On religion (in particular Christianity), rationality, and this forum - are we allowed to discuss it?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

[McAvoy]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

Well to be simple, in Christianity you draw the line at God himself. It's in the Ten Commandments and always the talk of the 'one true God'. Everything else ard false gods or idols. But that is just being as simplistic as can be. That is without giving any thought that the false gods are real or not in that context.

Drawing the line at what defines a god and a false god in general becomes much more muddled. I think faith plays into that.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

Fair enough. Just seems kind of obvious.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

Well to be simple, in Christianity you draw the line at God himself. It's in the Ten Commandments and always the talk of the 'one true God'. Everything else ard false gods or idols. But that is just being as simplistic as can be. That is without giving any thought that the false gods are real or not in that context.

Drawing the line at what defines a god and a false god in general becomes much more muddled. I think faith plays into that.

Thank you, yeah. That's the first thing that came to mind. Islam has the same principle of one true god.

I can't remember Confucianism, Shinto, or Buddhism being theistic at all, which leaves Hindu and various other animistic religions, along with of course Greek and Norse gods.

I think Fuzzy is closer to Hindu for the approach he's taking. It's still monotheistic, but seems to frame his recognition of other so called god's.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

Well to be simple, in Christianity you draw the line at God himself. It's in the Ten Commandments and always the talk of the 'one true God'. Everything else ard false gods or idols. But that is just being as simplistic as can be. That is without giving any thought that the false gods are real or not in that context.

Drawing the line at what defines a god and a false god in general becomes much more muddled. I think faith plays into that.

My point exactly.

I would admit the Abrahamic deity qualifies as a god in my book, should it exist. I also know that Reverend Moon or that guy in Mexico who claimed to be the reincarnated John the Baptist does not.

Everything in between, though? That's where the trouble is.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

Well to be simple, in Christianity you draw the line at God himself. It's in the Ten Commandments and always the talk of the 'one true God'. Everything else ard false gods or idols. But that is just being as simplistic as can be. That is without giving any thought that the false gods are real or not in that context.

Drawing the line at what defines a god and a false god in general becomes much more muddled. I think faith plays into that.

My point exactly.

I would admit the Abrahamic deity qualifies as a god in my book, should it exist. I also know that Reverend Moon or that guy in Mexico who claimed to be the reincarnated John the Baptist does not.

Everything in between, though? That's where the trouble is.

I believe you can very well make the case that it does exist, apples to apples.

Again, this ultimatum complex is very commonly understood about the abrahamic religions and reflected off many known stereotypes of people to many different facets.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Whether that particular god exists is not my concern here and now. My concern is figuring out where to set the bar, if I'm not going to use the extreme height set by my Christian upbringing.

[McAvoy]

Not confusion. Just that I strive for a more secure definition in my theology, even if there might not be one that meets my criteria while being broad enough for the purposes of wikipedia.

Maybe it's the culturally Christian in me that wants to ask, if you must entertain the concept of false gods, then where do you draw the line for a non-false one? This is a science fiction forum and I've thought a lot about how arbitrary it is to call certain beings fake gods just because they turn out to be from space. I also think about my own problems with the Norse Pantheon, how needing to rely on an external source (apples) for their minimal immortality seems to make them just powerful mortals in my worldview, though I must couch that in the knowledge of how limited and Christianized our primary sources are there.

Well to be simple, in Christianity you draw the line at God himself. It's in the Ten Commandments and always the talk of the 'one true God'. Everything else ard false gods or idols. But that is just being as simplistic as can be. That is without giving any thought that the false gods are real or not in that context.

Drawing the line at what defines a god and a false god in general becomes much more muddled. I think faith plays into that.

My point exactly.

I would admit the Abrahamic deity qualifies as a god in my book, should it exist. I also know that Reverend Moon or that guy in Mexico who claimed to be the reincarnated John the Baptist does not.

Everything in between, though? That's where the trouble is.

To be honest, I think if a god is called a god in a culture's own religion they are gods whether or not we woukd call them that. It's because of faith. Faith those gods and goddesses are real.

I am not sure what religions out there that do not call their powerful deities gods, but would be called gods according to our naming conventions. Or maybe they wouldn't be called gods and behave more like angels or something.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

To be honest, I think if a god is called a god in a culture's own religion they are gods whether or not we woukd call them that. It's because of faith. Faith those gods and goddesses are real.

I am not sure what religions out there that do not call their powerful deities gods, but would be called gods according to our naming conventions. Or maybe they wouldn't be called gods and behave more like angels or something.

It's a pretty simple conundrum that cultivated civilizations facing the sunlight will develop similar regards for what is good and how we navigate through the the darkness in weight of the world and its people. If a man comes back from the wilderness then it is assumed that he has done so by eating in accordance with his own hunger. Similarly if a religion exists between two remote points in time, it can be speculated that its culture, observed facing the sunlight, has a god and that it exists.

[McAvoy]

To be honest, I think if a god is called a god in a culture's own religion they are gods whether or not we woukd call them that. It's because of faith. Faith those gods and goddesses are real.

I am not sure what religions out there that do not call their powerful deities gods, but would be called gods according to our naming conventions. Or maybe they wouldn't be called gods and behave more like angels or something.

It's a pretty simple conundrum that cultivated civilizations facing the sunlight will develop similar regards for what is good and how we navigate through the the darkness in weight of the world and its people. If a man comes back from the wilderness then it is assumed that he has done so by eating in accordance with his own hunger. Similarly if a religion exists between two remote points in time, it can be speculated that its culture, observed facing the sunlight, has a god and that it exists.

Weird. That was my quote but you got Fuzzy as the originator.