The Idea of Religion

[Metamorph]

I don't know why you're mentioning this. I've claimed that many religious traditions are cultural inheritances, rooted in confusion, and can be ignored. I haven't said anything about Gods existence or the lack thereof. Though I will say... every religious book has its miracles, so miracles can't possibly be the reason for believing in a religion. Infact you really have to convince yourself that the miracles did infact occur in most cases.


They've identified God and his essential nature differently, but they all agree on the metaphysics of it - that there is one and no other before him, that he accounts for the events documented in the old testament, and so on. So yes I'd say they worship the same God but have a different idea of the nature of God.

While it's true miracles are not sufficient, they are usually necessary. It's more of a metanarrative thing, but the miracles tend to be the main narrative points. For example, when Moses and one of Pharoah's magicians faced off they were doing basically the same thing appearance-wise, but the narrative recontextualizes Moses as getting help from God and Pharoah's magician as either just being a charlatan or someone using demons. The infamous unforgivable sin of the New Testament also has everything to do with context, since the Pharisees accused Jesus of driving out demons with Satan's power rather than God's. Maimonides recapitulates that argument later, that not all miracles are themselves evidence of religion, which is true, but the narrative points are the real evidence and that is what the Pharisees denied to Jesus which could not be forgiven since, if you believe the Christian narrative, the Pharisees knew everything prophecied in the Old Testament thoroughly, they were just in denial when they saw Jesus so they could continue being sinful.

How can every religion that believes that be said to be worshipping the same God? Even Satanists believe that, they just think Satan is the real God and the God of the Bible is a usurper.

[DogOfDanger]

How can every religion that believes that be said to be worshipping the same God? Even Satanists believe that

No, Satanists actually do not believe what I described. They don't consider their God to be the God of the old testament, for starters. But their beliefs are much more compatible with Pagan polytheism... Satanists usually consider their own will to be much more important than worshipping a divine entity. Many Satanists consider Satan to just be a figure of rebellion and nothing more. There's not really cogent agreement amongst Satanists as to what their beliefs are, but this idea that there is one and no other before God is just about the antithesis of Satanism.

I don't know what is being debated at this point, so unless there's something more you have to say... adios.

[Metamorph]

No, Satanists actually do not believe what I described. They don't consider their God to be the God of the old testament, for starters. But their beliefs are much more compatible with Pagan polytheism... Satanists usually consider their own will to be much more important than worshipping a divine entity. Many Satanists consider Satan to just be a figure of rebellion and nothing more. There's not really cogent agreement amongst Satanists as to what their beliefs are, but this idea that there is one and no other before God is just about the antithesis of Satanism.

I don't know what is being debated at this point, so unless there's something more you have to say... adios.

I mean theistic Satanism, not the Temple of Satan or Church of Satan and not polytheistic demonolatry. There are groups like Joy of Satan who think of Satan as being a real monotheistic god who is the true god unlike the Old Testament God in their worldview, as well as many forms of Gnosticism and Luciferianism. They believe there is one god (in their worldview, Satan) who is responsible for the events of the Old Testament, they just disagree on who it is.

And if they disagree on who it is, how am I supposed to take it for granted that every mainline Protestant who casually says "God in the Old Testament is mean, I think Jesus is different and better and replaced all the Old Testament stuff," is worshipping the same God in any real sense?

[DogOfDanger]

I mean theistic Satanism, not the Temple of Satan or Church of Satan and not polytheistic demonolatry. There are groups like Joy of Satan who think of Satan as being a real monotheistic god who is the true god unlike the Old Testament God in their worldview, as well as many forms of Gnosticism and Luciferianism. They believe there is one god (in their worldview, Satan) who is responsible for the events of the Old Testament, they just disagree on who it is.

Well, if they genuinely believe in the God of the old testament, but just believe that God is infact Satan ... and they aren't just trying to be controversial - than yes they have very greatly misinterpreted the nature of God in the old testament. TBH I don't see how that belief even makes sense, God in the old testament literally did things like destroy Sodom & Gomorrah, it sounds like something a person would say just to be controversial, but who knows.

And if they disagree on who it is, how am I supposed to take it for granted that every mainline Protestant who casually says "God in the Old Testament is mean, I think Jesus is different and better and replaced all the Old Testament stuff," is worshipping the same God in any real sense?

You'd just say that they have misinterpreted the nature of their God. What I'm saying is they aren't worshipping an actual different God.
It's very similar to ... feeling a certain way about a person you think you know, but don't actually know very well. Then when you get to know them better... you change your opinion of them. What I'm saying is that they are and always were the same person, it is just that your perception of them was off. The person is not defined by your own belief about them, the person exists independently of you. There are not multiple people involved.
This is good, it means the religious people are all at least looking in the same direction. To see eye to eye they just have to understand what they're looking at.

[Metamorph]

Well, if they genuinely believe in the God of the old testament, but just believe that God is infact Satan ... and they aren't just trying to be controversial - than yes they have very greatly misinterpreted the nature of God in the old testament. TBH I don't see how that belief even makes sense, God in the old testament literally did things like destroy Sodom & Gomorrah, it sounds like something a person would say just to be controversial, but who knows.


You'd just say that they have misinterpreted the nature of their God. What I'm saying is they aren't worshipping an actual different God.
It's very similar to ... feeling a certain way about a person you think you know, but don't actually know very well. Then when you get to know them better... you change your opinion of them. What I'm saying is that they are and always were the same person, it is just that your perception of them was off. The person is not defined by your own belief about them, the person exists independently of you. There are not multiple people involved.
This is good, it means the religious people are all at least looking in the same direction. To see eye to eye they just have to understand what they're looking at.

I don't think your metaphor is right. I think if someone has a different idea of God they get a different God. For example, let's say person A is trying to call their friend, but they dialed the wrong number. The result isn't they talk to a different interpretation of their friend, the result is they talk to an entirely different person. The attributes people give to God are like the numbers, but if there's a separate being that has the attributes they use to describe God but who's not God, then they basically got someone else instead of God. For example, if someone tries to dial God by asking for a trinity, but God is completely one and undivided and the only trinities in existence are like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva from Hinduism and the Maiden, Mother, and Crone from Wicca they could get either of those two but not God. If one person thinks God does both good and evil and another thinks God does only good then someone trying to talk to a "Lord" by either of those descriptions could get different beings.

The argument that different Abrahamic religions all worship the same God doesn't even work in postmodernism. For example, let's say I read a novel about a boy with a lightning bolt scar whose parents died sacrificing himself and he finds out he's a wizard and is taken off to a secret magic school in Scotland. This book is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and no amount of "all fantasy books come from the same source" will make it The Hobbit.

[DogOfDanger]

I don't think your metaphor is right. I think if someone has a different idea of God they get a different God. For example, let's say person A is trying to call their friend, but they dialed the wrong number. The result isn't they talk to a different interpretation of their friend, the result is they talk to an entirely different person. The attributes people give to God are like the numbers, but if there's a separate being that has the attributes they use to describe God but who's not God, then they basically got someone else instead of God. For example, if someone tries to dial God by asking for a trinity, but God is completely one and undivided and the only trinities in existence are like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva from Hinduism and the Maiden, Mother, and Crone from Wicca they could get either of those two but not God. If one person thinks God does both good and evil and another thinks God does only good then someone trying to talk to a "Lord" by either of those descriptions could get different beings.

This is basically an anti-realist way of thinking about God. In other words God is not an objective thing, God is not real, God is defined by your belief. If you believe a certain God exists.... vuala it exists, belief defines existence. Problem is this makes no consideration of whether the thing you are dialing into actually exists in reality. If God does not exist in reality then there is really no point in any of this, it's all just smoke and mirrors, figments of our imagination. This is really the problem with polytheism - it's fun and interesting to consider the ideas of these different Gods, but we don't believe they exist in reality, we are aware we defined them all in our minds and we're just entertaining ourselves.
These Hindu Gods all have different metaphysics, and they fit together within the polytheistic tree, the Abrahamic God is not like that... it's monotheistic. It can't accommodate this pluralism you are referring to, not without somehow altering its metaphysics (and in the process altering its definition and its nature). Belief in the Abrahamic God is different from belief in polytheistic Gods in that it is presumed that the Abrahamic God really exists. You could say that monotheism attempts to end the anti-realism of polytheism.

The argument that different Abrahamic religions all worship the same God doesn't even work in postmodernism. For example, let's say I read a novel about a boy with a lightning bolt scar whose parents died sacrificing himself and he finds out he's a wizard and is taken off to a secret magic school in Scotland. This book is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and no amount of "all fantasy books come from the same source" will make it The Hobbit.

This is really a bad analogy, because the Abrahamic religions share the same old testament books, but the Hobbit & Harry Potter have nothing to do with one another. So really it's just a completely irrelevant analogy. Muslims even consider Jesus a prophet.

[Metamorph]

This is basically an anti-realist way of thinking about God. In other words God is not an objective thing, God is not real, God is defined by your belief. If you believe a certain God exists.... vuala it exists, belief defines existence. Problem is this makes no consideration of whether the thing you are dialing into actually exists in reality. If God does not exist in reality then there is really no point in any of this, it's all just smoke and mirrors, figments of our imagination. This is really the problem with polytheism - it's fun and interesting to consider the ideas of these different Gods, but we don't believe they exist in reality, we are aware we defined them all in our minds and we're just entertaining ourselves.
These Hindu Gods all have different metaphysics, and they fit together within the polytheistic tree, the Abrahamic God is not like that... it's monotheistic. It can't accommodate this pluralism you are referring to, not without somehow altering its metaphysics (and in the process altering its definition and its nature). Belief in the Abrahamic God is different from belief in polytheistic Gods in that it is presumed that the Abrahamic God really exists. You could say that monotheism attempts to end the anti-realism of polytheism.


This is really a bad analogy, because the Abrahamic religions share the same old testament books, but the Hobbit & Harry Potter have nothing to do with one another. So really it's just a completely irrelevant analogy. Muslims even consider Jesus a prophet.

That's not anti-realist or polytheist. Assume God is real and there is only one. Now fill in the "other beings" as being demons or evil spirits who match those descriptions, or maybe even good spirits. For example, many Jews consider God the author of evil, but many Christians consider God the author of good only. In the Christian view, if a Jew called on an author of good and evil that could not be God, it would have to the Devil or some demon, while if a Christian called on an author of good only, maybe that's some kind of angel or something.

Muslims consider Jesus the Messiah, just not "God the Son." Likewise, if anyone calls on "God the Son," that cannot be either the Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism or even the Jesus of Islam. However, "Jesus the Messiah" could return either the Jesus of Christianity or the Jesus of Islam but not the Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism.