To the Theists. Which God(s) you believe in, which you don't and why?

To all the theists here. Think and answer the two questions. Don't go on and type random stuff.
First:
Which God(s) you believe in and why?
Second:
Which God(s) you don't believe in and why?

Please don't post anything else, just answer the questions. No digressions. Don't write anything meaningless, word salads and such. Only the answers. Do not derail the thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You would do better with your questions on a religious site. I don't think there are many theist participants on sciforums.

I think most people choose the god that is presented to them by the dominant culture, which is probably why we have so many christians in America.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome back, Praty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Personality_of_Godhead
Because the term incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more

Attributing impersonal brahman or some other polytheistic or voidist view as supreme (since such an argument has problems of attributing quality as caused by something devoid of quality)

Do you understand how monotheism (or even plain old monism) can contextualize polytheistic and even animistic claims?
(just asking because we can anticipate the much flogged retort "so you don't believe in thor?" or "an atheist only disbelieves in one more god than you do")

 

Of course its gonna get de-railed..

its a silly attempt to get a definition of God to argue with.

 

Mekigal cause he was a lot like Me and hells bells I love Me. He mysteriously disappeared into the sea too, so it is my contention that Micheal myths of rowing boats ashore were born from old Me

 

That is funny . Atheist are separated by one degree is the implication . That is funny . I will be laughing for days

 

1. How do you respond to charges of circularity and self-referentiality?
Namely, it is this particular theology that teaches that the Supreme Personality of Godhead "incorporates any other function attributed to an omnimax god and more"; without subscribing to that theology, you would not see it that way.


2. How do you respond to charges from the Christian or Muslim side?
They hold that you are subscribing to some variation of falsity or the devil's work.

 

Still, I'd like to find out.

Culture and decision to ignore facts.

Thanks, Sci! Had my exams.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Does that mean you also follow the Hindu theology?

Something that is logical needs to be flogged till you properly answer it.

 

Silly? Right!

:blbl: This is silly.

If you are a theist, please answer the questions.

 

perhaps you can cite the text(s) where the word "hindu" appears just so we can be clear exactly what the hell you are talking about

"physician heal thyself"

 

All of them in some form or fashion..if not necessarily in the same context their adherents do.

If you mean by that "believe in the metaphysical 'existence' of" there aren't any...
If by that you mean "Gods I don't like," well...kind of rude to bring up names...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let me make it easier for you, just so you know what the hell I'm talking about.

Would you have still have believed in, as you apparently do, a Godhead supreme being if it wasn't talked about in Hindu theology (hence none other) as the link you shared says.

Funniest thing I've read today.

 

still not clear what the hell you are talking about.

I didn't mention a thing about "hindu" theology

If you have an idea what you are talking about, perhaps you can indicate what body of work you are talking about when you start talking about "hindu" theology.

k?

I know
just trying to help you form a logical statement

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In order to have some reason to believe that a theistic practice is relevant and authoritative (ie. in order to have some reason to believe that it can and will deliver the desired results), said practice needs to be embedded into a living theistic culture and society.

As it is, the only culture and society that embeds the practice in relation to the Supreme Personality of Godhead as you linked earlier, is the Hindu culture and society, specifically some traditions and groups within it.

For all practical intents and purposes, one cannot practice according to the theology of the Supreme Personality of Godhead unless one is part of said Hindu culture and society.

Unless you wish to argue otherwise?


I am referring also to your thread here: Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God


And to further quote a point you frequently make about the necessity of being properly socialized:

The disciplic succession and association of devotees that you so emphasize are only present in what is usually known as Hinduism.

 

Note: On July 7th, I have invited Cifo per pm to participate in this thread.

 

still not clear what body of work you are specifically referring to that makes mention of the word "hindu" within its seminal texts

 

I have edited my post, please see above.

 

The Bible doesn't mention Christians or Christianity either, but it is culturally understood that they are inextricably connected to the Bible - as they are the ones who provide the translations, commentaries, who publish and distribute it.

You yourself have noted that scripture can only be properly understood only via proper socialization within the disciplic succession.

The Vedic scriptures may not even mention the word "Hindu", but the only ones who claim to have the authoritative disciplic succession for the Vedic scriptures, are Hindus / groups of them. Nobody else.

There is no "independent church of God" in which everyone with a desire to know about God would be welcome or could fit in.