"They all worship the same God"

[Unbeatable]

What does the same one mean? If in one version of the story, Batman lives in Gotham city and drives a black bat mobile, but another version he lives in New York City, wears a business suit while fighting crime and drives a gold Porsche, are they both the same Batman? Or to put it another way, if you change your broom head several times and your broom handle a few times, is it the same broom?

Batman is still batman, even if you make big changes to him. Again; two different interpretations of batman (or god) may not be "identical", but they *are* the same character.

Interesting comparison. For a long time, I too have drawn an analogy between deities and the stars of long-running superhero franchises, but I've always had the opposite view to yours-- Christian Bale's Batman is not the same character as Adam West's Batman. For that matter, Grant Morrison's Batman is not the same character as Scott Snyder's Batman. There's no continuity between them. They exist in separate fictional universes. Mutually exclusive ones. They have similarities because they draw various elements from the same source material, but they are distinct from the source material and from one another. With gods, the fictional universe in question is inside of the mind of the believer, rather than in a book. The "god", i.e. the thing that a believer worships is a thing in that fictional universe, a thing whose attributes may render it mutually exclusive with a thing worshipped by a different believer. Granted, the believer confuses their fiction with reality whereas the fanboy knows that "canon" doesn't mean "literally true", but otherwise it's the same.

 

[dystopian]

Interesting comparison. For a long time, I too have drawn an analogy between deities and the stars of long-running superhero franchises, but I've always had the opposite view to yours-- Christian Bale's Batman is not the same character as Adam West's Batman. For that matter, Grant Morrison's Batman is not the same character as Scott Snyder's Batman. There's no continuity between them. They exist in separate fictional universes. Mutually exclusive ones. They have similarities because they draw various elements from the same source material, but they are distinct from the source material and from one another.

But that, then, doesn't make them different characters; just different versions of the same character. If I take a ferrari, and add and remove parts from it, it is still a ferrari. Granted, there comes a point you've changed it so much that it's no longer a ferrari, but nobody can point to where the line is between "modified ferrari" and "something else". With the case of different batmans, they obviously haven't been modified enough to stop being 'batman'. You still identify them as batman. The same is true with the abrahamic god. The fact that one version isn't identical to another doesn't mean they're not both different incarnations of the same character.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Except no evidence has been presented that they are fundamentally the same character.

 

[Bronzeage]

Except no evidence has been presented that they are fundamentally the same character.

Most people come to a stop and check for traffic when they come to red octangular sign with the letters STOP. Some people see STPO. Others see a greyish brown background. A few may have no idea that octagular means eight sided. Very few know that "stop" comes from a Latin word which mean "to stuff" and is the same root word for "stopper." They all stop, just the same. Each person's particular perception of the Stop sign does not change the sign.

 

[dystopian]

Except no evidence has been presented that they are fundamentally the same character.

Most people come to a stop and check for traffic when they come to red octangular sign with the letters STOP. Some people see STPO. Others see a greyish brown background. A few may have no idea that octagular means eight sided. Very few know that "stop" comes from a Latin word which mean "to stuff" and is the same root word for "stopper." They all stop, just the same. Each person's particular perception of the Stop sign does not change the sign.

Reminds me of a cult-classic game:

 

[Unbeatable]

Interesting comparison. For a long time, I too have drawn an analogy between deities and the stars of long-running superhero franchises, but I've always had the opposite view to yours-- Christian Bale's Batman is not the same character as Adam West's Batman. For that matter, Grant Morrison's Batman is not the same character as Scott Snyder's Batman. There's no continuity between them. They exist in separate fictional universes. Mutually exclusive ones. They have similarities because they draw various elements from the same source material, but they are distinct from the source material and from one another.

But that, then, doesn't make them different characters; just different versions of the same character.

We can agree that they have similarities and differences, and it seems we can agree on what the similarities and differences are. You seem to be using "character" to refer to the things that make them similar, while I'm apparently using it to refer to the things that make them different. I don't see "different versions of the same character" and "different characters" as mutually exclusive categories, though. The different Batmans fall into both categories.

If I take a ferrari, and add and remove parts from it, it is still a ferrari. Granted, there comes a point you've changed it so much that it's no longer a ferrari, but nobody can point to where the line is between "modified ferrari" and "something else".

"Different Batmans" seems more analogous to somebody looking at blueprints for a Ferrari, building something which incorporates some aspects from those blueprints but not others, then telling people it's a Ferrari. Okay, maybe it's a Ferrari, but the number of facts that can be reliably inferred about a thing from the label Ferrari keeps going down.

Except no evidence has been presented that they are fundamentally the same character.

I question the idea that a character even has a fundamental essence.

 

[DBT]

It all boils down to how fine a line you want to draw in defining god.

That's true. If you capitalize "pet" you get "Pet." Cats, dogs, mice, snakes, fish, turtles, birds, horses, spiders.... They're all the same.

Well put.

 

[DBT]

Interesting comparison. For a long time, I too have drawn an analogy between deities and the stars of long-running superhero franchises, but I've always had the opposite view to yours-- Christian Bale's Batman is not the same character as Adam West's Batman. For that matter, Grant Morrison's Batman is not the same character as Scott Snyder's Batman. There's no continuity between them. They exist in separate fictional universes. Mutually exclusive ones. They have similarities because they draw various elements from the same source material, but they are distinct from the source material and from one another.

But that, then, doesn't make them different characters; just different versions of the same character. If I take a ferrari, and add and remove parts from it, it is still a ferrari. Granted, there comes a point you've changed it so much that it's no longer a ferrari, but nobody can point to where the line is between "modified ferrari" and "something else". With the case of different batmans, they obviously haven't been modified enough to stop being 'batman'. You still identify them as batman. The same is true with the abrahamic god. The fact that one version isn't identical to another doesn't mean they're not both different incarnations of the same character.

It is still a Ferrari, but not the same Ferrari that it was before all the parts were changed. All the Ferrari's in the world are distinct and separate objects that labeled with the brand name Ferrari....some being black, some are red, some have dents, some are old, some are wrecks, some are brand new......

 

[DBT]

And leaves out the broad fuzzy middle:

Aside from those extremes, how fuzzily that line is drawn will determine which religious groups are worshiping the same god.

Aren't they all a bit fuzzy? Considering each individual believer, what are the variations within a single religion? I have asked quite a few Catholics, Protestants and Evangelists what they believed God to be, and apart from the official line, each person tended to have their ideas and preferences...I've seen discussions get heated because members of the same congregation cannot agree. Informal discussions on the characteristics of God tends to be discouraged in most gatherings.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Can someone tell me where this ridiculous claim originated? I often see it perpetuated by politically correct people who don't want to say anything bad about religion. Christians believe Jesus is God. Jews do not believe Jesus is God. Muslims believe Jesus is only a prophet and Allah is the only God. It amazes me that people don't understand these major differences and completely ignore them.

It's not only between religions. It's also within the same religion. I doubt you can find two Christians who have the same idea of God.

 

[skepticalbip]

And leaves out the broad fuzzy middle:

Aren't they all a bit fuzzy? Considering each individual believer, what are the variations within a single religion? I have asked quite a few Catholics, Protestants and Evangelists what they believed God to be, and apart from the official line, each person tended to have their ideas and preferences...I've seen discussions get heated because members of the same congregation cannot agree. Informal discussions on the characteristics of God tends to be discouraged in most gatherings.

Exactly. That was my point.
.. If that line is drawn so that any religion that worships god as a supernatural being then all religions worship the same god. - e.g. religious folks of all religions (Buddhism excepted).

..If drawn so that any religion that worships a general description of a god described by the founder then they worship the same god. - e.g. the Abrahamic religions.

..If drawn so that any religion that accepts the same basic precepts of the religion then all sects in that religion worship the same god. - e.g. Christianity

..If drawn so that all the precepts of the religion must be accepted then each sect of that religion worships different gods. - e.g. all the different sects in Christianity.

..If drawn so that every aspect of the god must agree then everyone who believes will have a different god.

The whole thread seems to have been whether the same god was being worshiped without first defining what is meant by "same god".

 

[Bronzeage]

Aren't they all a bit fuzzy? Considering each individual believer, what are the variations within a single religion? I have asked quite a few Catholics, Protestants and Evangelists what they believed God to be, and apart from the official line, each person tended to have their ideas and preferences...I've seen discussions get heated because members of the same congregation cannot agree. Informal discussions on the characteristics of God tends to be discouraged in most gatherings.

Exactly. That was my point.
.. If that line is drawn so that any religion that worships god as a supernatural being then all religions worship the same god. - e.g. religious folks of all religions (Buddhism excepted).

..If drawn so that any religion that worships a general description of a god described by the founder then they worship the same god. - e.g. the Abrahamic religions.

..If drawn so that any religion that accepts the same basic precepts of the religion then all sects in that religion worship the same god. - e.g. Christianity

..If drawn so that all the precepts of the religion must be accepted then each sect of that religion worships different gods. - e.g. all the different sects in Christianity.

..If drawn so that every aspect of the god must agree then everyone who believes will have a different god.

The whole thread seems to have been whether the same god was being worshiped without first defining what is meant by "same god".

What it comes down to, is "So what?"

What if it's accepted that there are in fact 3 all powerful omnipotent Gods, one for Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Is this thread's purpose just to clarify a public misconception on theology, or is there some other therefore, and we are supposed to wait for it.

 

[Perspicuo]

Before this era of educated skepticism and secularism, they used to kill each other for thousands of years because they affirmed the other didn't believe in the same thing.

Because of differing beliefs. What tells you that those weren't differing beliefs about the same entities all along? Applying the same logic, do you think that Catholics killed Protestants alleging that the latter deified Jesus Miller while the real son of god was Jesus Taylor, or do you think they realised that both were talking about the same person even though they differed in his description?

They were to busy obeying their god their Darwinian instincts to give a heck or notice. First they got stopped by Liberal democracy's rule of law, then they started to see they were increasingly not número uno on people's list and now they can't wait to hug and handshake for the cameras. And they still try and convert each other whenever they can. Because surely they wouldn't convert the other if their souls were not in jeopardy. I know that is the case between Catholics and Pentecostals, the two most visible players in my country. And a child of God cannot go to hell, so why bother yourself otherwise?

 

[Jokodo]

Because of differing beliefs. What tells you that those weren't differing beliefs about the same entities all along? Applying the same logic, do you think that Catholics killed Protestants alleging that the latter deified Jesus Miller while the real son of god was Jesus Taylor, or do you think they realised that both were talking about the same person even though they differed in his description?

They were to busy obeying their god their Darwinian instincts to give a heck or notice. First they got stopped by Liberal democracy's rule of law, then they started to see they were increasingly not número uno on people's list and now they can't wait to hug and handshake for the cameras. And they still try and convert each other whenever they can. Because surely they wouldn't convert the other if their souls were not in jeopardy. I know that is the case between Catholics and Pentecostals, the two most visible players in my country. And a child of God cannot go to hell, so why bother yourself otherwise?

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, they believe of each other that they'll go to hell. So what? That doesn't show that they are (or perceive each other as) believing in different gods. Do Pentacostals in your country say that Catholics believe in Ba'al instead of Yahweh? Or do they accuse them of holding a false and distorted image of Yahweh?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, they believe of each other that they'll go to hell. So what? That doesn't show that they are (or perceive each other as) believing in different gods.

I grew up Church of Latter Day Saints. Our position was that everyone Christain worshiped the same Jesus we did, they just had something less than the full story.
Meeting other believers, i was told that the differences are so great, Mormons believe in a different Jesus.
Either way, holy wars are fought over people believing in the wrong god(s), or believing in the right god(s), but in the wrong way(s). And i wonder if the difference of 'ways' is more important than 'gods.'

Joseph Campbell talked about observing interfaith meetings. When monks of any flavor met other monks, those who had experienced a direct contact with the divine, they got along fabulously. They could and did converse about shared experiences.

Priests of any two flavors get along horribly. The authorities responsible for maintaining the authority of the dogma of the faith were always fighting and jockeying for position.

Always struck me as odd that it didn't strike me as odd that God isn't really the most important issue for the faithful....

 

[DrZoidberg]

Joseph Campbell talked about observing interfaith meetings. When monks of any flavor met other monks, those who had experienced a direct contact with the divine, they got along fabulously. They could and did converse about shared experiences.

Priests of any two flavors get along horribly. The authorities responsible for maintaining the authority of the dogma of the faith were always fighting and jockeying for position.

Always struck me as odd that it didn't strike me as odd that God isn't really the most important issue for the faithful....

Not completely crazy. Monks are doing basically for themselves. Their spiritual journey is purely inwardly. It's by necessity a subjective journey. And since all humans are basically the same, we'll have similar subjective experiences when "encountering" the divine. That's pretty universal regardless of religion. This feeling of absolute bliss and love.

Priests on the other hand are teachers tasked with correcting wrong beliefs and wrong behaviours. For them dogma and legal hair-splitting is important. So that's what they do when they get together with others.

 

[Roller]

For the more Biblically or Tanakh literate, the corresponding question would be, Was/is Baal, Dagon, Astarte or Samash all the same god as YHWH of the Jews?

Exactly what I thought. I'm afraid that we are talking about God(s) using contemporary understanding of the problem. However, I'd say that early Jews were henoteists while early Christians believed many different things (some believed that Yahweh was an evil God).

I don't think we can talk about this issue through our current understanding because I think it's at odds with early believers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DBT]

...while early Christians believed many different things (some believed that Yahweh was an evil God).

Not only that, but that Yahweh was not the true God at all...just an evil Demiurge with dominion over the world.

 

[Perspicuo]

They were to busy obeying their god their Darwinian instincts to give a heck or notice. First they got stopped by Liberal democracy's rule of law, then they started to see they were increasingly not número uno on people's list and now they can't wait to hug and handshake for the cameras. And they still try and convert each other whenever they can. Because surely they wouldn't convert the other if their souls were not in jeopardy. I know that is the case between Catholics and Pentecostals, the two most visible players in my country. And a child of God cannot go to hell, so why bother yourself otherwise?

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, they believe of each other that they'll go to hell. So what? That doesn't show that they are (or perceive each other as) believing in different gods. Do Pentacostals in your country say that Catholics believe in Ba'al instead of Yahweh? Or do they accuse them of holding a false and distorted image of Yahweh?

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I do not argue they think their gods are different. My position is their thought processes are muddled and they wouldn't know the difference. Their cognitive reality is dubious, but their behaviors speak tons: whenever it is suitable Pentecostals will call anyone a Satan worshipper, including and especially Catholics. And as for the Catholics, the most fanatical believe the other side is duped by Satan. And again, they are BFFs when addressing secularism, which in that case is the worst enemy --another sign of amazingly muddled thinking.

 

[Jokodo]

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, they believe of each other that they'll go to hell. So what? That doesn't show that they are (or perceive each other as) believing in different gods. Do Pentacostals in your country say that Catholics believe in Ba'al instead of Yahweh? Or do they accuse them of holding a false and distorted image of Yahweh?

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I do not argue they think their gods are different. My position is their thought processes are muddled and they wouldn't know the difference. Their cognitive reality is dubious, but their behaviors speak tons: whenever it is suitable Pentecostals will call anyone a Satan worshipper, including and especially Catholics. And as for the Catholics, the most fanatical believe the other side is duped by Satan. And again, they are BFFs when addressing secularism, which in that case is the worst enemy --another sign of amazingly muddled thinking.

Take an example with real characters. Say, an Anticommunist who believes that the October revolution was a power grab by an evil clique from the get go, a Trotzyist who believes that it was on its way to becoming the most significant step forward for humanity since language until Stalin usurped it, and a Stalinist who believes that Stalin only did what he had to do and could have brought us all to salvation by now if he hadn't been succeeded by traitors. They probably would consider each other pretty much duped by Satan, yet they don't disagree about who led the revolution, and who governed the USSR from the early 20s to the early 50s, or do they?