Son Of GOD

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do. I believe it to be the same diety with possibly different attributes.

Any religion that believes in a supreme god/ultimate god, I equate to my God.

Of course. Myself being a deist, I am very open to different interpretations of God.

However, I do believe it is worth examining certain things in regards to Allah. Arabic word for God is Ilah. Allah was previously a supreme moon god of Arabia possibly imported from the Babylonian religion, or Ar-Rahman (mentioned in the Qur'an) in Yemani traditional pre-Islamic religions.

While I do agree that all supreme Gods in every religions are essentially the same, if we accept Allah as being the same God of of the Judeo-Christian religion, we therefore should afford the same privilege to Horus and Brahman as we do to Allah and YHWH.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course. Myself being a deist, I am very open to different interpretations of God.

However, I do believe it is worth examining certain things in regards to Allah. Arabic word for God is Ilah. Allah was previously a supreme moon god of Arabia possibly imported from the Babylonian religion, or Ar-Rahman (mentioned in the Qur'an) in Yemani traditional pre-Islamic religions.

While I do agree that all supreme Gods in every religions are essentially the same, if we accept Allah as being the same God of of the Judeo-Christian religion, we therefore should afford the same privilege to Horus and Brahman as we do to Allah and YHWH.

👆

Awesome.

And I do consider Shiva to be the same "God" I believe in. Same with Vishnu/Krishna/Brahman. That would have to include Waheguru and Ahura Mazda.

We just disagree on certain aspects. The name does not matter: only that it is the 'divine' or Supreme Being for our universe/multiverse.

Edit - I am forgetting about the long ass list of African religions that have dozens of names for their own version of the Divine. I cannot deny them, either. Maybe Odin, fits, too.

Originally posted by inimalist
except that this is not the way I'm using the term at all

objective is similar to the term demonstrable, as in, this is an elephant because we call it an elephant AND it has these features that are associated with the things we call an elephant.

I'm certainly not a moral relativist in any way

Obviously, I disagree. That's how you're trying to use it despite your protests otherwise. What you're referring to, in your example again, is not objective: it is a tautology. This is an elephant because it is an elephant is essentially what you're saying. That's not objective, at all in any definition of objective.

Adding the "and" portion does nothing to change the fact that it is still anthropic. Objective? I don't know because I think you're trying your hardest to make it sound objective with the additions. It doesn't mean the same thing, at this point, because I didn't argue against that point, originally. It was the fact that you said ' elephants are called elephants' was objective.

Again, I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist. It is not even that sneaky: it is quite direct. Unless, of course, you have a definition for "anthropic objective morality" that does not definie itself by its name but means something else? In which, I would agree: it is not just a new flavor of moral relativism.

Originally posted by Bentley
The statement would be more impressive if one was a figment of imagination and the other was real, from an atheist point of view it would seem utterly redundant and clumsy.

Again, since it's a citation, it would be tacky to change it even if it was a rather poor statement to begin with.

(I'm just messing with ya 😛 )

actually i was citing, well, myself. -FotNs- (F.ist o.f t.he N.orth s.tar.)

i don't understant how it would've been more impressive if, as you stated, "one was a figment of imagination and the other was real." that wouldn't of made sense and would defeat the purpose of the statement because i'm an athiest.

and an athiest i am but the statement doesn't seem utterly redundant and clumsy. How was it repetitive and lackng grace or dexterity?, as you presume it does?

but then again you were just trying to be silly. so i'll humor you and as a bonus, chalk it up to trival banter on your part.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
actually i was citing, well, myself. -FotNs- (F.ist o.f t.he N.orth s.tar.)

i don't understant how it would've been more impressive if, as you stated, "one was a figment of imagination and the other was real." that wouldn't of made sense and would defeat the purpose of the statement because i'm an athiest.

and an athiest i am but the statement doesn't seem utterly redundant and clumsy. How was it repetitive and lackng grace or dexterity?, as you presume it does?

but then again you were just trying to be silly. so i'll humor you and as a bonus, chalk it up to trival banter on your part.

💃

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I disagree. That's how you're trying to use it despite your protests otherwise. What you're referring to, in your example again, is not objective: it is a tautology. This is an elephant because it is an elephant is essentially what you're saying. That's not objective, at all in any definition of objective.

Adding the "and" portion does nothing to change the fact that it is still anthropic. Objective? I don't know because I think you're trying your hardest to make it sound objective with the additions. It doesn't mean the same thing, at this point, because I didn't argue against that point, originally. It was the fact that you said ' elephants are called elephants' was objective.

Again, I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist. It is not even that sneaky: it is quite direct. Unless, of course, you have a definition for "anthropic objective morality" that does not definie itself by its name but means something else? In which, I would agree: it is not just a new flavor of moral relativism.

so, in your mind, the words in a language have no objective meaning?

as in, you don't know what I just said because of linguistic relativity?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your mind, the words in a language have no objective meaning?

as in, you don't know what I just said because of linguistic relativity?

Please address the points I have brought up instead of using a tangential point to distract from my original point.

Your question is incorrectly asked.

If you were to capture what I have stated, you would ask this:

"So, in your mind, labels for creatures can vary from group to group meaning I cannot say that elephants are called elephants and label that as 'objective'? But rather, I should say that some people call elephants elephants in order to make my point about objective labels?"

If you said that above, which is almost a direct quote from my posts, yes, I would agree with it.

Originally posted by Lewis21
God Is only one, He is not the Father of any one but The creator of Every one. According some religion Book(Bible) son of God means The person who accept the onness of Allah and lead his life according to the teachings of God Almighty, so every person who believes in GOD is the Son of God, it does mean that he is Born to God but he is Created by GOD.

I don't think the bible ever says anything about Allah.