Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To an individual who adheres to no faith, all of the hundreds of dieties claimed by all religions past and present seem equally likely. Or equally unlikely. And all of these gods had their believers who claimed them to as real as contemporary believers claim their gods to be.
Why are the gods of the past commonly known to be mythical, while those currently in vogue are still the objects of fear and awe? Is there some true difference? Or is it simply a matter of opinion?
To an individual who adheres to no faith, all of the hundreds of dieties claimed by all religions past and present seem equally likely. Or equally unlikely. And all of these gods had their believers who claimed them to as real as contemporary believers claim their gods to be.
Why are the gods of the past commonly known to be mythical, while those currently in vogue are still the objects of fear and awe? Is there some true difference? Or is it simply a matter of opinion?
I've pondered this in the past and concluded that they're equal. Very generally speaking, they teach the same thing - play nice, an explanation of human existance, and promise of something better in an afterlife if you play by the rules.
When Christianity was in its infancy, there was no way for people in other parts of the world to even know of its existance. For instance, Native Americans. God would send them all to hell just because they didn't know about the correct God? Makes no sense.
To an individual who adheres to no faith, no god is valid. They are their own god.
But what about people a thousand years ago who lived in the Americas who would have no way to know anything about the God who created Christ? Were they doomed to hell from the moment of conception? What kind of god would do that?
People across time and culture have been equally sincere and devoted, so none can be "better" than another, just more appealing to one person or another. I like to think of it as in nursery school there are lots of wonderful story books to choose from and they all serve their purpose and fill a need that humans seem to have always had, and we each have our favorites.
This reminds me when my kids were little and my eldest was somewhat overbearing to his little brother and had him cornered in an argument and was demanding to know WHY his little brother liked macaroni and cheese, and he needed to PROVE why he liked it.
So from then on we had the rule in our house that no one ever had to prove or justify or defend or give a reason why they like something, anything, whether it's macaroni and cheese or why they like red better than blue (they were covering that ground too, my very articulate son had several sound arguments lined up why blue IS BETTER than red).
These religion discussions start feeling like that sometime so when I see us all as toddlers in the sand box it makes me smile.
Look at Christianity and the whole issue of the doctrine of the trinity: one god with three names....three gods with three names...three gods one essence...one essence three gods, etc.
That example alone shows that gods and deities have an intrinsic value which come from the people that believe in them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
