Believers, please differentiate these gods.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Slayer, what is wrong with having an ecumenical approach to religion. I can accept that all the major religions have varying degrees of truth and that adherents can have different opinions about particular aspects

They can't all have truth to it when religions have mutually exclusive answers...what kind of cognitive dissonance are you experiencing to say that. What's wrong with cherry-picking? well, it's a fallacy and it's intellectually dishonest.

I wouldn't say that even Swedenborg could capture the fullness of truth about spiritual reality.

But there is no spiritual reality. First you'd have to demonstrable a spiritual reality or a reality of spirits exists.

There's always more to learn about God.

But you said it yourself in another thread, god is love, nothing more to know is needed. And when I fucked my g/f last night we made god right?

But seriously, an all powerful deity that doesn't give you all the facts, and doesn't give you all it's knowledge it tortures you forever. What a completely non-evil being...

Knowledge of God comes from two sources: general revelation and specific revelation.

Both are horseshit, and improper standards of evidence, no wonder you are a believer if you have such fallacious standards. This is why you believers are having time with my challenge. Because you don't want to face the reality that your god-tale (which is God B, not A) but even if it was A, they're all indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. How can revelation be any sort of evidence when it's not repeatable, it's not demonstrable and is entirely subjective, it's like saying I got special revelation from an all powerful alligator or something. Our minds are very fragile, we make mistakes, we experience false positives, and we hear and see things that aren't there more than we want to realize. So before you pretend that you're some special creation from a god, know that you're actually a flawed animal that's too stupid to know you've been tricked by archaic people making up stories of gods because they didn't even have 1% of the knowledge we have today.

Anyone can deduce the existence of basic divinity from the natural world and their own experiences.

There's nothing divine about the universe or natural occurrences otherwise they'd be supernatural occurrences (which are really just unexplained natural ones). But if by divine you mean wonderful and awe inspiring then yeah. But that doesn't at all point to a god or anything divine. You can more properly deduce that the natural world is all there is, and you'd be most align with the current scientific understanding. Or you can be stuck in the dark ages and pretend 21st century deduction gets you to a god.

Hiehgt of pagan inquiry was Plotinus. That gives you a very general outline of God. Each tradition has its own specific texts. Most differences reflect the fact that they are mediated by various individuals throughout many cultures.

Which is a good example of why they are all based in mythology, not reality. Because nobody can get it right, and the differences are more than slight cultural changes. Most religions are mutually exclusive.