Jobar

This is a continuation of a conversation begun in the 'Satan' thread.

I have asked Soma if he means 'Brahman' when he says 'God'. I object to this; the properties attributed to the Abrahamic God and to Brahma are quite different. I think trying to argue for one by using the attributes of the other constitutes a bait&switch; Soma is attempting to pull a fast one here.

The exchange between Soma and I went as follows-

Originally posted by Jobar
Soma, I see from your profile you list yourself as a Vedantist. So may we presume that when you say 'God' you in fact mean 'Brahman'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Soma:
Yes, but I try to defend monotheism and Christianity whenever I can, though in reality I do not believe in the typical Western conception of God.

ScotCochrane

I'm happy to be corrected, but as I mentioned in the original thread, Satan is a Christian concept.

If the question were going to be posed about his (Satan) existence, then I would assume we are talking in Christian terms, therefore Christian God.

Soma

I recognize that the quintessential concept of God is universally the same throughout many developed religions, thus I will defend that whenever I can, regardless of the form it's presented in -- whether it be a monistic, impersonal force, or a personal, living entity.

Jobar

Soma, as Magus55 pointed out to you on the other thread, the fact that you reject omnibenevolence is enough to prove that you are not talking about the same deity that Magus is.

Although I certainly have no objection to you talking about Vedanta, we have a Non-Abrahamic Religions forum which is custom made for such discussions. And although EoG is also an appropriate venue for talking about your views, you need to be aware that the default definition for 'God' in here is the Abrahamic one. Had I not checked your profile, I suspect the misunderstanding would still be going on; some of your arguments are for one concept, and some for the other.

I suggest very strongly that you say 'Brahman' instead of 'God' to avoid further confusion, unless you wish to talk about the most common Western version- who is omnibenevolent.

Soma

^^^Actually, I was arguing for my interpretation of the Christian God. Brahman is an impersonal force and quite incapable of establishing morality. The Bible makes no claims of God being omnibenevolent.