Yes, sorry, I got sidetracked by your comment about mission. I think discussions about sharing are tarnished by memories of force feeding at school, etc. But we can debate stuff on this forum, no problem. With children, there are other issues, but then anyone presumably is allowed to inculcate his children. State education is a sticking point, I suppose some Christians set up private schools.
I thought the traditional critique has been that missionaries were part of the imperialist or colonial project to subordinate or erase non-Western cultures. Bibles and guns, as somebody said. This is a bit more than "sharing".
Sure it is. But “sharing” with the intent to convince/convert is what Colin Smith has said is wrong, so that’s what people have been responding to.
Which is what I was trying to say! People trying to convert others to their point of view on a myriad of subjects, not just faith-based
Also, apologies for the use of the word "sharing" as have just realised it sounds like the naff way people have of using it- which makes me cringe...
People share their beliefs with me and others ALL the time. I do it but I do try to only do it in the context of a dialogue........not always successfully!
In the last month before lockdown I had unsolicited downloads from other people about:
1. Veganism
2. Foodbanks
3. Politics- both left and right
4. Therapy
And that's not an exhaustive list. As human beings we seek to influence one another, some of us more than others which IMO probably has something to do with personality type.
What I am reading on this thread is that some people believe it is wrong for people of faith to share their experiences/ thoughts. So faith is a special category where everyone should keep silent? Why?
To my mind it is how we engage with others in exploring our views which is really important not whether we do so.
Full disclosure: Between 2012 and 2016 I was a mission partner with the Anglican Church in Kenya
Actually, I'm irritated by all kinds of proselytisers/influencers whether they work on behalf of politics, charities, social movements, commercial enterprises, or whatever.
I'm happy for people to share their beliefs so long as they accept sharing is mutual and it's not done for the purpose of converting anyone. Sharing your beliefs with others with the presumption that your belief is superior to theirs is arrogant and intolerant.
I kept using belief because I forgot to correct myself.
There's no actual shame in modifying your position as a result of debate. There is in claiming that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I also assumed it was clear that I was referring to how some people behave among those of different faiths.
This has what to do with what exactly? If this is because I was talking about atheists, you have until now recognised atheisms as different faiths: are you now saying atheists get special exemptions from your principles?
It is not special pleading if those who attempt to convert others are doing real harm.
Is 'Real' meant to imply not subjective? In that case, you need to demonstrate it. Because I disagree. (Yes, all human communication can be abusive and one-sided. We're asking if trying to share one's beliefs is a special case.)
Or, are you saying that you're justified in acting because the harm is real to you? But then that principle also justifies the people you're talking about.
The real harm is that the spread of global religions, such as Christianity, has made the world less interesting and less varied. Where there was once religious diversity we have increasingly a sort of religious mono-culture.
And no, people who proselytise for atheism are just as bad as the rest.
There's a good quote which describes how humans should experience the world: Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints. Obviously, people also need food and shelter so that's not attainable, but the closer a person gets to that the better.
I like 'immense, ancient and indifferent'. Thank goodness it's indifferent.
Indifferent is more a value judgment than a scientific finding. There is no scientific test, or even a cogent description of what would constitute sufficient evidence, to determine if the world as we see it is indifferent or caring. Immense and ancient, yes, that's what we have discovered.
Fair point that we haven't derived 'indifferent' from scientific investigation. I'd say it was indifferent based on experience.
Your experience. Which is as applicable to me as your shoe size or your favorite toothpaste.
I like 'immense, ancient and indifferent'. Thank goodness it's indifferent.
Indifferent is more a value judgment than a scientific finding. There is no scientific test, or even a cogent description of what would constitute sufficient evidence, to determine if the world as we see it is indifferent or caring. Immense and ancient, yes, that's what we have discovered.
Good point. When I go for a walk, I imagine that the trees and plants and birds don't care about me, which is reassuring, although there is also the sense that the same force imbues us. The force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age.
The birds very much care about you if you mess with them. The planets, not so much. Inapt comparison.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
This is what I don't get. The ignoring that this is an issue for Christians as well.
Indeed. While trying to make it appear that you and I are ignorant and therefore wrong.
Pronouncements made in ignorance, if not wrong, are not wrong by accident.
I made a general observation that the God of the OT is different in character to the God of the NT based on the little I know of Bible stories and LC hauled me up for it. Given that it's been a topic of discussion and disagreement among Christians since the 2nd century I don't know why she objected to me raising it.
This is what I don't get. The ignoring that this is an issue for Christians as well.
Indeed. While trying to make it appear that you and I are ignorant and therefore wrong.
Pronouncements made in ignorance, if not wrong, are not wrong by accident.
They weren't made entirely in ignorance. So far as I'm aware, there's nothing akin to the Old Testament's mass slaughter in The Flood or that at Sodom and Gomorrah found in the New Testament, nor is there the enthusiastic support for one side against another, such as at the parting of the Red Sea when many more lost their lives. I suppose Revelation might count as a terrible slaughter, but does anyone take Revelation seriously?
Pronouncements made in ignorance, if not wrong, are not wrong by accident.
They weren't made entirely in ignorance. So far as I'm aware, there's nothing akin to the Old Testament's mass slaughter in The Flood or that at Sodom and Gomorrah found in the New Testament, nor is there the enthusiastic support for one side against another, such as at the parting of the Red Sea when many more lost their lives. I suppose Revelation might count as a terrible slaughter, but does anyone take Revelation seriously?
Once you say "does anyone take Revelation seriously?" you are back in the realm of interpretation. And I can come back with, "nobody takes the Flood story seriously, except a handful of kooks" (same exception as for the Revelation -- indeed same kooks). Which puts the two testaments right back on the same footing.
I also assumed it was clear that I was referring to how some people behave among those of different faiths.
This has what to do with what exactly?
Forgive the tone of the question but I don't think I got an answer to it: I still don't understand what your remark was supposed to clarify.
The real harm is that the spread of global religions, such as Christianity, has made the world less interesting and less varied. Where there was once religious diversity we have increasingly a sort of religious mono-culture.
'Less interesting' is a subjective judgement if anything is a subjective judgement. And whether 'less varied' is a bad thing or not, likewise.
Also, I think we're a long way from a religious monoculture, and the only real candidate is probably secularism. (The three or four large world religions - Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, perhaps Hinduism - all have a variety of instantiations.) If you're actually worried about monoculture, the reach of international capitalism is a more real concern.
Furthermore, your position is inconsistent and self-defeating. The world's religious diversity is not down to people leaving nothing but footprints; the world's cultural diversity is down to people persuading other people of their ideas and transmitting their ideas to their children.
What doesn't put them on the same footing is God commanding horrible things in the OT and Jesus(aka God) emphasising being good to one another in the NT.
In order to begin to reconcile the OT with the NT, one has to discount the literal aspects much more in the OT which is a point against them being consistent.
Who in this conversation has made a point of their being consistent? I mean other than you and @Colin Smith .
Explicitly? No one.
But when LC picked up on my point that the Christian God, as described in the Bible, is different from other Gods and even quite different in character from the Hebrew God I assumed she was saying that the God of the OT was not different in character to the God of the NT. Or in other words, that the characterisation of God was consistent in both testaments.
And how are we to judge character if not by actions.
That there is a consistent depiction of God in the Bible taken as a whole is a comprehensible and motivated position (though I would only agree given a postmodern hermeneutic). That Ruth and Ezra or 1 John and 3 John have rather different depictions of God seems comprehensible and motivated. That there is a single consistent portrait in the OT and a different consistent portrait in the NT is not I think particularly motivated by any coherent hermeneutic.
Nearly all the books in the NT refer back to the OT or insist that they're talking about the same God. We've had Marcion mentioned: what hasn't been said is that Marcion had to severely edit down the books in the NT to get rid of all favourable citations of the Jewish Scriptures or God of the Jews.
That there is a consistent depiction of God in the Bible taken as a whole is a comprehensible and motivated position (though I would only agree given a postmodern hermeneutic). That Ruth and Ezra or 1 John and 3 John have rather different depictions of God seems comprehensible and motivated. That there is a single consistent portrait in the OT and a different consistent portrait in the NT is not I think particularly motivated by any coherent hermeneutic.
Nearly all the books in the NT refer back to the OT or insist that they're talking about the same God. We've had Marcion mentioned: what hasn't been said is that Marcion had to severely edit down the books in the NT to get rid of all favourable citations of the Jewish Scriptures or God of the Jews.
So, okay then. God acts like a petulant and spiteful control freak with a taste for genocide and ethnic cleansing in both testaments. I can live with that.
That there is a consistent depiction of God in the Bible taken as a whole is a comprehensible and motivated position (though I would only agree given a postmodern hermeneutic). That Ruth and Ezra or 1 John and 3 John have rather different depictions of God seems comprehensible and motivated. That there is a single consistent portrait in the OT and a different consistent portrait in the NT is not I think particularly motivated by any coherent hermeneutic.
Nearly all the books in the NT refer back to the OT or insist that they're talking about the same God. We've had Marcion mentioned: what hasn't been said is that Marcion had to severely edit down the books in the NT to get rid of all favourable citations of the Jewish Scriptures or God of the Jews.
So, okay then. God acts like a petulant and spiteful control freak with a taste for genocide and ethnic cleansing in both testaments. I can live with that.
That is obviously not accurate. Calling back to the OT would be because the authors saw it as a continuation. Any given country can have a continuity in its history, but that does not make them exactly the same in character as the people of the past.
So, okay then. God acts like a petulant and spiteful control freak with a taste for genocide and ethnic cleansing in both testaments. I can live with that.
That is obviously not accurate. Calling back to the OT would be because the authors saw it as a continuation. Any given country can have a continuity in its history, but that does not make them exactly the same in character as the people of the past.
Of course it isn't. But frankly I am sick to death of this discussion (a discussion I have no interest in and never wanted) and there are far ruder ways of saying " I can live with that."
There was a potentially interesting discussion to be had about 'God' gradually revealing itself in stages as human's ability to understand their environment grew but that got swamped in this ****storm.
Having a hard time seeing how you can have a meaningful conversation about progressive revelation of God, without talking about how that looks across the two Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. Since, at least in the time frame covered, that's what we're referring to when we talk about revelation of God.
Having a hard time seeing how you can have a meaningful conversation about progressive revelation of God, without talking about how that looks across the two Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. Since, at least in the time frame covered, that's what we're referring to when we talk about revelation of God.
From your perspective, perhaps. I'm using 'progressive revelation of God' to cover the time frame from when humans developed the capacity to wonder right through to what the Hubble Telescope has told us about the universe and includes every religious/spiritual belief that has ever existed and the entire history of science.
Having a hard time seeing how you can have a meaningful conversation about progressive revelation of God, without talking about how that looks across the two Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. Since, at least in the time frame covered, that's what we're referring to when we talk about revelation of God.
From your perspective, perhaps. I'm using 'progressive revelation of God' to cover the time frame from when humans developed the capacity to wonder right through to what the Hubble Telescope has told us about the universe and includes every religious/spiritual belief that has ever existed and the entire history of science.
Which interval covers the writing of both the Old and New Testaments. Which, arguably, are the place in which our society's current concept of "God" originates. Seems highly relevant.
Which interval covers the writing of both the Old and New Testaments. Which, arguably, are the place in which our society's current concept of "God" originates. Seems highly relevant.
I'm not so sure about that. In the US, that may be true (I think you are in the US, apologies if I'm wrong) but in the UK I think the current concept of God for most people is basically, "woo, like there's got to be something" and that something has as much in common with the fairy-godmother as it does with the Bible.
I'm also using God (capitalised out of politeness) to mean something broader than just a deity. 'God' covers all possible explanations of the origins and nature of the universe and our place in it from animism, polytheism, Shinto, astrology, ghosts, fairies, and so on, through wiccan beliefs, Hinduism, through the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and scientism.
Which interval covers the writing of both the Old and New Testaments. Which, arguably, are the place in which our society's current concept of "God" originates. Seems highly relevant.
I'm not so sure about that. In the US, that may be true (I think you are in the US, apologies if I'm wrong) but in the UK I think the current concept of God for most people is basically, "woo, like there's got to be something" and that something has as much in common with the fairy-godmother as it does with the Bible.
I'm also using God (capitalised out of politeness) to mean something broader than just a deity. 'God' covers all possible explanations of the origins and nature of the universe and our place in it from animism, polytheism, Shinto, astrology, ghosts, fairies, and so on, through wiccan beliefs, Hinduism, through the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and scientism.
Don't capitalize God out of courtesy. Capitalize God when it is being used as a proper noun. Put it in lower case when it is being used with an article or as a common noun., Yahweh is the god of the Hebrews. It's true that God doesn't like dishonesty. And so forth. The habit of using a lower-case "g" for "god" when using the word as a proper noun is one of the stupidest and pettiest things that atheists do. Like they fear that by capitalizing the word, people will see what they've written and mistakenly think they have become theists. Or something. Or to be snotty to Christians. However you slice it, deliberately screwing up proper orthography to score points is petty and foolish, bordering on childish. Just my opinion.
Don't capitalize God out of courtesy. Capitalize God when it is being used as a proper noun. Put it in lower case when it is being used with an article or as a common noun., Yahweh is the god of the Hebrews. It's true that God doesn't like dishonesty. And so forth. The habit of using a lower-case "g" for "god" when using the word as a proper noun is one of the stupidest and pettiest things that atheists do. Like they fear that by capitalizing the word, people will see what they've written and mistakenly think they have become theists. Or something. Or to be snotty to Christians. However you slice it, deliberately screwing up proper orthography to score points is petty and foolish, bordering on childish. Just my opinion.
Thank you for the advice.I wasn't trying to score points.
When I wrote earlier But I suppose we, and others, would disagree about what has been revealed. To me, science has revealed something* immense, ancient, and indifferent. A something in which humans are insignificant. And yet, remarkably our capacity for understanding and imagination means we can just about comprehend that something and our place in it.
That appeals to me but for anyone who wants a more personal kind of God it would feel alien.
*One could variously call that something God, The Divine, or The Universe.
I thought it was obvious I was using God to mean something other than the Christian god.
Don't capitalize God out of courtesy. Capitalize God when it is being used as a proper noun. Put it in lower case when it is being used with an article or as a common noun., Yahweh is the god of the Hebrews. It's true that God doesn't like dishonesty. And so forth. The habit of using a lower-case "g" for "god" when using the word as a proper noun is one of the stupidest and pettiest things that atheists do. Like they fear that by capitalizing the word, people will see what they've written and mistakenly think they have become theists. Or something. Or to be snotty to Christians. However you slice it, deliberately screwing up proper orthography to score points is petty and foolish, bordering on childish. Just my opinion.
Thank you for the advice.I wasn't trying to score points.
When I wrote earlier But I suppose we, and others, would disagree about what has been revealed. To me, science has revealed something* immense, ancient, and indifferent. A something in which humans are insignificant. And yet, remarkably our capacity for understanding and imagination means we can just about comprehend that something and our place in it.
That appeals to me but for anyone who wants a more personal kind of God it would feel alien.
*One could variously call that something God, The Divine, or The Universe.
I thought it was obvious I was using God to mean something other than the Christian god.
I was referring (as I thought obvious) to your parenthetical "capitalized out of politeness". I understand the whole thing about calling the something-larger "God". You're not unique there.
I was referring (as I thought obvious) to your parenthetical "capitalized out of politeness". I understand the whole thing about calling the something-larger "God". You're not unique there.
It's as if I were to type "ganesh" for "Ganesh" to show that I don't believe Ganesh is a god. Silly.
Agreed. But there is only one Ganesh and there are an awful lot of gods.
And it's confusing because we use "God" and "god" when two quite different concepts are meant.
I'm wondering if I had written something like, the Old Testament and New Testament appear to describe two separate gods it might have saved three pages and many hours of pointless back and forth. Better still, I could have written the Christian god has only been available since Christ because the Christian god, as described in the Bible, is different from other gods and left out any reference to the Hebrew god. As it is, the discussion passed the time...
Humorously not 5 minutes after I wrote "Ganesh," a person came up in my database at work whose first name is Ganesh!
Those moments are like the universe winking at you. No matter how you put it down to coincidence and pattern recognition, it always feels like some joke is being played.
Which interval covers the writing of both the Old and New Testaments. Which, arguably, are the place in which our society's current concept of "God" originates. Seems highly relevant.
I'm not so sure about that. In the US, that may be true (I think you are in the US, apologies if I'm wrong) but in the UK I think the current concept of God for most people is basically, "woo, like there's got to be something" and that something has as much in common with the fairy-godmother as it does with the Bible.
I'm also using God (capitalised out of politeness) to mean something broader than just a deity. 'God' covers all possible explanations of the origins and nature of the universe and our place in it from animism, polytheism, Shinto, astrology, ghosts, fairies, and so on, through wiccan beliefs, Hinduism, through the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and scientism.
Don't capitalize God out of courtesy. Capitalize God when it is being used as a proper noun. Put it in lower case when it is being used with an article or as a common noun., Yahweh is the god of the Hebrews. It's true that God doesn't like dishonesty. And so forth. The habit of using a lower-case "g" for "god" when using the word as a proper noun is one of the stupidest and pettiest things that atheists do. Like they fear that by capitalizing the word, people will see what they've written and mistakenly think they have become theists. Or something. Or to be snotty to Christians. However you slice it, deliberately screwing up proper orthography to score points is petty and foolish, bordering on childish. Just my opinion.
How would you know, then, on a discussion board like this whether an atheist was referring to the God most members here believ in or god/s in general terms?
Suplementary question: I would be interested to hear definitions of the 'concept of God' (or of course' the concept of god'!) that is predominant. Doesn't each individual have an individual concept, however similar it might turn out to be to someone else's concept when expressed in words?
How would you know, then, on a discussion board like this whether an atheist was referring to the God most members here believ in or god/s in general terms?
Grammar and context. It's not terribly difficult.
Supplementary question: I would be interested to hear definitions of the 'concept of God' (or of course' the concept of god'!) that is predominant. Doesn't each individual have an individual concept, however similar it might turn out to be to someone else's concept when expressed in words?
Of course. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean predominant in a culture? That's not too hard to figure out.
Doesn't each individual have an individual concept, however similar it might turn out to be to someone else's concept when expressed in words?
Language is not always used precisely, but I would say that 'conception' refers to what each individual has, and 'concept' refers to the aspects of the idea that make it common and shareable.
I checked the OED, and lo and behold:
1953 S. K. Langer Introd. Symbolic Logic The distinction between these two terms—‘conception’ for the mental image or symbol, ‘concept’ for the abstractable, public, essential form.
(Other entries suggest that the distinction is not always rigorously observed.)
Comments
Which is what I was trying to say! People trying to convert others to their point of view on a myriad of subjects, not just faith-based
Also, apologies for the use of the word "sharing" as have just realised it sounds like the naff way people have of using it- which makes me cringe...
Actually, I'm irritated by all kinds of proselytisers/influencers whether they work on behalf of politics, charities, social movements, commercial enterprises, or whatever.
I'm happy for people to share their beliefs so long as they accept sharing is mutual and it's not done for the purpose of converting anyone. Sharing your beliefs with others with the presumption that your belief is superior to theirs is arrogant and intolerant.
The real harm is that the spread of global religions, such as Christianity, has made the world less interesting and less varied. Where there was once religious diversity we have increasingly a sort of religious mono-culture.
And no, people who proselytise for atheism are just as bad as the rest.
There's a good quote which describes how humans should experience the world: Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints. Obviously, people also need food and shelter so that's not attainable, but the closer a person gets to that the better.
Your experience. Which is as applicable to me as your shoe size or your favorite toothpaste.
The birds very much care about you if you mess with them. The planets, not so much. Inapt comparison.
Pronouncements made in ignorance, if not wrong, are not wrong by accident.
Agreed.
They weren't made entirely in ignorance. So far as I'm aware, there's nothing akin to the Old Testament's mass slaughter in The Flood or that at Sodom and Gomorrah found in the New Testament, nor is there the enthusiastic support for one side against another, such as at the parting of the Red Sea when many more lost their lives. I suppose Revelation might count as a terrible slaughter, but does anyone take Revelation seriously?
Once you say "does anyone take Revelation seriously?" you are back in the realm of interpretation. And I can come back with, "nobody takes the Flood story seriously, except a handful of kooks" (same exception as for the Revelation -- indeed same kooks). Which puts the two testaments right back on the same footing.
'Less interesting' is a subjective judgement if anything is a subjective judgement. And whether 'less varied' is a bad thing or not, likewise.
Also, I think we're a long way from a religious monoculture, and the only real candidate is probably secularism. (The three or four large world religions - Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, perhaps Hinduism - all have a variety of instantiations.) If you're actually worried about monoculture, the reach of international capitalism is a more real concern.
Furthermore, your position is inconsistent and self-defeating. The world's religious diversity is not down to people leaving nothing but footprints; the world's cultural diversity is down to people persuading other people of their ideas and transmitting their ideas to their children.
In order to begin to reconcile the OT with the NT, one has to discount the literal aspects much more in the OT which is a point against them being consistent.
Explicitly? No one.
But when LC picked up on my point that the Christian God, as described in the Bible, is different from other Gods and even quite different in character from the Hebrew God I assumed she was saying that the God of the OT was not different in character to the God of the NT. Or in other words, that the characterisation of God was consistent in both testaments.
And how are we to judge character if not by actions.
Nearly all the books in the NT refer back to the OT or insist that they're talking about the same God. We've had Marcion mentioned: what hasn't been said is that Marcion had to severely edit down the books in the NT to get rid of all favourable citations of the Jewish Scriptures or God of the Jews.
So, okay then. God acts like a petulant and spiteful control freak with a taste for genocide and ethnic cleansing in both testaments. I can live with that.
Of course it isn't. But frankly I am sick to death of this discussion (a discussion I have no interest in and never wanted) and there are far ruder ways of saying " I can live with that."
There was a potentially interesting discussion to be had about 'God' gradually revealing itself in stages as human's ability to understand their environment grew but that got swamped in this ****storm.
From your perspective, perhaps. I'm using 'progressive revelation of God' to cover the time frame from when humans developed the capacity to wonder right through to what the Hubble Telescope has told us about the universe and includes every religious/spiritual belief that has ever existed and the entire history of science.
Which interval covers the writing of both the Old and New Testaments. Which, arguably, are the place in which our society's current concept of "God" originates. Seems highly relevant.
I'm not so sure about that. In the US, that may be true (I think you are in the US, apologies if I'm wrong) but in the UK I think the current concept of God for most people is basically, "woo, like there's got to be something" and that something has as much in common with the fairy-godmother as it does with the Bible.
I'm also using God (capitalised out of politeness) to mean something broader than just a deity. 'God' covers all possible explanations of the origins and nature of the universe and our place in it from animism, polytheism, Shinto, astrology, ghosts, fairies, and so on, through wiccan beliefs, Hinduism, through the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and scientism.
No shit.
Don't capitalize God out of courtesy. Capitalize God when it is being used as a proper noun. Put it in lower case when it is being used with an article or as a common noun., Yahweh is the god of the Hebrews. It's true that God doesn't like dishonesty. And so forth. The habit of using a lower-case "g" for "god" when using the word as a proper noun is one of the stupidest and pettiest things that atheists do. Like they fear that by capitalizing the word, people will see what they've written and mistakenly think they have become theists. Or something. Or to be snotty to Christians. However you slice it, deliberately screwing up proper orthography to score points is petty and foolish, bordering on childish. Just my opinion.
Thank you for the advice.I wasn't trying to score points.
When I wrote earlier But I suppose we, and others, would disagree about what has been revealed. To me, science has revealed something* immense, ancient, and indifferent. A something in which humans are insignificant. And yet, remarkably our capacity for understanding and imagination means we can just about comprehend that something and our place in it.
That appeals to me but for anyone who wants a more personal kind of God it would feel alien.
*One could variously call that something God, The Divine, or The Universe.
I thought it was obvious I was using God to mean something other than the Christian god.
I was referring (as I thought obvious) to your parenthetical "capitalized out of politeness". I understand the whole thing about calling the something-larger "God". You're not unique there.
Agreed. But there is only one Ganesh and there are an awful lot of gods.
Ah. Good. Thank you.
And it's confusing because we use "God" and "god" when two quite different concepts are meant.
I'm wondering if I had written something like, the Old Testament and New Testament appear to describe two separate gods it might have saved three pages and many hours of pointless back and forth. Better still, I could have written the Christian god has only been available since Christ because the Christian god, as described in the Bible, is different from other gods and left out any reference to the Hebrew god. As it is, the discussion passed the time...
Those moments are like the universe winking at you. No matter how you put it down to coincidence and pattern recognition, it always feels like some joke is being played.
Suplementary question: I would be interested to hear definitions of the 'concept of God' (or of course' the concept of god'!) that is predominant. Doesn't each individual have an individual concept, however similar it might turn out to be to someone else's concept when expressed in words?
Grammar and context. It's not terribly difficult.
Of course. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean predominant in a culture? That's not too hard to figure out.
I checked the OED, and lo and behold: (Other entries suggest that the distinction is not always rigorously observed.)