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.
The God of Abraham was the one who led Abraham away from his father's religion.
Abraham followed God in his own unique way, in ways that he learned by a personal relationship not depending upon other people's information. For Abraham's seed to bless all future peoples, then they would also need to have their own personal relationship with this same God. Such that even members of these major religions are blessed whenever they interact in this personal relationship.
Maybe that is what Jesus meant when he responded to the Pharisees who asked him about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus said that it was the God "of the living, not the dead" whom they should follow.
Maybe what it really means is that the patriarchs should only be our models of inspiration in following God on our own in the same way that they did, and not by listening to other people's own stories. Because all stories are eventually stories about dead people. But God is for the living, not the dead.
The God of Abraham was the one who led Abraham away from his father's religion.
Abraham followed God in his own unique way, in ways that he learned by a personal relationship not depending upon other people's information. For Abraham's seed to bless all future peoples, then they would also need to have their own personal relationship with this same God. Such that even members of these major religions are blessed whenever they interact in this personal relationship.
Maybe that is what Jesus meant when he responded to the Pharisees who asked him about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus said that it was the God "of the living, not the dead" whom they should follow.
Maybe what it really means is that the patriarchs should only be our models of inspiration in following God on our own in the same way that they did, and not by listening to other people's own stories. Because all stories are eventually stories about dead people. But God is for the living, not the dead.
What do you think of this proposal?
You started off at the wrong point in history.
The God of Abraham is the same God of Adam. And God is ONE!
So let’s start with Adam.
By faith,
Between Adam and Abraham, God sent many, many prophets towards different nations through this time period.
ALL of those prophets had one continuous message towards their nations and towards their people - Monotheism - Worship only ONE God.
Almost all nations or some portion of them got astray - they either rejected the message of their prophet or they slowly ignored the message and started idolatry as form of worship.
God would then put an end to that nation and a new nation emerged.
When Abraham came on the scene, it was no different of a situation than the prophets before him.
The people around them, including their own parents were worshiping idols.
Abraham was given THE SAME EXACT message by God that was given to the prophets before AND after him. MONOTHEISM! Worship only ONE God.
Jesus came with the same message but Christians slowly got astrayed and started this 3 into 1 and 1 into 3 mental gymnastics.
Maybe we should go one step further, and determine whether god actually exists.
Any evidence is welcome.
Note that I'm saying this as a poster, not as a mod, but is it really necessary to bring "is there any evidence of God" into every single thread on R&S?
That's not the point of the OP's post. It's coming from the assumption that God exists, yes, but it's not necessary to prove the existence of a God (or of Abraham or Adam for that matter) to continue the conversation.
There are several religions that trace their origins to the story of a man named Abraham who left his polytheistic homeland after being contacted by who he came to believe was the one true God and from which these monotheistic religions sprang. Discussion of the nature of that God is appropriate for this forum.
Why not save the "prove God exists!" stuff for the threads dedicated to that discussion.
That kind of flippant and ignorant response says more about Atheism than you will probably ever realize. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that way.
As it was neither flippant nor ignorant, and was only asking for evidence, your misrepresentation of it says more about many religious people than you will probably ever realize. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks THAT way.
It was out of place, yes. But your need to attack atheism with any stupid argument says more about you than you will probably ever realize.
As it was neither flippant nor ignorant, and was only asking for evidence, your misrepresentation of it says more about many religious people than you will probably ever realize. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks THAT way.
It was out of place, yes. But your need to attack atheism with any stupid argument says more about you than you will probably ever realize.
If you understood what the Bible was saying, the message itself is that books are not required for understanding God.
Yet atheists only seem to care about discussing the whether the stories are literal or not. They don't even care about what the purpose or message of the story is, but only whether it literally occurred or not. (The truth is that they are describing how God relates to human beings, which is why people believe them.)
But doesn't your concern over literalism not seem 100% absurd? Really? That's all you care about the stories?
If you understood what the Bible was saying, the message itself is that books are not required for understanding God.
Yet atheists only seem to care about discussing the whether the stories are literal or not. They don't even care about what the purpose or message of the story is, but only whether it literally occurred or not. (The truth is that they are describing how God relates to human beings, which is why people believe them.)
But doesn't your concern over literalism not seem 100% absurd? Really? That's all you care about the stories?
An irrelevant straw man to my post.
But if you want to understand the Abrahamic god, then surely you need to know which god in the bible you are talking about? And why just the Bible? Islam also has an Abrahamic god?
Note that I'm saying this as a poster, not as a mod, but is it really necessary to bring "is there any evidence of God" into every single thread on R&S?
That's not the point of the OP's post. It's coming from the assumption that God exists, yes, but it's not necessary to prove the existence of a God (or of Abraham or Adam for that matter) to continue the conversation.
There are several religions that trace their origins to the story of a man named Abraham who left his polytheistic homeland after being contacted by who he came to believe was the one true God and from which these monotheistic religions sprang. Discussion of the nature of that God is appropriate for this forum.
Why not save the "prove God exists!" stuff for the threads dedicated to that discussion.
I see your point, but how can you understand "the Abrahamic God" if he doesn't exist?
But if you want to understand the Abrahamic god, then surely you need to know which god in the bible you are talking about? And why just the Bible? Islam also has an Abrahamic god?
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Now read my OP again in light of this.
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.
An irrelevant straw man to my post. 
