Is there only one true God ?

China Cat Sunflower said:
I don't think that "God" is a very useful concept outside monotheism. We keep borrowing this term, modifying it to suit our own purposes, and then feeding it back to the monotheists as if we're talking about the same thing they are. But we aren't.

Chris
Click to expand...

Hi chris,
i have no problem myself with monothiesm, one thing i am wondering :-

Is there a difference between god as a universal law, or a universal conscious being, or are they both just describing the same thing?
 
is there only one true God ?

yes indeed. and his name is Jehovah PSALM 83;18
 
Salvation in Watchtower doctrine is “taking in knowledge” of God and Christ (John 17:3 NWT) not “knowing” God in a personal relationship.

If this is true then why will Christ at the judgment say to the condemned “I never knew you?” Doesn’t he know all about these people?
 
Bruce Michael said:
Salvation in Watchtower doctrine is “taking in knowledge” of God and Christ (John 17:3 NWT) not “knowing” God in a personal relationship.

If this is true then why will Christ at the judgment say to the condemned “I never knew you?” Doesn’t he know all about these people?
Click to expand...


yes ,getting to know God is just what all men and women should do .
And then we can have a Relationship That Grows Ever Closer.:)
Jehovah is a God Worth Knowing.
and then we can be "Bearing Fruit in Every Good Work"......... nice
 
mee said:
yes ,getting to know God is just what all men and women should do .
And then we can have a Relationship That Grows Ever Closer.:)
Jehovah is a God Worth Knowing.
and then we can be "Bearing Fruit in Every Good Work"......... nice
Click to expand...

Yes, but do you know God in a personal relationship?
 
Bruce Michael said:
Yes, but do you know God in a personal relationship?
Click to expand...
so what does knowing God mean ? it does not just mean knowing what his name is, it means many things .

Much effort is required to get to know Jehovah God and enjoy a close relationship with him.

To know God is to love God.
To know and to love God is to keep his commandments.


It means to cease walking in darkness and to put the truth into practice. It is to follow the lead of God’s Word and spirit and to stick to the truth.


Knowing God, we feel free to approach him in prayer, with the conviction that he hears us and, in reply, will give us all things needed to perform his will.—1 John 1:5-7; 2:3, 4, 13, 14; 3:19-24; 4:6-8, 13; 5:3, 14, 15.




knowing God is not some sudden emotional sensation, such as many "born again Christians" claim to have enjoyed.

The psalmist said: "Make me know your own ways, O Jehovah; teach me your own paths. Make me walk in your truth and teach me, for you are my God of salvation. In you I have hoped all day long." (Psalm 25:4, 5) "Knowing" God is, therefore, an entire way of life!
 
esa888 said:
Hi chris,
i have no problem myself with monothiesm, one thing i am wondering :-

Is there a difference between god as a universal law, or a universal conscious being, or are they both just describing the same thing?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just saw this.

It depends on one's predilection toward anthropomorphization. To me, making God a Being is tantamount to idolatry unless one is aware that this is a subjective construct of his own making, and not a true representation of whatever it is that God is OF ITSELF. But when people speak of God, usually they mean some anthropomorphized construct of their own making, so the term is useless for the most part as an exchangeable marker.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I don't think that "God" is a very useful concept outside monotheism. We keep borrowing this term, modifying it to suit our own purposes, and then feeding it back to the monotheists as if we're talking about the same thing they are. But we aren't.

Chris
Click to expand...

The word "God" is similar in nature to "love" and "justice." It's just a word people use. It is only meaningful in the way it's used, not in the way others may force us to use it. Make of it what you will.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
It depends on one's predilection toward anthropomorphization. To me, making God a Being is tantamount to idolatry unless one is aware that this is a subjective construct of his own making, and not a true representation of whatever it is that God is OF ITSELF. But when people speak of God, usually they mean some anthropomorphized construct of their own making, so the term is useless for the most part as an exchangeable marker.
Click to expand...

lol What else can be asked of us but to make subjective constructs of God? Do we have scientific instruments that can reach into the depths of the reality inside and outside of the universe to catch God in a fishing net and put Him in an inert chamber where He can be measured and defined with precision and exactitude?

Anyone who claims objectivity with regards to God is deluding himself. Human languages have always been subjective and ambiguous. It's just that the intuition of philosophers and politicians allows them to instinctively identify the likely meaning of a sequence of words and sentences. But some "wise guy" who likes to poke fun at things can come along and say no they really means this. Then someone will respond by saying that this wise guy is being a bit too technical and is twisting words out of context.

All of our concepts of God are stated in human languages so they are only as good as descriptions, depictions and portrayals. If we say we have a sentence, paragraph or book that can define God, someone else can come along and say, no here is my definition of God, and it is either equal or better than your's.

The objective view is that only one of the two pieces of literature are perfect or universal definitions of God. So how are we to decide how to measure the perfection or universality of the two pieces of literature? Do we have a scientific procedure to define the most discerning process for measuring the perfection, elegance and universality of one's definition of God?

But then we'd have to have a scientific procedure to measure the quality of that procedure that discerns and measures the perfection, elegance and universality of one's definition of God. That procedure, in turn, would need another procedure to evaluate it. It goes on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Eventually, this whole system of procedures to evaluate procedures that evaluate one's definition of God would grow to infinite size. If a definition of God contained so much meaning so as to require an infinite number of procedures to evaluate it, it is only possible for the bunch of words it contains to be infinite. Words carry finite meaning, so a bunch of words containing infinite meaning must be infinite in number.

So obviously it's impossible to ever have an objective concept of God because objective claims imply a precise and exact grip on reality. Anyone who claims objectivity can be subject to an objectivity test to evaluate his claim of objectivity. Their claims will probably be found wanting.

So whatever our concept of God, it's always going to be subjective. We can't do any better than descriptions, depictions and portraits. Yeah I do anthropomorphize God, and I do, from time to time, label Him as a being. But I don't see that as essential. It's just an approach to a concept of God. It's a way of seeing God with a particular purpose and agenda in mind. It's usually so that I can interpret Scripture and explain Scripture to myself. If I was an adherent of some other tradition I probably wouldn't need to use such terminology or metaphors. The anthropomorphization is just a tool of understanding.

Yeah I can see how it could be a kind of idolatry, especially if one "foolishly" thinks that such a concept is objective. Strict, unwavering and stubborn devotion to a concept and the insistence and belief that others must adhere to it if they want to have an objective, perfect and universal concept like their own is like building an idol out of wood and stone. You don't really worship God, but the definition you see as objective. It's like a worship of one's own intellect.
 
bob x said:
You are leaving out the possibility that neither is.
Click to expand...

That was always a possibility. But if one believes that one of the two pieces of literature was perfect and universal, one is going to ignore that possibility. The idea is that proving that one is perfect and universal automatically disproves the other as perfect and universal. It's like the question of who gets to the top of the mountain first so they can stick a flag up there. There is the possibility that no-one will ever reach the top, but if someone reaches the top, that possibility is nullified by the fact that someone did in fact reach the top. Someone else may get there later but it's the first one who gets a flag up there who gets all the credit.

I don't hold the objective view, so I don't have to worry about defending it.:) Not everyone wants to climb mountains so they can stick flags on the summit.

It's the first country that lands on the moon that matters. Well, ....it used to matter. It doesn't matter anymore, and the PRC could get well ahead of the U.S. in its development of the space industry in decades to come, due to the Iraqi war, the imminent recession of the U.S. economy and lack of investment/spending on NASA. The U.S. is in decline. World War 2 was only a 50-year blessing. The world has moved on......Americans have to stop dreaming and stop believing in the invincibility of their economy, global dominance and military. Look how many resources they consume. The strength of their economy depends on it.

In a post-modern mindset, belief in philosophical absolutes doesn't matter anymore. There are no absolutes. People have stopped believing in magic formulas of faith. There may be people out there that promote them, but they don't dictate to us what to believe. The world has moved on......there is no longer such a thing as an unassailable argument. It's always your word against their's. Who wins? Look how much effort adherents of some traditions go to try and prove they have a monopoly on divine truth. The validity of their tradition depends on it.
 
Believe there to be one god or entity, but trying to understand, interpret or define is another matter.
 
there are infinite possibilytys when it comes to god e.g: just how we live in this world is just a speckl of dust compared to the universe.
 
god is in and out of the creation. after creation god did not left the creation and let the creation to run by it s own will. god has 3 principles, creation,,,sustaining what had been created, and distroying it. many took god to be transendendence but not immanent in creation..so they say god is not everywhere. for those who believe god is immanent plus outside will usually says god is everywhere. if we believe that everything moves with the will of god then god should be everywhere. thanks
 
There is only One God. He is the God of the living not of the dead. He is the God of the righteous and the son of man. The only one who has gone up to heaven is the One who came down from there, the son of man.

Thus says the Lord, it is written;

My son, if you receive my words and treasure my commands,
Turning your ear to wisdom, inclining your heart to understanding;
Yes, if you call to intelligence, and to understanding raise your voice;
If you seek her like silver, and like hidden treasures search her out:
Then you will understand the fear of the Lord; the knowledge of God you will find;
For the Lord gives wisdom, from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
He has counsel in store for the upright, he is the shield of those who walk honestly.

The upright will dwell in the land, the blameless will remain in it.

My son, don’t forget my teaching, keep my commands in mind ;
For many days, and years of life, and peace, will they bring you.

The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked, but the dwelling of the just he blesses;

My son, pay attention to my words, incline your ear to my sayings ;
Don’t let them slip out of your sight, keep them within your heart;
For they are life to those who find them, to man's whole being they are health.

The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are brief.

The words of the upright save them but the words of the wicked are a deadly ambush.

The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life.

Those who walk uprightly fear the Lord.

The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life.

Blessed is he who is kind to the poor.

The Lord’s delight is those who speak the truth, and those who speak what is right he loves

The Lord is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the just .

The ear that hears, and the eye that sees - the Lord has made them both.

The oppression of the wicked will sweep them away, because they refuse to do what is right.

Those who pursue justice and kindness will find honor and life.

"Truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."
"Truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. Flesh makes flesh, spirit makes spirit. Do not be surprised that I tell you, you must all be born from above.
The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

The one who comes from above is above all; He who is of the world belongs to the world and speaks in a worldly way. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony. Whoever accepts his testimony certifies that God is truthful. The One whom is sent by God, He speaks the words of God. His gift of the spirit is not rationed. The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him. Whoever believes in the Son possesses eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God.

I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
Everything that the Lord gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should lose nothing of what he gave me, but that I should raise it on the last day.
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him possesses eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day.
No one can come to me unless the Lord who sent me draws him, and I will raise him on the last day.
It is written in the prophets: They shall all be taught by God. Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
Not that anyone has seen God only the one who is from God has seen the Lord.
Truly I say to you, whoever believes possesses eternal life.

My teaching is not my own it comes from the One who sent me.
Whoever chooses to do his will shall know about this teaching, namely, whether it comes from God or whether I‘m speaking on my own.
Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the One who sent him is truthful, and there is no dishonesty in his heart.
 
By what right do you have to define truth? On the basis of a couple of books which do not even have the originals of? So filled with textual errors and errors of fact that the only way to reconcile it with pure mathematics or science is to impose subjective strictures based on faith on objective knowledge?

And let us not forget the ethical side. Would the one true G!d would allow H!s (or H!r) followers to wade through the gore of the Rhineland Crusade, the "liberation" of Jerusalem, the sack of Beziers, the de-population of the Americas, the Shaoh?

If the one true G!d is the God of Dominionism, Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Falwell, Robertson, Rushdoony, and David Duke, there is something fundamentally flawed in the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top