Who are the gods of this age?

[Calminian]

Ever wonder how someone could fall for a god like Baal, or Molech? Doesn't it seem kind of dumb to believe in gods like that? And some would worship YHWH and Baal or other gods, hoping to get the best of both words.

But are modern unbelievers any more sophisticated? Are liberal christians any different? I would submit, 2 new gods have emerged in our postmodern culture. They are personified as mother nature and father time. Between these two gods we have all we need to explain all the complexity and specificity we see in the universe. Some reject the true God for these gods, and some add them to their christianity.

The religion of our day is philosophical naturalism. Its priests of course are scientists (experts in natural processes, who adhere to philosophical naturalism). They greatly outnumber scientists that trust the Bible. Kind of takes me back to Elijah's day, when it was 400 to 1.

It's a bit uncanny. I don't think man has changed much at all.

 

[sfs]

Oh, come on, we have a lot more gods than that(*). Here in the U.S. as a whole, we have the Free Market, the Second Amendment and the American Flag, all worshipped with great devotion, and let's not forget the various regional football, basketball and NASCAR deities. Here at Harvard (where I'm sitting at the moment) we have Widener Library, Academic Freedom and the Tenured Faculty (worshipped only by themselves, but don't tell them that).

(*)Really, Father Time isn't a treated as a god at all -- no one worships time. You just don't want scientists to include an old universe/earth in their explanations, so you paint it as a god. Don't be so cranky.

 

[Calminian]

Oh, come on, we have a lot more gods than that(*). Here in the U.S. as a whole, we have the Free Market, the Second Amendment and the American Flag, all worshipped with great devotion, and let's not forget the various regional football, basketball and NASCAR deities. Here at Harvard (where I'm sitting at the moment) we have Widener Library, Academic Freedom and the Tenured Faculty (worshipped only by themselves, but don't tell them that).

(*)Really, Father Time isn't a treated as a god at all -- no one worships time. You just don't want scientists to include an old universe/earth in their explanations, so you paint it as a god. Don't be so cranky.

When it comes to origins, I would beg to differ, though. Mother nature (chance random processes) and father time (billions of years) are the explanation for everything. They are the source. No other gods needed. Now there are certainly other things that are worshipped, but those cover origins for a whole lot of people, including the most revered scientists of our day.

 

[juvenissun]

Ever wonder how someone could fall for a god like Baal, or Molech? Doesn't it seem kind of dumb to believe in gods like that? And some would worship YHWH and Baal or other gods, hoping to get the best of both words.

But are modern unbelievers any more sophisticated? Are liberal christians any different? I would submit, 2 new gods have emerged in our postmodern culture. They are personified as mother nature and father time. Between these two gods we have all we need to explain all the complexity and specificity we see in the universe. Some reject the true God for these gods, and some add them to their christianity.

Human created gods with some reasons. This is all you are saying. I and all atheists agree with this point of view.

But Christianity is not created by human. It is revealed to human. Human is not qualified to create such a sophisticated theology.

 

[Gottservant]

Mammon.

Carnality.

Abomination.

Sin.

These are the gods of this Age.

(Science is a mere pretense for Ego).

 

[Calminian]

..

(Science is a mere pretense for Ego).

Trust in mother nature and father time is not science, though. Science is merely observing the world and drawing inferences from it. Belief that chance random processes and deep time can account for all there is, is indeed a religious belief. Science can't prove this assumption. It must be accepted as a presupposition. Thus by its very nature it must be accepted by faith.

It's also unique to history as most ancient religion believed in a creator god, a god with a will who determined to create. In this age we've traded that in for middles mechanisms and deep time. Some would argue this is a more sophisticated god, but it's seems even less rational when you think about it

 

[Calminian]

...But Christianity is not created by human. It is revealed to human. Human is not qualified to create such a sophisticated theology.

Well revelation reavals to us that we are not the products of chance and time but of a willful Being who transcends time and mechanisms. We have been given historical revelation that our beginning is supernatural.

But the gods of this age foster a belief in something much more irrational, yet more acceptable to many. The question of why probably differs from individual to individual.

 

[juvenissun]

Well revelation reavals to us that we are not the products of chance and time but of a willful Being who transcends time and mechanisms. We have been given historical revelation that our beginning is supernatural.

But the gods of this age foster a belief in something much more irrational, yet more acceptable to many. The question of why probably differs from individual to individual.

The one puzzles me is the Islam. Why does it attract so many people? Its theology is "less" than Christianity. What is the attraction?

 

[The Barbarian]

Creationism seems to be the god for some here. You can make an idol of anything, but that's not the same thing as saying all creationists worship a false god.

Some of them are just as committed to God as the rest of us.

 

[SG9]

"Who are the gods of this age?"

All living humans are like gods when the world is void of Truth. When the world turns from God they become gods in their own heaven here on earth and in their minds. The mind is the object of interest as the conscience is what is seared with either the mark of the beast or the seal of God. It's a spiritual event and not even seen by the natural eye and mind. It's obvious that we may become a god if we follow Satan; look back at Eden and read what the serpent told Eve.
Thanks

 

[Calminian]

Creationism seems to be the god for some here. You can make an idol of anything, but that's not the same thing as saying all creationists worship a false god.

Some of them are just as committed to God as the rest of us.

Oh I have no doubt there are people committed to God who are confused about many of the foundational truths God revealed. Paul told us there is a constant war brewing over the knowledge of God, and that we should cast down the arguments against it.

In the case of denying the book of Genesis, I don't think the effects are immediate. They tend to take hold in later generations. Just look at all the churches in Europe that are no longer churches, and how the population has been severed from their christian roots. American appears to be going in that same direction.

If Satan were to attack the cross directly, clergy and laymen would immediately draw battle lines. But Satan is crafty, and knows this and takes a more subtle approach. He attacks the foundation of the Cross and patiently lures away subsequent generations. Even more crafty he incites believers to help him do it.

 

[sfs]

When it comes to origins, I would beg to differ, though. Mother nature (chance random processes) and father time (billions of years) are the explanation for everything. They are the source. No other gods needed. Now there are certainly other things that are worshipped, but those cover origins for a whole lot of people, including the most revered scientists of our day.

I find that such an odd reaction, and find it hard to understand the theology behind it. When I wake up on a winter morning, see it snowing and find a foot of snow outside my door, I infer that the process of ice crystal formation acting over time produced what I see.

When I look at the Mississippi River delta, see the silt settling out of the river and look at the composition of the delta, I infer that the process of sedimentation acting over time produced what I see.

When I look at living species, see mutation, drift and natural selection changing them constantly, observe their obvious genetic relatedness and the way their genetic differences look exactly like accumulated mutations, I conclude that the process of mutation acting over time produced what I see.

In all three cases, the relevant process -- snow formation, sedimentation, mutation -- is described scientifically as random, since we don't know (or generally care) about the details of each as it works out. In all three cases, as a Christian I assume that God is providentially in control of the process. In none do I have anything remotely approaching an attitude of worship toward anything about the process.

 

[SG9]

Ever wonder how someone could fall for a god like Baal, or Molech? Doesn't it seem kind of dumb to believe in gods like that? And some would worship YHWH and Baal or other gods, hoping to get the best of both words.

But are modern unbelievers any more sophisticated? Are liberal christians any different? I would submit, 2 new gods have emerged in our postmodern culture. They are personified as mother nature and father time. Between these two gods we have all we need to explain all the complexity and specificity we see in the universe. Some reject the true God for these gods, and some add them to their christianity.

The religion of our day is philosophical naturalism. Its priests of course are scientists (experts in natural processes, who adhere to philosophical naturalism). They greatly outnumber scientists that trust the Bible. Kind of takes me back to Elijah's day, when it was 400 to 1.

It's a bit uncanny. I don't think man has changed much at all.

There are more then two gods in this world and they that are not the true God, and are of one spirit, the devil who masquerades as gods indwelling in each unbeliever as they become a god just as the serpent had proposed to Eve. If we look back at Eden, we could even say that there were three gods after their fall. Thanks

 

[donfish06]

We have made ourselves the "gods" of this age. Everything is about what WE want, not about what God wants. Rarely do you see Christians really seeking the Lord's will. We are very selfish and put ourselves above all, thus making ourselves idols/gods

 

[Keachian]

Moralistic therapeutic deism and functional providential deism to me are the main conceptions of God that permeate our culture to the expense of fidelity to Yahweh, the triune God of Christianity.

Moralistic therapeutic deism is the belief that if there is a god he is loving and will not interfere in his creation except to give me blessing.

Functional providential deism is the belief that the god's providential care of creation cannot properly be attributed to the god, rather we attribute such things to "natural" processes.

 

[mark kennedy]

First of all, love the Johnathan Day picture. More importantly it's not a well known fact but the pagan religions around the Mediterranean had a lot of gods but no one really attributed origins to them. When you traced it back it came down to the elementals like earth, air, fire and water. It was the elementals that gave rise to the gods, not the other way around.

Indeed, in the circus that is Modernist thinking it all goes back to the elementals with a new caveat, the elemental cause of natural law. I think it's idolatrous and pagan if it follows a simple principle, attributing to nature what is rightfully attributed to God alone, the doctrine of creation is what I have in mind here but there could be other examples:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23)​

Darwinism substitutes natural law for God's work in creation as a transcendent cause for change. I can see how a person could come to the conclusion that such a mentality can be rightfully called idolatrous. It's probably a good idea to make the indictment cautiously though since Paul makes it clear that we are all guilty of it to one degree or another.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

The religion of our day is philosophical naturalism. Its priests of course are scientists (experts in natural processes, who adhere to philosophical naturalism). They greatly outnumber scientists that trust the Bible. Kind of takes me back to Elijah's day, when it was 400 to 1. It's a bit uncanny. I don't think man has changed much at all.

You explained why I was born again. Reading the Bible, I
discovered that modern man is described perfectly.
That's how I knew Christianity was the correct belief.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh and BTW, the goddess of Darwinism is Artemis known Biblically as Diana. Gorgeous lithograph is it not? Notice the gal on the left is pointing to her breasts, that's because she is a fertility goddess, an appropriate pagan icon for Darwinism when you think about it, you know, reproductive success and all that.

Now as in all pagan traditions the gods and goddesses are not the primary first case, that sacred designation goes to the elementals, usually earth, air, fire and water. The modern mythographers of Darwinism are not as fond of personifications as 'Ole Flycatchers' grandfather but they are quite devoted to the gods of time and chance.

 

[Daaa]

Ever wonder how someone could fall for a god like Baal, or Molech? Doesn't it seem kind of dumb to believe in gods like that? And some would worship YHWH and Baal or other gods, hoping to get the best of both words.

But are modern unbelievers any more sophisticated? Are liberal christians any different? I would submit, 2 new gods have emerged in our postmodern culture. They are personified as mother nature and father time. Between these two gods we have all we need to explain all the complexity and specificity we see in the universe. Some reject the true God for these gods, and some add them to their christianity.

The religion of our day is philosophical naturalism. Its priests of course are scientists (experts in natural processes, who adhere to philosophical naturalism). They greatly outnumber scientists that trust the Bible. Kind of takes me back to Elijah's day, when it was 400 to 1.

It's a bit uncanny. I don't think man has changed much at all.

Baal wife Easter is far more then just a Pagan word.

Below we find the KJV totally mistranslating the word Passover and inserting the word for the Chaldean goddess (Baal), the queen of heaven

Acts 12: 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

EASTER pascha ^3957^, mistranslated "Easter" in


Acts 12:4, KJV, denotes the Passover (RV). The phrase "after the Passover" signifies after the whole festival was at an end. The term "Easter" is not of Christian origin.

It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast, but was not instituted by Christ, nor was it connected with Lent.

From this Pasch the pagan festival of "Easter" was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity.

See PASSOVER.(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)(Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Look what God’s Word speaks of such heresy….


Rom 11:3-6 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (KJV)

 

[StanJ]

Ever wonder how someone could fall for a god like Baal, or Molech? Doesn't it seem kind of dumb to believe in gods like that? And some would worship YHWH and Baal or other gods, hoping to get the best of both words.

But are modern unbelievers any more sophisticated? Are liberal christians any different? I would submit, 2 new gods have emerged in our postmodern culture. They are personified as mother nature and father time. Between these two gods we have all we need to explain all the complexity and specificity we see in the universe. Some reject the true God for these gods, and some add them to their christianity.
The religion of our day is philosophical naturalism. Its priests of course are scientists (experts in natural processes, who adhere to philosophical naturalism). They greatly outnumber scientists that trust the Bible. Kind of takes me back to Elijah's day, when it was 400 to 1.
It's a bit uncanny. I don't think man has changed much at all.

As these people were 3000 - 6000 years ago I don't wonder, given their less evolved brains back then.
I'm a little perplexed at the label of 'liberal Christian' being applied to people who use 'mother nature' or 'father time' to exemplify nature or time. I doubt they are paganistic in their beliefs, but probably just more into the vernacular of the day.
I always say to atheists that they seem to have no problem using these terms but totally reject ANY notions of their being a spiritual deity. Unbelievers use the phrase 'acts of God' to determine bad weather related events, but when looking at a beautiful scene IN nature, say "isn't mother nature beautiful'.
IMO, an actual Christian, regardless of what side of this so-called center they are on, knows that there is not father time or mother nature, but of course unbelievers is another matter altogether.
Calling yourself a Christian does NOT mean you are, and using phrases as noted here probably indicates those that do use them are not Christian either.