The Million Dollar Question

[Confused Ape]

He was the Supreme Being in the Sun domain so the definition still applies.

Except when it came to the morning, midday and evening sun.

Sometimes different aspects of Horus were used instead of Ra's aspects.

Horus

Horus served many functions in the Egyptian pantheon, most notably being the god of the sun, war and protection.

Since Horus was said to be the sky, he was considered to also contain the sun and moon. It became said that the sun was his right eye and the moon his left, and that they traversed the sky when he, a falcon, flew across it.

All you are proving is that Egyptian theology was not very well thought out and does not make much sense.

Again a very muddled theology which is bound to happen when people create their own gods, I am not sure how you think that’d change the definition of a god.

The point I was making is that a deity's attributes and domain depends on theology. The Egyptians, as you said, had a very muddled theology. Who, exactly was the supreme deity of the Sun?

So, let's move on to theology. Does the proof of a deity being real depend on how consistent the theology is? Christians have a supreme being but they haven't been 100% consistent where attributes are concerned.

Christians have had a very consistent definition for a very long time now so that is just factually incorrect.

How far back are you going in this very long time?

History Of The Trinity

There were various ideas concerning what the Trinity meant, all supposing that God really was a Trinity.

Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[26]

Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[31] or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[32][33] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers[31] in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.[34]

Another controversy -

Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being.[35] For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.

It did get sorted out eventually.

In the fourth century, Arianism, as traditionally understood,[note 1] taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming "Son of God".[36] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being".

The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[39] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[40] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[39] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[39]

After that the Roman Catholics managed to wipe out all the opposition until Protestantism came along. I'm going to finish this post with Modern Christian Groupings Who Are Non-Trinitarian

I'm not going to quote them but there are a considerable number of them. The question of whether or not the Christian God is a Trinity isn't as muddled as Egyptian theology but all that can be said about these different ideas is that Jesus is in there somewhere.

It’s been me-the Christian here-who has been arguing for a set definition for the term god. The people trying to argue that there is no actual definition for that term have all been atheists.

Okay, so let's go with your definition. How does that prove the Christian deity is any more real than Odin who was the highest of the Norse gods?

[Neo-Scholastic]

What is a God?

Before I answer....I want to know who's putting up the million....and what guarantee do I have of payment?

Your treasures get stored up in heaven don't you know.

[Lemonvariable72]

Before I answer....I want to know who's putting up the million....and what guarantee do I have of payment?

Your treasures get stored up in heaven don't you know.

Got a phone number, or even a mailing address. I need to be able to communicate with my representative in heaven and I want the terms and conditions in writing. That includes treasure collected to date, rate of increase, insurance on goods (gods let's some bad people in heaven). I'd like some information on inflation in heaven as well as Imagine it is very high. I know will say I can contact via prayer, but that seems rather unreliable and I did something that a third party van review. So either a phone call or mail should do. Think heaven can handle that? It is nothing then I require of any bank on earth.

[Statler Waldorf]

Except when it came to the morning, midday and evening sun.

Sure. These are only inconsistencies in Egyptian theology, not with the definition of the term god.

The point I was making is that a deity's attributes and domain depends on theology. The Egyptians, as you said, had a very muddled theology. Who, exactly was the supreme deity of the Sun?

Seems like it changed as time went on.

So, let's move on to theology. Does the proof of a deity being real depend on how consistent the theology is? Christians have a supreme being but they haven't been 100% consistent where attributes are concerned.

Since theology is merely the study of god then no I would say it would not necessarily have to be consistent in order for that god to exist because the theology could simply be in error. A perfectly consistent theology would have to be possible however if the god did exist. Christian theology is the most consistent and philosophically astute theology however. That could very well be because Christians are studying something that actually is real rather than something man-made. This is not a proof that Yahweh exists, simply something interesting to ponder.

How far back are you going in this very long time?

Well many of God’s attributes are explicitly mentioned in scripture itself.
As for the rebuking of heretical teachings by the early church, this seems to only substantiate by claim that Christians have had a very definite definition of God for a long time. They used that definition to correct or rebuke anyone who created their own false definition. We still use the writings of the early church fathers today because the theology has been so consistent.

After that the Roman Catholics managed to wipe out all the opposition until Protestantism came along. I'm going to finish this post with

The Eastern Orthodox Church may be a bit offended that you seemed to forget that they even exist.

I'm not going to quote them but there are a considerable number of them. The question of whether or not the Christian God is a Trinity isn't as muddled as Egyptian theology but all that can be said about these different ideas is that Jesus is in there somewhere.

Non-Trinitarians are actually a great minority and regarded by most as non-Christian churches. Interestingly enough, I was just talking to a couple Jehovah’s Witnesses on my front lawn the other day and to say that they are Christians is simply inaccurate. They have borrowed much of our terminology but that’s about it.

Okay, so let's go with your definition. How does that prove the Christian deity is any more real than Odin who was the highest of the Norse gods?

It doesn’t. That was not the original question though was it? The original question was to define the term god, not to prove any god exists.

[Ryantology]

Christian theology is the most consistent and philosophically astute theology however.

I'm sure that, at some point, you've dropped a turd that smelled better than the thousands of others you've produced, but it was still just a turd.

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm sure that, at some point, you've dropped a turd that smelled better than the thousands of others you've produced, but it was still just a turd.

I realize that as an atheist you do not value logical coherency and consistency but I for one value it very much which is why I could never believe what you believe.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'm sure that, at some point, you've dropped a turd that smelled better than the thousands of others you've produced, but it was still just a turd.

I realize that as an atheist you do not value logical coherency and consistency but I for one value it very much which is why I could never believe what you believe.

Do you use drugs?

Reason I ask is, you keep gargling this garbage rhetoric that somehow, belief in an invisible, intangible entity you cannot prove exists somehow makes you a "more astute thinker" or "value logic," but you don't seem to understand what these words mean.

You're smugly informing someone that because you by definition hold a set of irrational beliefs you cannot empirically verify, that you value logical coherency and consistency more than someone who does not accept your irrational beliefs because they do not make logical sense, and cannot be verified.

[JuliaL]

No the definition would still apply, each of those gods or goddesses were supreme in one attribute or domain.

WOOT----WOOT
I'm a goddess!!!
I'm supreme in the domain of being ME!!
(running around and waving my arms)


What a stupid definition.

[Tonus]

God: the object of a believer's devotion.

So Leean Tweeden, then.

---

Eternal
Absolute
One
Unique

How do you know there is only one?

Because, well...

[Confused Ape]

Well many of God’s attributes are explicitly mentioned in scripture itself.
As for the rebuking of heretical teachings by the early church, this seems to only substantiate by claim that Christians have had a very definite definition of God for a long time.

The Christian faction which won interpreted scripture to back up their claim that God is a Trinity. It took the members of this faction several centuries to finalise the 'orthodox' opinion, though.

They used that definition to correct or rebuke anyone who created their own false definition. We still use the writings of the early church fathers today because the theology has been so consistent.

That's the theology of the winning faction. It's not surprising that their theology has been fairly consistent.

There's no Trinity in Judaism. God was always chatting to people in the Old Testament. You'd think he'd have mentioned he's a Trinity to somebody, especially Moses.

The Eastern Orthodox Church may be a bit offended that you seemed to forget that they even exist.

The Eastern Orthodox Church still has the Trinity etc. along with an interesting history..

In the 11th century what was recognised as the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation between the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Byzantine Churches, now the Orthodox. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Roman Pope involved in the split, but these were greatly exacerbated by political factors of both Church and state, and by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to 1054, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during the periods of Eastern iconoclasm and the Photian schism.[154]

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450.

The Roman Catholics were dealing with all the upheaval of the Crusading Decline in the 13th and 14th centuries. It's likely they were disinclined to take on the Eastern Church's empire as well. After all, it would have been a different kettle of fish to wiping out sects like the Cathars.

And then -

In 1453, the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Empire. By this time Egypt had been under Muslim control for some seven centuries, but Orthodoxy was very strong in Russia which had recently acquired an autocephalous status; and thus Moscow called itself the Third Rome, as the cultural heir of Constantinople.

Under Ottoman rule, the Greek Orthodox Church acquired substantial power as an autonomous millet. The ecumenical patriarch was the religious and administrative ruler of the entire "Greek Orthodox nation" (Ottoman administrative unit), which encompassed all the Orthodox subjects of the Empire.

It's likely that they were disinclined to take on Russia and the Ottoman Empire too. It might have been a different story, though, if the Eastern Church had adopted a Gnostic theology and taught that the God of the Old Testament was an evil Demiurge.

Non-Trinitarians are actually a great minority and regarded by most as non-Christian churches. Interestingly enough, I was just talking to a couple Jehovah’s Witnesses on my front lawn the other day and to say that they are Christians is simply inaccurate. They have borrowed much of our terminology but that’s about it.

Many of the non-Trinitarian denominations won't regard you as a real Christian either. Some Protestants don't regard the Roman Catholics as real Christians. Then there's the Eastern Orthodox Church again.

The Orthodox understand themselves to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; the true Church established by Jesus Christ and placed into the care of the apostles. As almost all other Christian groups are in indirect schism with the Orthodox Church, mostly as a result of the Great Schism with the Roman Catholic Church at the turn of the second Christian millennium (prior to the additional schisms of the Protestant Reformation), these other groups are viewed as being Christian, but who in varying degrees lack full theological orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

As such, all groups outside of the Orthodox Church are not seen as being members of the Church proper, but rather separated brethren who have failed to retain the fullness of the Christian faith and theology, as was given to the apostles by Jesus Christ. These deviations from orthodoxy have traditionally been called heresy, but due to the term's immediately pejorative connotations, some prefer the more technical designation of the term heterodoxy.

How do you like being regarded as a heretic by millions of other Christians?

That was not the original question though was it? The original question was to define the term god, not to prove any god exists.

Existence is very relevant to the definition, though. Believers think their deities exist but there's no concrete proof that any of them really do exist.