This topic is from the Islam board, where Abu started accusing Christians of being polytheists, apparently to hijack a thread where Muslims were explaining their reasons for becoming Muslim. Which was a shame because it was one of the few threads where Islam was being discussed in a positive manner. Anyway, Gaybriel asked us to move the topic elsewhere.


freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 8:50am:

Quote: That's because they know the Bible is full of monotheism This just keeps getting more and more absurd. You argue that Christians are polytheists, but they don't believe in multiple gods because they know the bible is monotheistic? [quote]You can try to rationalise it however you like, the fact is there's 3 distinct entities that they claim make up God.

I have two arms, two legs, a nose, a mouth etc. Does this make me many people?


Quote:

I do, and they believe God is 3 entities... this is polytheism.

No. Polyehism is believing in many Gods.


Quote:

The Trinity is a Christian doctrine, stating that God exists as three persons

Did you actually read that Abu? It says one God.


Quote:

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

How many Gods again Abu?


Quote:

So I do defer to them freediver

So you changed your mind? Christianity is about one God now?[/quote]

NO..

Pretty simple fact really.  But I am sick of the denial and bloody-mindedness of the brainwashed to bother yet again.

I am sick of muslims who divert every thread yet refuse to start a thread on the topic they continually divert to !!!

Shows unconfidance and cowardice.

I'm interested to hear your views on this sprint, as I know you have been criticial of Christian institutions.

I can only talk for myself.
I don't believe in many Gods, only one.

God (imho) is present in a few forms we comprehend.


" Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

Genesis 1:2
So there is The Spirit of God


And, there is a plurality of expressions of God.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Genesis 1:26

And, then there is more than one expression of him.

sprint,


Quote:

And, there is a plurality of expressions of God. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Plural pronouns are used extensively in Semitic languages to denote majesty and grandeur, they are used in the Qur'an as well, but it quite clearly does not refer to plurality of forms/entities/beings/persons etc.

freediver,

I merely said they believe in a god[head] that consists of 3 persons (their exact words). You denied this, and said I should defer to them to explain it. Then I brought you clear proof from their doctrinal sources which states 3 PERSONS, you completely passed it over and continued with the same persistent arguments (as per usual).

Also you completely ignored the point that most polytheistic religions also claim God is one in essence, yet 3, 5, 10, 300 in manifestations/forms/persons etc.

Without you ACTUALLY listening, and responding, to the opposing argument, you're participation in any discussion on the issue is just a folly, really.

It's quite ironic that you spend half your time bringing doctrinal texts from Islam to prove your beefs with it, reject outright the explanation of any Muslim, accusing them of deceipt, omission of truth, dodging arguments etc. etc. and yet for Christians, you do the diametric opposite, reject all doctrinal texts and demand everyone defer to inidividuals (most who probably don't even know the first thing about their religion, ona  scholarly level) to give us the canonical facts about their belief system....

Can you please be a little more inconsistent, or is that the end of the line?

Why is it relevant what Hindus or other 'nominally polytheistic' people believe? That's up to them and has nothing to do with Christianity. In any case, argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20consequentiam

Christianity isn't even 'nominally' polytheistic. It's like if someone took the plural form of the personal pronoun in Islam and pretended that was proof that Islam was polytheistic, while ignoring the direct statements that it is monotheistic. Christians believe in a single God, and there has never been any confusion among Christians that there might be three. I've only seen this confusion among Muslims, though it seems even most of them are kind enough to let Chrstians decide for themselves how many Gods they believe in.

It all comes down to definitions yet again. The Romans were initially polytheistic, but they had a lot of minor deities such as the Lares, the Roman guardian spirits of house and fields.

In Christianity, they have Angels, Demons and Saints who can intercede in Roman Catholicism. Traditionally these are not referred to as deities. There is only one God, and that God has three aspects or manifestations which are the father, son and holy spirit. The concept of the trinity as I understand it, is derived from the close associations between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, which has many more aspects than three.

Similarly Islam has a lot of minor deities including angels and Jinn. Traditionally they are not referred to as deities because the emphasis is on the belief that there is only one God.

To claim these as separate deities is as dishonest as defining an atheist as a person who denies God.

If you want to know about any particular religious position, the only honest thing to do is to ask a person or a group of people who share that particular worldview. To do otherwise is dishonest sniping, and that should always be ignored.  

So Atheist doesn't deny God(s) any longer?

Quote:

There is nothing that is beyond the control of the Creator, the entire universe is his creation, not just it's physical reaches, but it's temporal reaches as well. Since God is not costrained by time, he is not locked into the present as we are. This aspect of human nature is what leads to a lot of the misconceptions about the Creator.

That explains the confusion of humans about singularity of a god.

tallowood wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 8:47am:

So Atheist doesn't deny God(s) any longer?

So that was the most important part of my post for you? Do you have a fixation on atheists, tallowood? Why don't you just leave people to believe what they want without trying to attach labels on everything?

Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours.

2 quickies re sprints quotes.

As Aboo said the royal "we" does not signify multiple Gods...  hear that Aboo.....  lol.  Also could not He have been talking to the Angels who already existed?  just thought I'd toss that in.

"The Spirit" comment also can be interpreted many ways...  but I note it is GOD's Spirit.  However you'd like to interpret Spirit.  

That's the Spirit.

muso wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:13am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 8:47am: So Atheist doesn't deny God(s) any longer? So that was the most important part of my post for you? Do you have a fixation on atheists, tallowood? Why don't you just leave people to believe what they want without trying to attach labels on everything? Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours.

Yes. No. I don't bother any individuals. No. Everything is as (ir)relevant as anything else.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:


1 Corinthians 10:1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.






"abu, some [Christians] may regard Jesus as one of three.
I admit that i don't fully comprehend the nature of the 'God-head', the nature of my God.
.....But in any case, i do not believe in three God's.
My God is one God, who's nature i don't not even nearly, fully comprehend."
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/24#24


"abu,
There you go again, limiting God.
I could prove to you from Genesis that the creator can be a part of his creation.
If you respect the Jewish Bible???
.....It seems to me, that the creator is a part of his creation, if he chooses to be."
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/28#28

tallowood wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:38am:

Quote: Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours. Yes. No. I don't bother any individuals. No. Everything is as (ir)relevant as anything else.

The reason you don't 'deny' Ganesh is the same reason that I don't 'deny' God. For me, it's a meaningless phrase. If we want to promote dialogue, I suggest that we adopt terminology that is accepted by all parties.

This thread is just like a lot of the Muslim threads but in reverse. You basically have those who do not espouse the religion quoting bits of scripture from a (to them) foreign religion that they don't understand.

Some are also quoting bits of their own scripture that they don't understand, and that's a real worry.

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but it's just a tad nonsensical and self indulgent to try to tell people something about a religion that they know more about than you.

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 9:38am: Quote: Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours. Yes. No. I don't bother any individuals. No. Everything is as (ir)relevant as anything else. The reason you don't 'deny' Ganesh is the same reason that I don't 'deny' God. For me, it's a meaningless phrase. If we want to promote dialogue, I suggest that we adopt terminology that is accepted by all parties.

Is that the god of salad dressings?

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 4:29pm:

muso wrote on Nov 19th, 2008 at 4:22pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 9:38am: Quote: Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours. Yes. No. I don't bother any individuals. No. Everything is as (ir)relevant as anything else. The reason you don't 'deny' Ganesh is the same reason that I don't 'deny' God. For me, it's a meaningless phrase. If we want to promote dialogue, I suggest that we adopt terminology that is accepted by all parties. Is that the god of salad dressings?

He's the happy elephant God of Hindu mythology. He's the perpetual child god. You don't really have an equivalent. The nearest thing you'd have would be Santa Claus.

What do elephants have to do with children?

Are Christians polytheists?

From God's Perspective...
Exodus 20:3. Do not have any other gods before me.

That's the Second Commandment, for those who do not know. It acknowledges the existance of other gods.

From Christian Perspective....
Jehovah... God. Satan... god. Saint... demi-god.

In this sense, Christians are abiding Their Lord, by holding no other god before Him... not satan, not st peter at the gates so welcoming... not even ganesh and his promise of successes will see the Christians look beyond God.

8-)

I always assumed it implied false gods, not 'other gods'. Isn't the trerm 'false idol' anyway?

Quote:

Exodus 20:3-7 3 Do not have any other gods before me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

The above is from wiki.... And now this one, to compare and contrast...


Quote:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm

I think it's a done deal... Christians are Polytheist, cause God is.  ;D

Sappho wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 10:10pm:

Quote: Exodus 20:3-7 3 Do not have any other gods before me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. The above is from wiki.... And now this one, to compare and contrast... [quote]ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm

I think it's a done deal... Christians are Polytheist, cause God is.  ;D[/quote]


Actually it follows from the text above that Christians are not Polytheist if they follow the will of their god. but if they don't then they are not Christians.

pol·y·the·ism n. The worship of or belief in more than one god.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polytheism

If by the will of God you are referring to the First Commandment, then no I'm not so sure you are right.

Polytheism is the worship OR belief in more than one god and not, the worship AND belief in more than one god.

So as a Christian you can Worship God And believe their are others gods as well as him and still be satisfying the Commandment.

What ever the case, I have proved, that God is Polytheist. And if God is polytheist, it makes no sense for His flock not to be.

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 4:36pm:

What do elephants have to do with children?

Ask a Hindu.

I have a simple solution to this thread. Do any Christians think that Christianity is polytheist? If not, well they're the experts. Let's leave it at that. We can have smart alex atheists, Muslims and Buddhists talk about it until the cows come home, but they mostly don't know what it means to be Christian, just as Christians don't know what it means to be Muslim.

The Old Testament was re-written from texts that reflected the previous polytheist religion of the Israelites. Like the Canaanites, they had a polytheist pantheon. (By the way Ba'al just means God) Any Christian scholar will tell you that. The point about not worshipping graven images in the commandments was precisely that it was talking about the old religion.

Nowadays, Christians interpret it as worshipping 'Mammon', money, personal vanity, fashion etc, but in the 6th Century BCE, there was a genuine struggle between religious ideologies. The Jewish leaders had returned from Babylon and they had the new Persian and later Achaemenid overlords to consider.  It's quite obvious from the OT, that they believed that those other gods existed alright, but they were less powerful than Jehovah.  

How the original authors and editors of the OT interpreted the text differs considerable from how a modern Christian interprets the text.
The religion is alive and dynamic, so if you really want to know, ask a modern Christian or Theologian (most of which are atheists incidentally)

Sappho wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 8:14am:

pol·y·the·ism n. The worship of or belief in more than one god. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polytheism If by the will of God you are referring to the First Commandment, then no I'm not so sure you are right. Polytheism is the worship OR belief in more than one god and not, the worship AND belief in more than one god. So as a Christian you can Worship God And believe their are others gods as well as him and still be satisfying the Commandment. What ever the case, I have proved, that God is Polytheist. And if God is polytheist, it makes no sense for His flock not to be.

According to you, Sappho, The God commanded to his people NOT to warship or believe to ANY OTHER gods but himself/herself. That includes Christians as well. That makes sort of definition for Christianity (for this particular case). Therefore if people worship or believe in more then one god they are not Christians.

God may believe or not in whatever but his flock can not in the same way as an adult may drive but children not.

By the way, it's interesting to read what Herodotus wrote about the Persians:

"[the Perses] have no images of the gods, no temples nor altars, and consider the use of them a sign of folly."

Thou shalt have no graven image of God - Exodus 20:4

It all falls into place.

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 9:38am: Quote: Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours. Yes. No. I don't bother any individuals. No. Everything is as (ir)relevant as anything else. The reason you don't 'deny' Ganesh is the same reason that I don't 'deny' God. For me, it's a meaningless phrase. If we want to promote dialogue, I suggest that we adopt terminology that is accepted by all parties.  ...

I don't know your reasons but I do know mine and as long as an elephant keeps out of my veggie patch I am happy with it's behaivour but if it transgress I will drive it out. Note that in both cases I don't deny an elephant itself(including Ganesh) but do deny its access tomy veggies.

tallowood wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 8:47am:

muso wrote on Nov 19th, 2008 at 4:22pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 9:38am: Quote: Do you deny Ganesh? I haven't heard an answer yet, but the question has the same relevance as yours. Yes. No. I don't bother any individuals. No. Everything is as (ir)relevant as anything else. The reason you don't 'deny' Ganesh is the same reason that I don't 'deny' God. For me, it's a meaningless phrase. If we want to promote dialogue, I suggest that we adopt terminology that is accepted by all parties.  ... I don't know your reasons but I do know mine and as long as an elephant keeps out of my veggie patch I am happy with it's behaivour but if it transgress I will drive it out. Note that in both cases I don't deny an elephant itself(including Ganesh) but do deny its access tomy veggies.

Ganesh is a magic elephant. He won't bother your veggies. He's heaps of fun. Indian kids love him, probably because the festival of Ganesh Chaturthi is associated with parties, nice foods and presents.


Quote:

Although he is known by many other attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify.[9] Ganesha is widely revered as the Remover of Obstacles[10] and more generally as Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles (Vighnesha, Vighneshvara),[11] patron of arts and sciences, and the deva of intellect and wisdom.[12] He is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies and invoked as Patron of Letters during writing sessions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha

http://nayna.in/images/LordGanesh.jpg


Quote:

Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art.[32] Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time.[33] He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.

Knowing that the ancient greeks for example worshipped many competing gods, and actually believing that those gods exist are two different issues. I think that Sappho is merely exploiting an ambiguity in the text. Whether or not those gods exist, the belief in them was real and it seems pretty clear to me that the commandments refer to that belief. Christianity almost equates belief with worship.

In any case it is pointless to make a rule saying that something doesn't exist when it does. The rules governed the behaviour of people. They were not physical laws.

Ganesh Chaturthi  looks like Pinocchio but wit flexible nose and bigger ears

http://www.yeshotelrome.com/hotels-accommodation/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/pinocchio.jpg

Note: I don't deny Pinocchio either.

tallowood wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 8:36am:

According to you, Sappho, The God commanded to his people NOT to warship or believe to ANY OTHER gods but himself/herself. That includes Christians as well. That makes sort of definition for Christianity (for this particular case). Therefore if people worship or believe in more then one god they are not Christians. God may believe or not in whatever but his flock can not in the same way as an adult may drive but children not.

God never told his flock NOT to believe in other gods. Rather God introduced the concept of other gods existing. From that point, God demanded that none of these Gods are to be held before Him.

You cannot as a God, introduce the concept of other gods and then say to your flock, do not believe in their existance! Nor is God doing that, if you read the Commandments.

If I was to judge the motive here, I would say that God is looking to avoid a Greek Tragedy. For example, it would have been very difficult for Zeus to maintain his authority, if the flocks of earth maintained Chronos above all other gods.  

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 8:57am:

I think that Sappho is merely exploiting an ambiguity in the text.

Quote:

Exodus 20 3  Do not have any other gods before me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Where is the abiguity in the text?

Sappho wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 9:33am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 8:36am: According to you, Sappho, The God commanded to his people NOT to warship or believe to ANY OTHER gods but himself/herself. That includes Christians as well. That makes sort of definition for Christianity (for this particular case). Therefore if people worship or believe in more then one god they are not Christians. God may believe or not in whatever but his flock can not in the same way as an adult may drive but children not. God never told his flock NOT to believe in other gods. Rather God introduced the concept of other gods existing. From that point, God demanded that none of these Gods are to be held before Him. You cannot as a God, introduce the concept of other gods and then say to your flock, do not believe in their existance! Nor is God doing that, if you read the Commandments. If I was to judge the motive here, I would say that God is looking to avoid a Greek Tragedy. For example, it would have been very difficult for Zeus to maintain his authority, if the flocks of earth maintained Chronos above all other gods.

God did not tell his flock to believe in other gods. He did not God introduced the concept of other gods existing Sumerians did that.


Quote:

After heaven had been moved away from earth, After earth had been separated from heaven, After the name of man had been fixed; After An had carried off heaven, After Enlil had carried off earth, After Ereshkigal had been carried off into Kur as its prize; After he had set sail, after he had set sail, After the father for Kur had set sail, After Enki for Kur had set sail; p. 38 Against the king the small ones it (Kur) hurled, Against Enki, the large ones it hurled; Its small ones, stones of the hand, Its large ones, stones of . . . reeds, The keel of the boat of Enki, In battle, like the attacking storm, overwhelm; Against the king, the water at the head of the boat, Like a wolf devours, Against Enki, the water at the rear of the boat, Like a lion strikes down.

That poem introduces many gods and was written way back before Abram's time.

tallowood wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 9:02am:

Note: I don't deny Pinocchio either.

What do you mean by that sentence though? What specifically don't you deny? If I walked into a party and said "I don't deny Pinnochio", I'd wager that somebody would ask me to explain what the hell I was talking about.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 8:57am:

Knowing that the ancient greeks for example worshipped many competing gods, and actually believing that those gods exist are two different issues. I think that Sappho is merely exploiting an ambiguity in the text. Whether or not those gods exist, the belief in them was real and it seems pretty clear to me that the commandments refer to that belief. Christianity almost equates belief with worship. In any case it is pointless to make a rule saying that something doesn't exist when it does. The rules governed the behaviour of people. They were not physical laws.

Yes. It's Harry Potter all over again. We can apply descriptions and true/false attributes to all the other gods, so they exist intellectually as concepts. That's all that matters. We can have conversations about gods, and we can even have conversations with gods if we are properly motivated.

It's the human element that's important - the fact that people acknowledged the gods. The question is - how else would you define existence of that which is supernatural?

It's a long slippery slope of semantics.

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:00am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 9:02am: Note: I don't deny Pinocchio either. What do you mean by that sentence though? What specifically don't you deny? If I walked into a party and said "I don't deny Pinnochio", I'd wager that somebody would ask me to explain what the hell I was talking about.

I mean the same as with The Elephant.

tallowood wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:09am:

muso wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:00am: tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 9:02am: Note: I don't deny Pinocchio either. What do you mean by that sentence though? What specifically don't you deny? If I walked into a party and said "I don't deny Pinnochio", I'd wager that somebody would ask me to explain what the hell I was talking about. I mean the same as with The Elephant.

This is like drawing teeth.  Do you have a problem with Pinnochio stealing your vegetables ?

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:13am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:09am: muso wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:00am: tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 9:02am: Note: I don't deny Pinocchio either. What do you mean by that sentence though? What specifically don't you deny? If I walked into a party and said "I don't deny Pinnochio", I'd wager that somebody would ask me to explain what the hell I was talking about. I mean the same as with The Elephant. This is like drawing teeth.  Do you have a problem with Pinnochio stealing your vegetables ?

The same as with The Elephant.

I don't deny Harry Potter as well but he should keep to his own veggies too.

Quote:

Tallowood God did not tell his flock to believe in other gods. He did not God introduced the concept of other gods existing Sumerians did that.

In Logical Form then....

Stated premise 1.
Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Unstated premise 2.
Other gods exist.

Therefore
Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

God did tell anyone with a sense of logic, that there are, indeed, other gods. He was not about to deny that Ganesh, the God of Sucess, existed... now was he.

Rather, he is saying in plain understanding that he is the only god that cares about these people, so care about Him and only Him... in return.

*Reference for biblical text
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=9;

Quote:

Rather God introduced the concept of other gods existing.

Wrong. If anything He ended that concept. The concept was already there. He did not introduce it. He merely acknowledged that the concept existed.


Quote:

Where is the abiguity in the text?

The ambiguity is in whether the commend refers to belief or worship (or maybe equates the two), and in whether it implies the existence of other gods, or merely the previous belief in their existence.

You are exploiting that ambiguity and in doing so rejecting both doctrine and a common sense interpretation.

Sappho wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Quote: Tallowood God did not tell his flock to believe in other gods. He did not God introduced the concept of other gods existing Sumerians did that. In Logical Form then.... Stated premise 1. Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Unstated premise 2. Other gods exist. Therefore Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. God did tell anyone with a sense of logic, that there are, indeed, other gods. He was not about to deny that Ganesh, the God of Sucess, existed... now was he. Rather, he is saying in plain understanding that he is the only god that cares about these people, so care about Him and only Him... in return. *Reference for biblical text http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=9;

It follows from above that:

1 God new about Sumerians.
2 People who follow Gods command e.g. Christians are not polytheistic. Q.E.D.

tallowood wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:18am:

I don't deny Harry Potter as well but he should keep to his own veggies too.

Ok, I can buy that. (I think) If your God should ever come visiting at my place, I won't deny him a nice vegetarian meal, as long as he behaves himself and doesn't start smiting me.

If he wants wine, I can supply a caraffe of fresh water and he's free to do any transmogrification that he pleases.

Otherwise he can go to hell, where he will presumably be served up with a barbecue smorgasbord.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:35am:

Quote: Rather God introduced the concept of other gods existing. Wrong. If anything He ended that concept. The concept was already there. He did not introduce it. He merely acknowledged that the concept existed.

No not wrong. God does not speak in Concepts... He speaks in Truths. So that if God says there are other gods... then there are other gods.

To say otherwise is to deny that god speaks in Truths.

What are you trying to say with this distinction between Truth and Concept?

I think now that you are confusing the Truths of God with the Parables of Jesus. Parables are like concepts, yet not concepts, that speak of truths.


Quote:

[quote]Where is the abiguity in the text?

The ambiguity is in whether the commend refers to belief or worship (or maybe equates the two), and in whether it implies the existence of other gods, or merely the previous belief in their existence.

You are exploiting that ambiguity and in doing so rejecting both doctrine and a common sense interpretation.[/quote]

It implies the existence of other gods. We are talking about text from god himself as written in the ten commandments. He is not speaking concepts at his flock. He is speaking absolute truths.

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:18am: I don't deny Harry Potter as well but he should keep to his own veggies too. Ok, I can buy that. (I think) If your God should ever come visiting at my place, I won't deny him a nice vegetarian meal, as long as he behaves himself and doesn't start smiting me. If he wants wine, I can supply a caraffe of fresh water and he's free to do any transmogrification that he pleases. Otherwise he can go to hell, where he will presumably be served up with a barbecue smorgasbord.

Can I come too? I can bring my own wine from my own grapes.

Is your hell the vegetarian restaurant where they serve grilled veggies? I will not deny that though I prefer them steamed or raw with lemon juice and olive oil.

Sappho wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:48am:

No not wrong. God does not speak in Concepts... He speaks in Truths. So that if God says there are other gods... then there are other gods.

Is a thought not a truth? If he said that just thinking about horizontal folkdancing is committing adultery, is that not a concept?

If he said thou shalt not mentally masticate (sic) on internet forums, is that not also a concept?

Quote:

So that if God says there are other gods...

But that's just it Sappho. He does not say that. You are deliberately misinterpretting an ambiguity.


Quote:

What are you trying to say with this distinction between Truth and Concept?

A concept is something that people are aware of, maybe even believe in. Thus it is different from the truth. I hope I don't have to explain it any further.


Quote:

It implies the existence of other gods.

No it doesn't.


Quote:

We are talking about text from god himself as written in the ten commandments. He is not speaking concepts at his flock. He is speaking absolute truths.

They are commands, not truths. 'Thou shalt not steal' is a command, not a truth. In fact it is demonstrably false. This is the absurdity of your argument.

tallowood wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 10:53am:

muso wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:39am: tallowood wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:18am: I don't deny Harry Potter as well but he should keep to his own veggies too. Ok, I can buy that. (I think) If your God should ever come visiting at my place, I won't deny him a nice vegetarian meal, as long as he behaves himself and doesn't start smiting me. If he wants wine, I can supply a caraffe of fresh water and he's free to do any transmogrification that he pleases. Otherwise he can go to hell, where he will presumably be served up with a barbecue smorgasbord. Can I come too? I can bring my own wine from my own grapes. Is your hell the vegetarian restaurant where they serve grilled veggies? I will not deny that though I prefer them steamed or raw with lemon juice and olive oil.

LOL. I think Sprint's idea of an Australian Politics Forum meet is a good one. Maybe some day.

Douay Version says "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me."
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo020.htm

So god says "other gods" or "strange gods" but does not say "false gods", yet Freediver would treat what god has said as though he means "false gods". Why?

Surely if god meant "false gods" he would say "false gods", being all knowing and all... as He Is!

That would encapsulate the concept of gods past that are false making Him The Only God In Existence.... but he did not do that... did he.

God, being all knowing, claimed there were "other gods" or "strange gods." He was not speaking to a concept, but to truth.  8-)

Quote:

God, being all knowing, claimed there were "other gods" or "strange gods."

Wrong. You are confusing your misinterpretation with what was actually written, yet again.

Sappho wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 9:33am:

God never told his flock NOT to believe in other gods. Rather God introduced the concept of other gods existing. From that point, God demanded that none of these Gods are to be held before Him.

The concept of other 'gods' may be indicated within the Bible.....
.....[i.e. 'gods' are spoken of, not being actual Gods.]....

Psalms 82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3  Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4  Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5  They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8  Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.



In their vanity, men have always imagined that they themselves, are like God.

And indeed, they do have the power to CHOOSE between good or evil.

And this is all tied in with SATAN's trick in the garden.

To play upon man's own vanity.

Genesis 3:5
.....your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.






And in their nature, men are vain 'chancers'.

What action, or desire, will a 'strong' man withhold himself from?

Or is the question actually,
....'Why should he withhold himself??'
....when the sword arm of a man is strong!!


Human history tells us fully about human nature, and about 'real politique'.....

"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."
Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian


Historically, men have shown that invariably, they will always act in their own interests, if it is indeed within their power.iGetting back to gods....

But elsewhere God seems quite definitive [about other 'gods'].....

Isaiah 44:1
Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
2  Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
3  For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
4  And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
5  One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
6  Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
7  And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
8  Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.


Isaiah 45:20
Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
21  Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

Quote: God, being all knowing, claimed there were "other gods" or "strange gods." Wrong. You are confusing your misinterpretation with what was actually written, yet again.

What kind of debate is that Freediver... Pfft!

No it is you who is wrong Freediver. You are confusing your misinterpretation with what was actually written, yet again.

Sappho I just don't see any point in a more in depth rebuttal if all you are going by is a deliberate misinterpreation of some of the more ambiguous translations of the commandments. Finding an ambiguity and filling it with whatever you want is hardly a sound argument.

Yadda wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 11:41am:

Sappho wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 9:33am: God never told his flock NOT to believe in other gods. Rather God introduced the concept of other gods existing. From that point, God demanded that none of these Gods are to be held before Him. The concept of other 'gods' may be indicated within the Bible..... .....[i.e. 'gods' are spoken of, not being actual Gods.].... Psalms 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods[/u]. 2  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3  Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4  Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5  They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, [u]Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8  Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. In their vanity, men have always imagined that they themselves, are like God. And indeed, they do have the power to CHOOSE between good or evil. And this is all tied in with SATAN's trick in the garden. To play upon man's own vanity. Genesis 3:5 .....your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And in their nature, men are vain 'chancers'. What action, or desire, will a 'strong' man withhold himself from? Or is the question actually, ....'Why should he withhold himself??' ....when the sword arm of a man is strong!! Human history tells us fully about human nature, and about 'real politique'..... "Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian Historically, men have shown that invariably, they will always act in their own interests, if it is indeed within their power.

a better translation is "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth"


line six is "I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High."

so beware of 16th century protestant bible translations, they translaed teh bible from latin, which had already been translated from hebrew and so things got confused.

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 12:03pm:

a better translation is "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth" line six is "I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High." so beware of 16th century protestant bible translations, they translaed teh bible from latin, which had already been translated from hebrew and so things got confused.

Thank you pender.



So God is the 'head honcho' then [....as the Hebrew scripture seems to reveal things]?
....among the 'gods'?

'gods' being the 'congregation' ['subjects']  of  God?

Or would you suggest that the God [of Israel] may be 'one among equals'?




I'm still confused.

:)

Yadda wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 12:25pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 20th, 2008 at 12:03pm: a better translation is "God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth" line six is "I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High." so beware of 16th century protestant bible translations, they translaed teh bible from latin, which had already been translated from hebrew and so things got confused. Thank you pender. So God is the 'head honcho' then [....as the Hebrew scripture seems to reveal things]? ....among the 'gods'? 'gods' being the 'congregation' ['subjects']  of  God? Or would you suggest that the God [of Israel] may be 'one among equals'? I'm still confused. :)

"god standeth in the congregation of god" simply means god stands before his own congregation, imho