- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Atheist Classic : Equivalent Argument for Other Deity?
Would You Convert? - A question for Christians, Muslims, & other theists
Lee Lemon | Ajoutée le 6 août 2014
"God created everything"
A reason for Theism in general, but not per se sufficient for which Theism is correct.
However, this is a Classic in Theism : God is transcendent morality, He not just created morality for us, He is Morality Himself. God also understands us.
But our morality and the we He is supposed to understand are social things. This is why Trinity - God Himself being a Holy Family - works better than a mono-personal God.
I just got from a Muslim woman that God loves. I asked her "is God love?" She thought this illogic and irrelevant. No, if God is a single person, He can't be love (since love is interpersonal), and if God is not love, He can't love anything before He creates.
There are other arguments, though.
Now, Ahura Mazda.
Zend Avesta, Coran and Book of Mormon have exactly one problem in common. They are a revelation to one single man : Zarathustra, Muhammed or Joseph Smith.
Greek mytho-theology (which I distinguish from Heroic legend, which also counts as "Greek myths" but which is mostly historical) is actually non-Theistic, is actually more like Shintoism, a lot of spirits, but none of them transcendentally above the other ones.
Same, more or less, for Roman mytho-theology. So, Zarathustra, Mohammed, Joseph Smith would all need to agree that "Western Ancient Shintoism" is an error.
However, Greeks had Hesiod and Romans had Numa Pompilius to reveal it (technically, Numa was more like receing the arts of divination, but even so).
If a demon or several demons could fool Hesiod and Numa, why could not Zarathustra and Mohammed and Joseph Smith be fooled by a demon?
Before going on to ask the same of Noah or Moses or the Apostles of Our Lord, a very simple observation : none of Hesiod to Joseph Smith made any miracles of great divine powers necessarily implied before lots of witnesses, nor witnessed someone higher than them make such. None of them have the equivalent of their revelation leading to an Ark which survives a world wide Flood, none of them the equivalent of dividing a Sea and having a whole little nation walk through and then shutting the Sae so an army drowns. None of them had the equivalent of 500 men seeing a dead man alive again, and these five hundred also verified by some who had seen Him at very close hand.
Next, Catholicism provides for there being one people of God, recording all revelation up to its fulness and then keeping it, from Creation and on.
Zarathustra lived where "truth had been lost" due to magicians (probably of a "Western Shintoist" type). Mohammed came where "both Jews and Christians had falsified their Scriptures". Joseph Smith came because "the great apostasy already happened, soon after the last apostles, and there has been no continuous Church, therefore God reestablishes His Church again". Same story. Someone way after Adam is getting to say "I'm first, from now on".
Jesus Himself, while first ontologically, alpha and omega, was not first historically as a man, though He arguably was the divine person who appeared to Adam and Eve in human form. He could point back to a long story - and claim, everything in that story pointed to him.
The Shintoisms contradict each other on detail as much as Zarathustra, Mohammed and Joseph Smith do. Zarathustra requires you to be vegetarian, and think Adam's sin (or equivalent first man's sin) was slaughering a cow or bull and eating beef - Mohammed and Joseph Smith have no beef with eating beef. While Mohammed and Joseph Smith agree on polygamy and alcohol, they disagree on coffee and on the Trinity (Mohammed denying three persons, Joseph Smith denying singularity of God-Being).
The one criterium which is superior is a very long history through very various circumstances being fully internally consistent. Only Catholicism and Judaism have anything like that, and Judaism is unfortunately in a position of "waiting for" - to many it may alas be another Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Zarathustra (on the Catholic view : worse than the three put together), since the loss of the Temple proves their Old Covenant not self sustaining.
Forgot Freemasonry - claiming to be a primordial (in English version) Theistic tradition, but "Clark-Kenting" up to 1717 AD, much of the time.
I obviously have a problem with the Clark Kenting part, since it means earlier adherents "to same tradition" do not become historically verifiable as such. Precisely as with the kind of Evangelicals who think there were Clark Kenting Evangelicals up to Tyndale's time, but outwardly pretending mostly to be Catholics. Culdees were sth else, they were Irish monks of a fairly Oriental and non-Benedictine discipline. Perhaps Welsh monks too.