What does God want?

Musika said:
It is absurd to think someone can arrive at a point of deism and somehow proclaim they arrived at the position divorced from the influence of 2000+ years of religious history.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt there has been influence of religious history, as has almost everything in the world been influenced.
But that is beside the point.
Desists reject scripture, reject direct revelation etc.
You might not agree with it, or not believe it, but if you insist on making scripture a necessity for discussion you are dismissing their beliefs, and doing so in an arrogant and insulting manner.
This has nothing to do with my belief. One may believe that one can approach these subjects from a cultural vacuum, but it would not be a true understanding.
Click to expand...
Ironic that you say that it is nothing to do with your belief and then state one of your beliefs.
Not a true understanding of the theistic version of God that you believe in, perhaps.
True understanding of the God they believe in, though?
The God that they believe in did not simply exist due to cultural influences, but because it is the reality.
Did they arrive at their belief absent any curltural or intellectual influence?
No.
But the issue is what they believe, not the reasons they believe.
And if you insist on the necessity of what they don't believe in then you are insisting on discussion being only about your version of God, no matter how correct you believe yourself and your version to be.
It would be no different than insisting an atheist start with the a priori assumption that God exists.
If it was 100% divorced from scripture, they wouldn't be using the word "God".
Click to expand...
Of course scriptures have an influence on cultures.
Words get into the vocabulary.
Words get used.
Yet all of it is irrelevant.
If desists believe in the existence of a God that has no direct involvement, no scriptures, no revelation, then who are you to tell them that they're wrong, that they must accept the scriptures that they specifically reject.
It is your belief against theirs.
Nothing more.
For you to insist upon yours being correct is simply your belief speaking.
Unless you have some alternate history view, it is clear that scripture is the seminal reference material for defining such things and introducing such ideas as "God" into mainstream society. Now you can bring other things like logic or historiography to further examine scripture to determine what you do or do not accept, but you would be hard pressed to talk about arriving at "the book of nature" having totally bypassed "the book of God".
Click to expand...
All irrelevant.
It is not a matter of how a belief might originally have formed but in what that belief is.
Deists believe in a God that provides no scriptures, no revelation.
End of.
Insisting upon scriptures to define their God is simply fallacious on your part.

But as said, fortunately for you there appear to be no Deists to be directly insulted.
 
Didn't the Aztec's have altars and gods and other religious trappings?

Did I miss some archeological find where they found copies of the Holy Bible?

:)
 
Baldeee said:
I have no doubt there has been influence of religious history, as has almost everything in the world been influenced.
But that is beside the point.
Desists reject scripture, reject direct revelation etc.
You might not agree with it, or not believe it, but if you insist on making scripture a necessity for discussion you are dismissing their beliefs, and doing so in an arrogant and insulting manner.
Ironic that you say that it is nothing to do with your belief and then state one of your beliefs.
Not a true understanding of the theistic version of God that you believe in, perhaps.
True understanding of the God they believe in, though?
The God that they believe in did not simply exist due to cultural influences, but because it is the reality.
Did they arrive at their belief absent any curltural or intellectual influence?
No.
But the issue is what they believe, not the reasons they believe.
And if you insist on the necessity of what they don't believe in then you are insisting on discussion being only about your version of God, no matter how correct you believe yourself and your version to be.
It would be no different than insisting an atheist start with the a priori assumption that God exists.
Of course scriptures have an influence on cultures.
Words get into the vocabulary.
Words get used.
Yet all of it is irrelevant.
If desists believe in the existence of a God that has no direct involvement, no scriptures, no revelation, then who are you to tell them that they're wrong, that they must accept the scriptures that they specifically reject.
It is your belief against theirs.
Nothing more.
For you to insist upon yours being correct is simply your belief speaking.
All irrelevant.
It is not a matter of how a belief might originally have formed but in what that belief is.
Deists believe in a God that provides no scriptures, no revelation.
End of.
Insisting upon scriptures to define their God is simply fallacious on your part.

But as said, fortunately for you there appear to be no Deists to be directly insulted.
Click to expand...
So just to be clear, we have to be careful about falling back on definitions in scripture that God is the source of everything because we may offend the deists who happens to reject scripture in toto and also happen to work with some definition other than God being the source of everything yet are still working with a sufficiently personal form of God (one that has form, desires, plans etc) so as to participate as per the OP?
The fact that you have to theoretically fill the shoes of such a rare creature in order to advocate their position should be a clue as to how preposterous you are being.
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
Is there a way I can tell which books are authored by God and which are by Man and do any of these books tell us anything that hasn't come from other sources as well?
Click to expand...
Most of the books in the bible have names of the authors, no?
 
Seattle said:
No and I don't remember any that are authored by God.
Click to expand...
How about the Books of the Old and New Testament?
1. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
Samuel, Samuel, Kings, Kings, Chronicles,
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,
Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes,
Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel,
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah and Micah and Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi—
These are the books of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
1. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Acts and Romans,
First and Second Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
First and Second Thessalonians,
Timothy, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (fie-lee-mawn,)
Then to the Hebrews, Epistle of James,
Peter, Peter, John, John, John, Jude, Revelation
These are the books of the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Are these verbatim from the named source or passed down as hearsay narratives?
 
Write4U said:
Actually we know more about the unnamed books. We know those were oral mythology by thoughtful but naive and scientifically ignorant tribal shepherds
Click to expand...
One of those could have been God. I always thought God was a naive shepherd.
 
Seattle said:
One of those could have been God. I always thought God was a naive shepherd.
Click to expand...
I think it started much earlier than that. There are studies which show that alpha chimpanzees already run around beating the bushes and cursing the heavens during a thunder storm. Where most other animals cower and seek shelter, the chimpanzee shows clear demonstrations of warning to the unseen powerful enemy that makes loud noises and throws water from above, scaring his tribe and making him wet.

I truly believe religion started with the first mind which could think in simple abstract terms.
Fight or flight is the foundation for judging and taking actions when presented with unknown and uncontrollable situations.
 
Write4U said:
In them there days the sheep were smarter than the average sheep. I'm sure it must have been a sheep that invented the term Sheeple,
Click to expand...

In the beginning there were 3 who followed a star with gifts for a baby born of a virgin (said to be aged about 14), impregnated by a spirit

Ya right

:)
 
Baldeee said:
You might not agree with it, or not believe it, but if you insist on making scripture a necessity for discussion you are dismissing their beliefs, and doing so in an arrogant and insulting manner.
Click to expand...

Well at least atheists do not crucify theists for being theist. That's what theists do to atheists and what's even worse, to other theists. I call that the height of hubris.
 
Baldeee said:
I have no doubt there has been influence of religious history, as has almost everything in the world been influenced.
But that is beside the point.
Click to expand...

That is the point. Deist come to their understanding of God via the scripture.
They accept at least one part of the Bible ''In the beginning God created the Heavens, and the Earth.

Baldeee said:
Desists reject scripture, reject direct revelation etc.
Click to expand...

They don't reject God as creator.

Baldeee said:
You might not agree with it, or not believe it, but if you insist on making scripture a necessity for discussion you are dismissing their beliefs, and doing so in an arrogant and insulting manner.
Click to expand...

They believe God created the universe, theists believe God created the universe. How is that dismissing their beliefs?

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top