Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Alexiev]

If The Odyssey is a greater work than the gospels, does that mean Achilles' description of the afterlife is more accurate than Jesus's?

I can't even begin to imagine the group of observations that would justify the first premise, which seems to me entirely absurd, given the facts; and I don't have any idea how you imagine the conclusion you aim at there is warranted by that premise anyway.

[FlashDangerpants]

what you think of, when you think of that word, is quite substantially different from what I am thinking.

Words aren't just noises that point at little images in the human mind, meanings aren't the little pictures in your mind's eye.

[Immanuel Can]

what you think of, when you think of that word, is quite substantially different from what I am thinking.

Words aren't just noises that point at little images in the human mind, meanings aren't the little pictures in your mind's eye.

No. But words always have a range of possible interpretations. It's far from unlimited, of course...you can't think "cat" when you see the word "bow" and be inside the reasonable range of interpretation. But you can think "violin," and you can think "front of boat": those are within the range of things people have normally associated with the word "bow," even though they're very, very different things.

The term "God" is the most important term we have. And the accretions of human fancy have been placed around it to such an extent that one can hear it and think such various things as "the Supreme Being," or "one of many lesser beings in a pantheon," or "spirit inherent in all objects and existens," or "mythical being," or "Allah," or "Demiurge," or "Ahura Mazda," or a variety of other entities. So one has to specify which interpretation of that word one is alluding to when one uses it.

That, I think, is quite obvious. It's not a simple case of one word = one meaning. And any dictionary we might consult will reveal the same phenomenon: the editors always provide as many different interpretations of a given word as they can think of, not just a single definition.

[Alexiev]

At least when we use "god" to refer to Zeus or Apollo we have some idea what we are talking about. A God who is incorporeal, incomprehensible, whose Mind we cannot know is a God for whom the word loses meaning.

Ok. Maybe the great saints, after decades of meditation, glean some specific meaning from the word. But "God" the Father doesn't mean much to me (I suppose we can know Him vaguely through the Son, who, at least, was corporeal).

By His works ye shall know Him. But His works, which include murder and mayhem, are so contradictory to the laudatory descriptions of Him that they provide those of us who have not spent decades in meditation little help. So the word -- in the sense IC wants to use it -- is incomprehensible. Like its referent.

[Harbal]

The term "God" is the most important term we have.

Can I just mention that it's not the most important term I have? In fact, I'm sure I could manage very well without it.

[Immanuel Can]

The term "God" is the most important term we have.

Can I just mention that it's not the most important term I have? In fact, I'm sure I could manage very well without it.

Well, either that will turn out to be true, or it won't. Either way, time will tell.

[Immanuel Can]

At least when we use "god" to refer to Zeus or Apollo we have some idea what we are talking about. A God who is incorporeal, incomprehensible, whose Mind we cannot know is a God for whom the word loses meaning.

Well, with that line, you've just eliminated over half of the "religions" and ideologies in the world from having anything to say on the subject. But in point of fact, the claim that Christians make is that we CAN know God, and OUGHT TO know God, and that, in fact, if somebody doesn't, he's simply "without excuse," as Romans 1:20 puts it so clearly.

But "God" the Father doesn't mean much to me (I suppose we can know Him vaguely through the Son, who, at least, was corporeal).

Now you're onto something. Hebrews 1:1-2 covers this:

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature,..."

By His works ye shall know Him.

The quotation is actually, "By their fruits, ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:16, 20 KJV), and it's about how you know who knows God and who doesn't. The Bible actually does not back your interpretation, there.

[Harbal]

The term "God" is the most important term we have.

Can I just mention that it's not the most important term I have? In fact, I'm sure I could manage very well without it.

Well, either that will turn out to be true, or it won't.

I feel certain it will.

[Alexiev]

.......

If the nature of God is beyond our comprehension, the word (as you would use it) is at best vaguely meaningful.

However, God, :a supernatural being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortune" is a definition that applies to Zeus and Yaweh. We can actually understand it. True, you and other Christians might decry the comparison. But why should you? Why not respect other religions, and other people?

[Immanuel Can]

However, God, :a supernatural being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortune" is a definition that applies to Zeus and Yaweh.

But not to Buddhists 'or Atheists' use of that word. But it doesn't even fit Zeus and the like: Zeus was, like all his other gods in the Greek panetheon, a limited but supernatural being. He had a birth story and a death story, and as you pointed out, among other things, a particular penchant for assaulting mortals sexually. So that's no good.

Why not respect other religions, and other people?

Well, first, it has nothing to do with "other people." We all respect people as people. There's a difference between the people and the lies to which they fall prey. In fact, to respect a lie is to disrespect a person -- to find them unworthy of having the truth. So that's a poorly-phrased question.

But why "respect" a lie? Especially, why "respect" a lie being told about the most important Person in the universe? That doesn't make any sense either.

[Alexiev]

But why "respect" a lie? Especially, why "respect" a lie being told about the most important Person in the universe? That doesn't make any sense either.

Nobody suggests you respect a lie. However, a lie is an intentional untruth. Believers (like you IC) who tell untruths are not lying. All of us believe things that are incorrect (as the history of science demonstrates).

In addition, untrue stories are not always lies. Fiction and lies are distinct. I'll go so far as to say that although I think your religious beliefs are untrue, they are not lies.

[Immanuel Can]

But why "respect" a lie? Especially, why "respect" a lie being told about the most important Person in the universe? That doesn't make any sense either.

Nobody suggests you respect a lie.

Well, then, there's absolutely no reason to "respect" a lie about God.

[Alexiev]

But why "respect" a lie? Especially, why "respect" a lie being told about the most important Person in the universe? That doesn't make any sense either.

Nobody suggests you respect a lie.

Well, then, there's absolutely no reason to "respect" a lie about God.

What is disrespectful (obnoxious) is to think that beliefs that differ from your own are lies. Get a grip. You do not have insight into the beliefs or motives of others.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody suggests you respect a lie.

Well, then, there's absolutely no reason to "respect" a lie about God.

What is disrespectful (obnoxious) is to think that beliefs that differ from your own are lies.

What's absurd is to think that beliefs that differ from reality are not lies. What's really absurd is to allow lies about the very most important matters that exist.

[Alexiev]

What's absurd is to think that beliefs that differ from reality are not lies. What's really absurd is to allow lies about the very most important matters that exist.

Lie: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

I'll grant that your untrue statements, since you believe them to be true, are not lies. Neither are other untrue statements that attempt to persuade, but not deceive.