To say that God can only be present or felt in one belief system or another, or that His word is found strictly in one book as opposed to other books, is to limit Him. If you limit Him, then He is no longer unlimited, and I venture to guess most here would agree that He is.

So given that being the case, He would have to be able to felt and seen anywhere in the world, in any belief system, and available to anyone who seeks. One religion, one book, cannot contain God, cause He is everywhere around. If they could God would not be who He is said to be. He cannot be unlimited if He is limited in whom He is available to and how.

Good point. 'Whoever'. A lot of people get this mixed up with 'Whatever'.

That's an interesting point! I can see where you're coming from...

But this raises certain questions that you would perhaps not mind answering

1. If God is in all belief systems that's cool. What if you're a satanist? Is God there?

2. Does the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn count? If God is found here then that's quite a trick!

3. If all religions lead to God then why do they contradict each other?

Yes God can be found and heard anyplace in the world or the universe for that matter. If you open your mind and give him a chance.

I once watched an evolution marathon on you tube. I began to think what I knew was wrong. I thought If there is a God surley he can show me he exists right? So I asked him to reveal himself. I think he did. For me that solved the argument.

Well, not only that, but if "false gods" are truly "false" then they don't exist. And that opens a whole can of worms in itself.

In other words it would be impossible to worship a "false god" as your creator.

The Canaanites were supposedly worshiping a "false God", however, if it was their intent to worship their creator, then they could not have been worshiping a "false God". All that could have possibly happened is that their true creator had abandoned them.

In other words, if the Canaanites were having ceremonies to sacrifice children to "God", then all "God" would have needed to do was show up at their ceremony and say to them the following:

"Yes, I am indeed your creator, and you are right to want to worship and appease me, but you have the wrong idea if you think I am appeased by the sacrifice of children"

That's as simple as it gets.

For a creator to stand by and do nothing but "complain" that these people are worshiping a "false God" would be utterly insane.

You can't have a creator who fails to communicate to the object of his creation. That makes no sense.

Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to speak about anyone worshiping "False Gods".

Either they know and understand that they are rejecting their creator, in which case they would simply choose not to worship any "gods", or they are suffering from confusion, in which case it can only be the creator's fault for not making things clear.

So the very notion of people worshiping "false gods" is an oxymoronic notion.

It's impossible to do.

If you are trying to worship "GOD" then that's what you are trying to do. If God see that you are confused about who or what he or she is, then it's up to God to clear that up.

You can't have people TRYING to worship God but accidentally worshiping some false idol by mistake and BLAME THEM.

Clearly they are TRYING to worship God. And that should count for everything right there.

This is why these biblical fables can't possibly be true. They contain asinine ideas like this. Idea's that people are trying hard to worship their divine creator but have simply misunderstood who or what the divine creator is.

Same holds true for the Egyptians. You can't have them worshiping "false gods" and claim that they aren't trying to worship God.

They only way you could claim that they are rejecting God is if they fully understand WHO God is, and simply flatly refuse to worship God. But then they wouldn't have any religion at all because they would KNOW that they have rejected their creator.

Even atheists aren't rejecting God. They simply don't believe that any God exists. And that is nowhere near the same as rejecting God.

So all of the accusations from these ancient fables are bogus accusations that have no rational merit.

It's just man-made fables that try to hold up a notion of a jealous God over the heads of people in an attempt to get them to succumb to a specific religion.

It's clearly not the type of behavior that would be expected from an actual creator.

If you're trying to worship your creator, then that's what you are trying to do. To claim that this would represent worshiping a 'false god' is nonsense.

All you could possibly claim is that it would be worshiping a false RELIGION. Yep, RELIGION. Not God.

This is where the authors of the Bible have tried to hold up RELIGION as GOD. And this is why it fails.

Good way to phrase that, Kleisto!

SA, 1. depends on which version of Satanism you're talking about. The atheistic versions don't believe in a deity, but that we are our own Gods. Those with deities would technically be an unlimited god like Kleisto mentioned.

2. Sure, why not? Hindu's only believe in one God, but perceive that God in multiple ways, and have multiple names for him/her. Individuals might be drawn to a more motherly aspect, or a more warrior aspect of their God. It's really no different then the whole trinity concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three separate, yet one.

3. Deep down, they really do not contradict each other. It's their followers that do the contradicting. But most people don't get that deep in to other religions and are happily willing to follow along mindlessly with what everyone else says.

Truly. This reminds me of the joke where a mystic spiritualist goes to heaven and looks around, and everything is perfect and beautiful. A spirit guide approaches with open arms in a gesture of welcome.

Then a new group of people appear to arrive. Suddenly the ground opens up and demons grab all the new comers and drag them down into the hole and it closes back up around them.

The mystic asks the spirit guide what that was all about and the spirit guide says, "Oh those were Christians. They won't have it any other way".



Truly. The only reason that religions appear to be incompatible is because people don't fully understand them. A religion that supposedly has a jealous personified judgmental godhead does not conflict with one that doesn't. It only appears to conflict to those who believe that their vision of God is the only way God can be.

Just like Kleisto suggests, they're trying to LIMIT God whilst simultaneously pretending that God is unlimited.

Talk about a contradiction. There you go. Any religion that puts God in a box and simultaneously claims that God is unlimited is a contradiction unto itself.

Good answer.

Thank you.

God is not "unlimited", whatever that means.

God is omnipotent, which means all powerful. "All Powerful" means that God can do anything that can be accomplished with power. This means that there are many things that God can't do. God can't make a square circle. God can't make a five piece quartet. Then there are the limitations due to God's character. God is perfect, which means that God doesn't fail or lie or sin at all. I guess it's unfair to call that last bit "limitations". Failing is a part of being non-perfect and so is sinning.

What you are doing here is a logical fallacy. You see, you want to imply that all Religions have to be true in order for one to be true. That's ridiculous. Either Jesus is God or he isn't, it can't be both ways. Either Mohammad was God's last prophet or he wasn't, it can't be both ways.

The fact is that one religion can tell of the truth of an all powerful, perfect God.

What I mean by unlimited is, he is simply everywhere and not bound by any one belief system. He can't be everywhere and yet only be found in one place.

Further if He's all powerful then He'd have to be powerful enough to reach people no matter what they believed, who they were or where they were. If He can't, then he's not all powerful as you claim.

As for all religions being true, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I would suggest NONE of them are true, at least not entirely. They all have bits of truth in them, but they don't have all truth. God is bigger then any one religion, His truth cannot be pigeonholed in such a way.

Lastly if there is one God available to all, then yes Jesus, Mohammed, or any other name you would wish to give the almighty could indeed be God, because....at the end of the day it's still the same God. The only difference is in the name, but that doesn't matter. God meets us where we are and as we are, if we're more liable to accept God under a certain name then that's how He will appear to us, knowing we wouldn't accept Him any other way. The name has nothing to do with the being, it's all the same God.

Exactly.

A belief system isn't a place. God can be present everywhere in the universe and only one religion can have the truth about God, the two aren't mutually exclusive.



Undoubtedly, God can reach everyone. But God wishes to be worshiped through faith by people who have chosen to do so. Therefore God gives us the curiosity and desire to know "is there a God" and a means to find out (prayer, word-of-mouth, dreams and the Bible).



In Hebrew, the word "name" also meant "reputation" and "the person as a whole". If a religion offers a god who doesn't have the same characteristics and personality as God, then that god is a false one.

When you say "God is bigger then any one religion, His truth cannot be pigeonholed in such a way", you could be talking about Christianity specifically. Christians call both Jesus and the Bible, the Word. Christianity is meant to be a relationship with Jesus. As your faith and dedication to Jesus grow, your relationship with Jesus becomes more complex and your understanding of certain Christian doctrines evolves. It's a beautiful thing. Different Christians feel differently about some issues, like Baptism, the Eucharist, is smoking a sin, dietary laws, holy days, etc. But regardless, there is always "mere Christianity", which is the core truth about God.

But would you not say that according to your religion that God really can't be truly felt apart from it?

I don't know what you are asking, could you clarify?

What I mean is, if your religion is true and God's truth is only present there, then it would stand to reason that to you God's presence could not be truly felt without the religion, because His truth is available only there. Correct?

I believe everyone feels the Spirit of God moving when they do the right thing or when their mind stumbles upon a profound truth.

God is unlimited. God isn't in any book. God is in absolutely no book whatsoever. God is omnipresent, our father is everywhere. And just because there is one book that contains the knowledge of our father is not making him limited. Because with your way of thinking I could write all kinds of books about different IMAGINARY God's thought up in my head, spread all these books across the world. Then in 100 years or so when they are found, are those books knowledge of God? No, and that right there is not "limiting" God. Just make believe stories don't constitute on making God limited or unlimited. Again it's not limiting God. All is possible through God. One can do anything can know anything with ONE God, ONE book. Again it's not making God limited, for the possibilities with God are endless.

I am not trying to say that any other books are fully true either in this sense, cause none are. God's truth cannot be limited to any one book, it simply can't be done. Yet you do exactly this by saying only one book has God's truth in it.

You keep saying that, but you offer no reasoning to support this conclusion.

Please explain your reasoning for why "God's truth cannot be limited to any one book, it simply can't be done".

Because again he would cease to be unlimited if His truth was limited. It's simple logic.

And besides that, many books claim to have absolute truth. What does it say for a God who lets us all be confused to what the truth is, instead of making it obvious?