The Idea of Religion

[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.

[DogOfDanger]

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.

All you've done is stated, again, that the perception is identifying a different being. I'm saying there's no reason to assume it's a different being, because it could be a misinterpretation of God instead, that is my point. Why do you assume it is a different being? I'm saying you just kind of casually come up with these new beings in your mind. Any different perception is a new being. This is anti-realist... sure I could call any idea I have about anything that resembles a God, or about the nature of God, a being, but what is the justification for this?
What if the idea isn't coherent...? Like it's a wrong idea. Does it still reference an actual being? How can an actual real being be identified by a thought that isn't logically coherent?
At this point we're just repeating the same thing, I don't think we're getting anywhere.

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.

Again it's the same argument.

I don't think this is going anywhere, I've already made the case...
Carry onward

[Metamorph]

All you've done is stated, again, that it's a different being. I'm saying there's no reason to assume it's a different being, because it could be a misinterpretation of God instead, that is my point. Why do you assume it is a different being? I'm saying you just kind of casually come up with these new beings in your mind. Any different perception is a new being. This is anti-realist... sure I could call any idea I have about anything that resembles a God, or about the nature of God, a being, but what is the justification for this?
At this point we're just repeating the same thing, I don't think we're getting anywhere.


Again it's the same argument.

I don't think this is going anywhere, I've already made the case...
Carry onward

You are making an anti-realistic argument and you can't see how. The Devil is a real being in even the most hippie-dippy interpretations of the Abrahamic religions. They don't like to talk about the Devil, but he's still there. Same with all the demons and what have you. Also angels, though angels are not usually out to deceive anyone. If you can't see why the default realist interpretation in Abrahamic religions is to assume that, at minimum, people who are following beliefs that are ridicuously contradictory to yours have been misled by the Devil and are therefore not worshipping the same God, you are putting forth an antirealist argument: "OK religious kiddies, get along now!" But you can't see that the reason they don't is exemplified in the very texts. And not necessarily completely invalid if you believe someone else is trying to worship evil incarnate and bring Hell itself to Earth and you're looking to regain Paradise. The real argument is always, what is this person in particular saying? Are they saying that love rules or that fear rules? And you're saying that's the exact thing that doesn't matter, only the superficial formalities matter, as if religious people didn't understand the substance of their own religions.