemy, to be better than polytheism?

What God did Moeses talk too? What God did Jesus call father? What God did muhammad (sp) talk too? get my drift?
If ont go learn about the three religions you and your friend are tryig to undermind

 

[latin_rite]

I wasn’t aware that those were requirements for divine power… must have missed where Jesus did those things. Perhaps it’s in the Apocrypha?

I would rephrase Edwin the Episcopalian’s question - do you really believe that you have an existence separate from the Divine?

Many Pagans work with impersonal divine powers. Some of us think of those as Sky Power and Earth Power. These are not ‘worshipped’ commonly, so much as they are ‘used’. Since we humans have a spark and spring of the divine in us, we can make use of these impersonal powers for our own will. Sometimes we think of the Gods as using these same impersonal divine powers to make and uphold the worlds. Thus,** we have a shred of the very same power the Gods have in abundance.**
Ian

Did i imply Jesus did those things?

 

[KarenNC]

What God did Moeses talk too? What God did Jesus call father? What God did muhammad (sp) talk too? get my drift?
If ont go learn about the three religions you and your friend are tryig to undermind

So the answer is yes, in your view, any monotheism, even one you consider fundamentally flawed in almost all respects, is preferable to polytheism. Fair enough. By extension, then, it is all the same in your view whether a polytheist (or a Catholic) were to convert to Judaism or Islam, because it is all the same God in the end?

You do raise an interesting question. Certainly all three of these religions consider themselves monotheistic in that they believe in one deity. Do they all believe in the same deity?

The descriptions certainly vary in some very fundamental ways. Two of the three religions would say their God is not a Trinity. One would say he emphatically is (and some in each of the other religions would actively claim that Christians are not, in fact, monotheists because of this). The majority of Jews (religiously rather than ethnically) certainly don’t ascribe any divinity to Jesus and do not believe that Christians are praying to God when they pray to Jesus.

Many Christians would deny that Muhammed talked to (any) God at all since what he said contradicts what the (purportedly) same God said to both the Jews and the Christians. The Koran, which many Muslims believe to be the absolute sacred Word of God written before the world began, says explicitly " 112:1-4] Proclaim, "He is the One and only GOD. "The Absolute GOD."Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.“None equals Him.” "

Are the messages the same? Not to my reading of them, even when they are talking about the same personages and stories. The promises are different. The requirements are different. The lecture I referenced on Christan and Jewish Relations by Dr. Amy Jill Levine (uctv.tv/series/index.asp?longtime=longtime&sort=title&summary=&number=10) has some interesting things to say on this topic, though she stops short of claiming they are not the same God.

Seems to me if the argument that they are all the same omniscient, omnipotent God holds, then there should be no problem with anyone from any of the three religions that worship him praying each other’s prayers, attending each other’s worship services, converting from one to the other, etc–they should be interchangable. This is blatantly not the case. Correct me if I am wrong, but would not a Muslim or Jew converting to Catholicism be required to renounce his former beliefs, including those about God?

Honestly, Christians can’t even agree among themselves on the particulars of the message, ways to worship, etc., sometimes to the point that it makes an outsider wonder if all of them are worshipping the same deity . Neither can Jews, and I would hazard a guess that Muslims are similar, given the number of Muslim on Muslim killings in the name of religion.

I do not set out to undermine anyone’s religion, but to have a logical, civil discussion.

 

[the_phoenix]

Well, since the Solstice is an astronomical event, it’s technically yours as well…

We just find it a convenient time to mark and celebrate the sacredness of the world.

Hello Dawnpiper,

It is very good to see the pagans stating that they do not privately own such astronomical events as winter or summer solstice. Such a statement is much appreciated. Equinox, for example, is defined at dictionary.reference.com/browse/equinox as:

the time when the sun crosses the plane of the earth’s equator, making night and day of approximately equal length all over the earth and occurring about March 21 (vernal equinox or spring equinox) and September 22 (autumnal equinox).

To me, this is simply a cool factoid, going along with the story I’ve heard that on these dates you’re supposed to be able to balance or spin an egg without it falling over, cracking, and leaving a nasty mess, or something to that effect, and that, due to purely scientific reasons. (Though I’m not sure whether this is true.)

It seems to me that Catholics have an excellent example to follow when it comes to appreciating nature. While I can’t say exactly what St. Francis of Assisi would have to say about such specifics as solstices and equinoxes as natural phenomena, I would assume he would praise the One True God for the meticulous splendor of this aspect of creation. Here is what St. Francis of Assisi has composed in his “Canticle of the Sun:”

fordham.edu/halsall/source/stfran-canticle.txt

All praise be yours, my Lord, through all that you have made,
And first my lord Brother Sun,
Who brings the day; and light you give to us through him.

How beautiful is he, how radiant in all his splendor!
Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness.

St. Francis goes on to mention Sister Moon and Stars, Brothers Wind and Air, Sister Water, Brother Fire, “Sister Earth, our mother” (Yes, I’m quoting … ), and finishes with Sister Death.

Acknowledging the beauty of nature? St. Francis in his canticle rightfully gives the praise, glory, honor, and blessing for all grand works to their Lord and Creator, the Triune and Most High God.

~~ the phoenix

 

[Dawnpiper]

You have a remarkable attitude toward your gods … like you can take your god or leave him or her whatever in a way like they really don’t mean a lot

If I gave that impression, then I said something incorrectly… There are some of our pantheon to whom we pay particular worship - Hestia, as the Guardian of the hearth and home; Hera, to bless our marriage and family; I pray to Hermes as my professional patron (I work in IT) and when I travel; and Athena has become an unofficial “patron” of our family - our daughter in particular seems to be developing a close relationship with Her. I am respectful towards the other Gods, but up to this point we have not had much occasion to pay particular attention to Them, or They to us. Of the Gods with whom I do have a relationship, I would no more casually discard that than I would walk away from a close human friendship.

now pleasse don’t get me wrong but yoou act like you clould change a god like changing your clothes for the day.

There are admittedly pagans who seem to do this, but I’ve never understood it.

So you don’t really love your gods?Are they just to please you?

Hardly - the basis of relationship as we understand it, both Hellenically (if that’s a word) and within the context of ADF can be summed up in one word - reciprocity. We approach the Gods and seek to come into relationship with Them, with offerings, prayer and service, and They choose (if They choose) to respond or not as accords with Their will. The purpose of the Gods is not to please us, but the purpose of our existence is not simply to please Them either. They have Their concerns and we have ours, and sometimes the two intersect, and there relationship can begin.

I hope you don’t get the idea that our Father doesn’t do anything for us as His word is full of promises and I’m sorry I have not listed them but yu seemed to be put off by scripture a little.

Like I said before, I’m NOT put off by scripture, I simply don’t accept it, by itself, as a source of authority. And I really do know the promises - I’m a third-generation preacher’s kid.

We have a soul so you have not mentioned soul either so I’m not sure what we have in common.

Well, either we both have a soul or we both don’t, so we have that in common…

LOVE which my dic defines as deep affection and devotion I don’t think this will come to you from a rock or tree or thunder cloud.

Since I don’t worship those things, I don’t think that will be an issue.

 

[Dawnpiper]

If the Big Bang occurred independent of any “outside” agency, then everything within the universe that expanded after that mind-mangling explosion is essentially on an equal footing; nothing “called” into existence, things just sort of happened.

I think that Neo-Pagans and persons of more mainstream beliefs might balk at this.

Why? It sounds a lot like the ancient Greek description of the birth of the Cosmos to me.

However, if the Big Bang happened because of an outside agency, then we have to consider whether that agency was One or Many.

Or admit that it’s beyond our ability to know.

Reason militates against Many

Before the beginning of the Cosmos, I have no real problem with this argument - as I stated in a previous post, our Gods are understood to be a part of the Cosmos, not apart from it. And afterwards - does the world you see around you really seem to behave as if it was being run by a single entity?

There cannot be both many gods and only one God; I believe in the One.

:yup: And I believe in the Many.

 

[Dawnpiper]

Did i imply Jesus did those things?

Well, you postulated them as evidence of divine power, so I would say that yes, indirectly you did… I was trying to point out, I confess somewhat sarcastically (mea culpa), that your statement struck me as a bit extreme and rather silly.

 

[latin_rite]

So the answer is yes, in your view, any monotheism, even one you consider fundamentally flawed in almost all respects, is preferable to polytheism. Fair enough. By extension, then, it is all the same in your view whether a polytheist (or a Catholic) were to convert to Judaism or Islam, because it is all the same God in the end?

The answer is no. What i am saying is that the same God is worshipped. Not just any old singular god. So again the answer is no, not any old form of monotheism is better than any form of polytheism. Why are you trying to twist my words? You know full well what i meant. What i mean is the God of Christianity , islam or judaism is the same God… Where it becomes seperate is when it involves the how to of worship. And who was the true bringer of the one Gods laws.

You do raise an interesting question. Certainly all three of these religions consider themselves monotheistic in that they believe in one deity. Do they all believe in the same deity?

Basicly yes.

One would say he emphatically is (and some in each of the other religions would actively claim that Christians are not, in fact, monotheists because of this).

Well yes we are and those who say otherwise are basicly idiots. He is one God which is three, not three gods which is one. One tree may have many branches, doesn’t make it more than one tree

The majority of Jews (religiously rather than ethnically) certainly don’t ascribe any divinity to Jesus and do not believe that Christians are praying to God when they pray to Jesus.

Thats why I’m a Christian and they are Jews.

Many Christians would deny that Muhammed talked to (any) God at all since what he said contradicts what the (purportedly) same God said to both the Jews and the Christians.

That’s why they are muslim and i’m a Christian

Are the messages the same? Not to my reading of them, has some interesting things to say on this topic, though she stops short of claiming they are not the same God.

No not entirely. But thats why i’m a Christian and they are Muslim and Jewish.
And she wisely stopped short of saying it, because if she did she knew she would have been wrong.

Seems to me if the argument that they are all the same omniscient, omnipotent God

God is omniscient and omnipotent, We how ever are not.
B.T.W Why do you say they. when even the most ignorant of people knows we worship the same God?

QUOTE=KarenNC;1761523]I do not set out to undermine anyone’s religion, but to have a logical, civil discussion.I was going to say sorry for assuming that you are like ian. But the way you tried to twist my words makes me think you are just as dishonest.

 

[latin_rite]

Well, you postulated them as evidence of divine power, so I would say that yes, indirectly you did…

Well he was saying he had the power of his gods of thunder and lighting. Iasked him if he could do those things if he had such powers. so No i didn’t imply it at all about Jesus… Why are you lying?

 

[Dawnpiper]

Well he was saying he had the power of his gods of thunder and lighting.

No he wasn’t, at least not the way you are choosing to interpret it. He was stating his belief that everything that exists, including humans, participates to some degree in the divine nature.

If you decide to stop name-calling and have a civilized discussion, I would be glad to go into this further with you.

 

[latin_rite]

No he wasn’t, at least not the way you are choosing to interpret it. He was stating his belief that everything that exists, including humans, participates to some degree in the divine nature.

If you decide to stop name-calling and have a civilized discussion, I would be glad to go into this further with you.

[never think that Aphrodite can’t hurl thunderbolts, or Thor can’t grant love.

Thus, we have a shred of the very same power the Gods have in abundance.

As you can see he said both he and his “gods” have the same power. Again why lie? And how is calling someone who lied a liar name calling?
[/quote]

 

[dessert]

Thank you we do have something in common we both have soul. There is another thread that talks about the existence of the soul although it is a big arguement than a discussion so I just couldn’t keep on it and it may have been blocked people got too you know wild on it too many edits edits etc. desert