is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

[Gary Childress]

If it was, then it wasn't a "miracle," at all. It was an ordinary scientific phenomenon. So then, HaShem did not call the people of Israel out, did not save them at the Red Sea, and they have no legitimate claim to Israel or Jerusalem, since no HaShem called them out to the Promised Land at all, and they have no more right than, say, the Edomites, the Baal worshippers or the Palestinian Arabs to being there, and plausibly none at all.

The Holy Land isn't "holy." And Israel is not special.

And that's if you win your point. Happy to accept that?

More “out-Jewing the Jew”.

I'm just asking Janoah what he concludes from his own worldview. His assumptions come with particular conclusions that a Jewish person -- let alone a genuinely Christian one -- may be reluctant to accept. As for those who are neither Jew nor Christian, this has nothing whatsoever to do with their worldview, since they don't believe in God, Israel or miracles. They've simply closed their minds on all that, obviously.

But for those who do...

So are you saying that if there is no Yahweh, then there is no "God"? Again, let's assume God=creator of all that is. If someone does not accept the Hebrew Bible, then one necessarily loses the possibility of God?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, because according to Jewish doctrine, which Christianity inherited, all other “gods” are non-gods. According to IC (his fundamentalist branch) there is only One True God — the God of the Hebrews. The pagan gods are demons.

The idea of “god-concept” or “god-picture” (a way that the divine is understood) cannot be allowed in his “worldview”.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, because according to Jewish doctrine, which Christianity inherited, all other “gods” are non-gods. According to IC (his fundamentalist branch) there is only One True God — the God of the Hebrews. The pagan gods are demons.

The idea of “god-concept” or “god-picture” (a way that the divine is understood) cannot be allowed in his “worldview”.

What do you mean by "god-concept" or "god-picture"? Are you referring to God being an entirely human social construction or whatever all the way up and down, from "top to bottom" or however, one should word it? Or would you clarify further on what you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

The idea of “god-concept” or “god-picture” (a way that the divine is understood) cannot be allowed in his “worldview”.

What do you mean by "god-concept" or "god-picture"? Are you referring to God being an entirely human social construction or whatever all the way up and down, from "top to bottom" or however, one should word it? Or would you clarify further on what you mean?

It's incredibly stupid. It's the idea that one's "god picture" or view of what one wants "god" to be, is better than the truth about who He actually is. It's almost so dumb it doesn't need refutation.

Try that idea with one's "gravity-concept," and see what ensues.

Reality has a terrible way of biting back at people who refuse to recognize it.

[Gary Childress]

The idea of “god-concept” or “god-picture” (a way that the divine is understood) cannot be allowed in his “worldview”.

What do you mean by "god-concept" or "god-picture"? Are you referring to God being an entirely human social construction or whatever all the way up and down, from "top to bottom" or however, one should word it? Or would you clarify further on what you mean?

It's incredibly stupid. It's the idea that one's "god picture" or view of what one wants "god" to be, is better than the truth about who He actually is. It's almost so dumb it doesn't need refutation.

Try that idea with one's "gravity-concept," and see what ensues.

Reality has a terrible way of biting back at people who refuse to recognize it.

Well, I try to be agnostic regarding things that allegedly come after death, or things that are outside of this world. The two of you will have to work your disagreement out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What do you mean by "god-concept" or "god-picture"? Are you referring to God being an entirely human social construction or whatever all the way up and down, from "top to bottom" or however, one should word it? Or would you clarify further on what you mean?

All religions that I have studied offer a “picture” of what God is.

Judaism, and then Christianity through its inheritance, describe an absolutely intolerant god that must annihilate any competing god-concept.

IC wrote: It's incredibly stupid. It's the idea that one's "god picture" or view of what one wants "god" to be, is better than the truth about who He actually is. It's almost so dumb it doesn't need refutation.

Try that idea with one's "gravity-concept," and see what ensues.

Reality has a terrible way of biting back at people who refuse to recognize it.

[Gary Childress]

What do you mean by "god-concept" or "god-picture"? Are you referring to God being an entirely human social construction or whatever all the way up and down, from "top to bottom" or however, one should word it? Or would you clarify further on what you mean?

All religions that I have studied offer a “picture” of what God is.

Judaism, and then Christianity through its inheritance, describe an absolutely intolerant god that must annihilate any competing god-concept.

Yes. I'm sorry for that. The Abrahamic religions seem to make up the majority of the world's population too. I doubt they're going to fade into history and into oblivion anytime soon. I've got a Christian friend who I am trying to remain relatively close friends with (he's a good guy) but I inevitably find myself straying into discussions about religion with him. So far, my approach has been to let him know that I am agnostic but will keep my mind open and that if that changes I will let him know. He has kids, and when I'm around his family I feel more or less in a self-imposed straight jacket. If I impress upon his kids, I'm afraid I'll influence them in a way he doesn't want. I've told him and he understands my dilemma, so he tells his kids to pray for me. And they do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Immanuel Can]

I've got a Christian friend who I am trying to remain relatively close friends with (he's a good guy) but I inevitably find myself straying into discussions about religion with him. So far, my approach has been to let him know that I am agnostic but will keep my mind open and that if that changes I will let him know. He has kids, and when I'm around his family I feel more or less in a self-imposed straight jacket. If I impress upon his kids, I'm afraid I'll influence them in a way he doesn't want. I've told him and he understands my dilemma, so he tells his kids to pray for me. And they do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, Christians are a lot more bullet-proof than you imagine, Gary. Their kids tend to know where the love comes from, and to respond to that...so as long as they're as nice as you say, I don't think you'll ever do them any harm. And if your friend is still your friend, and lets you speak to him about what you think freely, and invites his kids to pray for you, he certainly doesn't sound horrible.

Take the win.

[Immanuel Can]

Judaism, and then Christianity through its inheritance, describe an absolutely intolerant god that must annihilate any competing god-concept.

Yes. And presumably, your wife also wants to "annihilate" any "mate concept" you have, apart from her. She's just that "intolerant."

I'm being facetious, of course. But obviously, there's no benefit to a false "god-concept." And the "annihilation of one such is no loss. Whatever the truth about God is, that's the only thing worth knowing. The rest is rubbish and distractions.

So my advice: get used to that sort of "intolerance." You'll find that reality itself has just the same kind of "intolerance" of falsehoods.

[Age]

Judaism, and then Christianity through its inheritance, describe an absolutely intolerant god that must annihilate any competing god-concept.

Yes. And presumably, your wife also wants to "annihilate" any "mate concept" you have, apart from her. She's just that "intolerant."

If being CLOSED is related to INTOLERANCE, then 'that one' IS, OBVIOUSLY, being INTOLERANT.

I'm being facetious, of course. But obviously, there's no benefit to a false "god-concept."

So WHY do 'you' STICK TO, and HOLD ONTO, the OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY False 'god-concept' that 'God' is male gendered or has male sexual organs, "immanuel can"?

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY IN CLAIMING that there IS NO BENEFIT to A 'false god-concept' WHILE AT the EXACT SAME TIME HOLDING ONTO and BELIEVING A 'god-concept', which IS SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY False, and ABSURD, itself?

And the "annihilation of one such is no loss. Whatever the truth about God is, that's the only thing worth knowing. The rest is rubbish and distractions.

So my advice: get used to that sort of "intolerance." You'll find that reality itself has just the same kind of "intolerance" of falsehoods.

[Age]

What do you mean by "god-concept" or "god-picture"? Are you referring to God being an entirely human social construction or whatever all the way up and down, from "top to bottom" or however, one should word it? Or would you clarify further on what you mean?

All religions that I have studied offer a “picture” of what God is.

Judaism, and then Christianity through its inheritance, describe an absolutely intolerant god that must annihilate any competing god-concept.

Yes. I'm sorry for that. The Abrahamic religions seem to make up the majority of the world's population too. I doubt they're going to fade into history and into oblivion anytime soon. I've got a Christian friend who I am trying to remain relatively close friends with (he's a good guy) but I inevitably find myself straying into discussions about religion with him.

WHY?

To ALIGN "your" 'self' WITH 'their' views and beliefs?

Or,

To DISTANCE "your" 'self' FROM 'their' views and beliefs?

Or maybe,

TO CAUSE, or maybe FIND, conflict, disagreement, and/or arguments?

So far, my approach has been to let him know that I am agnostic but will keep my mind open and that if that changes I will let him know.

But 'you' have ALREADY PROVEN NOT TO BE OPEN "gary childress". Oh, and by the way, 'you' do NOT HAVE 'a mind'.

He has kids, and when I'm around his family I feel more or less in a self-imposed straight jacket. If I impress upon his kids, I'm afraid I'll influence them in a way he doesn't want. I've told him and he understands my dilemma, so he tells his kids to pray for me. And they do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sounds like 'you', ONCE AGAIN, WANT "others" TO ACCEPT, and/or TO SHARE, 'your' VIEWS.

Which, by the way, WAS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE among the adult population in the days when this was being written. Thus, PROVING True just HOW CLOSED and NARROWED 'adult human beings' REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

[Age]

I've got a Christian friend who I am trying to remain relatively close friends with (he's a good guy) but I inevitably find myself straying into discussions about religion with him. So far, my approach has been to let him know that I am agnostic but will keep my mind open and that if that changes I will let him know. He has kids, and when I'm around his family I feel more or less in a self-imposed straight jacket. If I impress upon his kids, I'm afraid I'll influence them in a way he doesn't want. I've told him and he understands my dilemma, so he tells his kids to pray for me. And they do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, Christians are a lot more bullet-proof than you imagine, Gary. Their kids tend to know where the love comes from, and to respond to that...so as long as they're as nice as you say, I don't think you'll ever do them any harm.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one BELIEVES that their OWN CHOSEN religion IS the BEST among ALL of the MULTITUDE OF OTHER ones.

LOL 'our children' of the "christian" religion are MUCH BETTER OF.

What A TRULY 'self-centered', DISTORTED, STUPID 'thing' TO even just 'think', let alone TO BELIEVE, "immanuel can".

And if your friend is still your friend, and lets you speak to him about what you think freely, and invites his kids to pray for you, he certainly doesn't sound horrible.

Take the win.

But letting one 'speak', while NOT 'listening', IS A VERY HORRIBLE 'thing' TO DO. Which, by the way, IS the EXACT REASON WHY 'you', human beings, ARE living IN 'THE MESS' that 'you' ALL ARE 'now', when this is being written.

Also, inviting "others" to 'pray FOR one' who IS EXPRESSING their views about NOT BELIEVING in God, could be SEEN AS a HUGE 'INSULT', and/or RIDICULE OF 'them'.

And, inviting kids to 'misbehave' 'that way' IS ANOTHER FORM OF ABUSE, which OBVIOUSLY A HORRIBLE 'thing' TO DO TO children.

But, 'you' ARE absolutely FREE TO 'see' 'things' HOW 'you' WANT TO "immanuel can".

By the way, has ANY one INFORMED 'you' of just how ONE "sided" and CLOSED 'your' views REALLY ARE on some matters?

[Gary Childress]

I've got a Christian friend who I am trying to remain relatively close friends with (he's a good guy) but I inevitably find myself straying into discussions about religion with him. So far, my approach has been to let him know that I am agnostic but will keep my mind open and that if that changes I will let him know. He has kids, and when I'm around his family I feel more or less in a self-imposed straight jacket. If I impress upon his kids, I'm afraid I'll influence them in a way he doesn't want. I've told him and he understands my dilemma, so he tells his kids to pray for me. And they do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, Christians are a lot more bullet-proof than you imagine, Gary.

Are they logic-proof, though? Are they impervious to all possible truths? Is Christianity the one true religion? It seems to me that Christianity is an interpretation of reality in so far as it is founded on the premise of God and, more specifically, in the identification between God and Christ being one and the same. According to Christianity, Christ is the "one" true path to the "king"dom of "god"? But for who? For everyone? What about the Buddha? The Buddha lived in a similar way insofar as renouncing worldly possessions. Christ was a pauper who became a "king" and the Buddha was a king who became a pauper in order to leave everything behind. Both appear to be forever in the memory of posterity. Sounds like a potential matrimony to me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

And I think Hinduism might be an early answer to religion along the lines of "multi-culturalism". But I'm sure it's much more complex than that.

[Janoah]

The Holy Land isn't "holy." And Israel is not special.

By the way, what does "holy" mean in your mind?

From the link I gave you, it is clear that those religious Christians are not hindered by a scientific view of the Bible from considering it holy.