Other Gods

[seashale76]

I see where the OP is coming from. Do I necessarily agree? I remain agnostic regarding the matter.

 

[AskTheFamily]

What you state is somewhat the view of Quran.

The gods worshipped by humanity in general have been jinn and some have been saints from humanity.

In general, it's stated the Jinn are confused to be Angels, Angels would mean a jinn(hidden being) that is chosen and perfectly guided by God.

People believed in God but thought these Jinn beings reaching out to them were representatives of God.

On the day of judgement, the Angels will say, they didn't actually worship us, they worshipped the Jinn, most of them were believers in them.

To be honest, I've had experience with what seem to be Jinn and it seems they are capable of making objects fly and also appear great with a spiritual vision.

Most of the time I brush of my experiences as part of schizophrenia, but I still can't explain why physical things like my laptop flew in the air and I know it moved from place to place.

I also felt spiritual warfare with attacking with arrow of God and sword of God on jinn forces...

I think a lot of jinn think they can guide humanity. And in Suratal Jinn it talks about how jinn didn't even know what they were saying themselves being sons of God and what not were untrue and thought no one would make these claims about themselves if they were untrue.

The followers of Satan I don't think want to misguide humanity but think they are guiding humanity according to Quran. They are just as misguided as their followers. They having telepathy and incredible powers might think they are gods. They can read minds and influence them thinking they are meant to guide humanity.

I think this is partially true, because I believe the saints and chosen ones of Jinn are classified as Angels per Quran and take on as spiritual whisperers of the heart and become the other side.

I think in the Unseen world according to Islam, there is Jibrael and Iblis (Satan) for the Jinn and Dajjal and Imam Mahdi for humanity...probably others for Aliens outside in space.

Jibrael is the commander over the Angels, and Iblis is the commander over the misguided jinn. Jibrael represents monotheism while Iblis teaches the Jinn they are gods and there other gods.

I don't think Jinn actually tell humans to murder and that kind of thing, what they do is they guide out of the spirit of Jibrael (holy spirit), the spirit of monotheism...and they want people to live the life of this temporary world to it's fullest as opposed to the Angels who want people to live to next world which is a spiritual station and live for closeness to God and spiritual states.

 

[AskTheFamily]

And to be honest, I think it might be that there is division in the spiritual world, and that over all it's misguidance just like this world is misguidance, and it's up to you, to take on guidance.

I wouldn't trust either Iblis or Jibrael in my point of view...I would look within for guidance and not towards other beings.

I think it maybe the case that both sincerely think they right like it is in this world people think they are right and fight each other.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If pagan ants have been worshiping me for generations, and have named me, built temples, and written all sorts of mythology about me... then yes, I guess I would be the being they know as a god. I am most certainly not just a figment of their imagination! But if the One True God has chosen to reveal Himself to them, then there really is no comparison between me and Him.


So anyway, when I say I believe that pagan gods exist, I simply mean that I am aware that some of them are actual entities, and that people in the past (and a few in the present) have worshiped them. I can even imagine that these entities have interacted with humans, and maybe even tried to do some benevolent, altruistic things for them. I do not see where the Bible backs up popular Christian doctrine, which states that all "other" gods are demons in league with Satan, and all part of a worldwide scheme to deceive people and deprive us of our right to Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Other gods are simply the powers that be, and God has asked that we do not worship them, or place their desires for us over what He has to say.

One thing to consider - if believing that there are other deities in existence other than God or Jesus Christ - is the reality that even religions built around them still can have it where the Holy Spirit is present working in that religion and using it as a bridge to bring others to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

• THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE WORLD: IN NON-CHRISTIANS, CREATION AND OTHER RELIGIONS

I'm reminded of Dr. Amos Young - who noted that the Lord works in all religions on some level. And where most Pentecostals see the devil's work, Yong sees the Spirit's. ..meaning that Christians should be open to learning from and being enriched by the Spirit's work in world religions - with this also meaning that dialogue must take place alongside evangelism so that all the religions—including Christianity—can learn from each other what the Spirit is doing.

On where he has specifically spoken on the subject more in-depth:

• The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) "after" Buddhism

Again, the work of Dr. Amos Yong is perhaps the most scholarly within the Pentecostal world when it comes to noting the extensive range of how the Holy Spirit moves and operates...as seen in The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh and Who is the Holy Spirit: A Walk with the Apostles (more shared here). He has also been very instrumental in showing the ways that the Holy Spirit's work has been crucial - a work that neither the Father nor the Son were designated to do - when it comes to preparing the hearts of others around the world and already working within their cultures in bringing them to Christ....more shared here in Amos Yong’s Review of “Holy Spirit, Chi, and the Other” | Grace Ji-Sun Kim ...or "Beyond the Impasse" by Amos Yong - Society of Vineyard Scholars : Society of Vineyard Scholars and Beyond the Impasse by Amos Yong - A Book Review - JR Woodward. More can be seen here as well - or here in the following:

• Ponderings on a Faith Journey: Spirit of Love (Amos Yong) -- Review

• AmosYong Whither Theological Inclusivism? The
  Development and Critique of an Evangelical Theology of Religions

The Holy Spirit and the Middle Way: A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World - YouTube

The thoughts of Yong have been a blessing to see when it comes to the ways he has challenged the Church in reconsidering the role of the Holy Spirit (and being Orthodox myself, it is cool to realize where his thoughts do line up much on the subject.. - especially in regards to the Word and the Spirit being the "Two Hands" of the Father.....and seeing how extensive the concept is with seeing the Holy Spirit as Wisdom).

To see the work of the Holy SPIRIT as being present in the development of other religions on some level does show a level of stewardship when it comes to the Global work of the Lord in ensuring that religions promoting other gods/deities still allow for pointers to be developed that would bring people back to the Lord and acknowledge him at some point.

• Spiritual Adventures: Sophia, Holy Spirit, Wisdom of God

​

 

[Tobias]

Very interesting and refreshing post!

This might be not excactly same thing, but I feel its related enough to mention.

After I myself expanded my study of divine outside of christian sources I was buffled by one thing: In christianity there is position that searching for spiritual beings (other than christian god) will eventually lead into problems, such as demonic contacts or posession by harmful spirits.

Now, studying what witches, pagans etc. have to say on topic of contacting spiritual beings, story goes like this: There are good and harmful spirits, you learn to shield yourself from harmful ones and you can go on with good ones.

So, actually they agree with christian version on that harmful things can happen, but thats not only thing out there to find, its just a risk, not necessity. And as sidenote, I have to mention that I don't consider devout christian practise riskfree either, some people have lost their mental health doing it.

So, what I'm trying to say that I have became to realize that very likely there are far more neutral, or not clearly bad or good beings in spiritual world than just good and evil. I think "devil in disguise" - theory doesn't make justice to the experiences generally, cause some of them seem to bring "good fruit".

I have also personally experienced things for which I'm unable to find any meaningful cathegory in good-bad axis, it has been more of "oh, that kind of stuff exists" than had any great good or bad meaning.

* Sorry for resurrecting old thread, but this is rather rare position for orthodox (?) christian to hold, so I felt I badly wanted to comment it.

NP on the thread resurrection.

I really don't know why the concept of neutral spirits is such a problem for most Christians. We look at the Earth, and see such a wide variety of creatures all made by God. How many are sold out completely to work for Him? And how many are completely committed to Satan's kingdom?

Why would the spiritual realm be any less diverse that the animal kingdom?

This is in fact what most people encounter when they do manage to sense the spiritual realm. That there are some powerful beings, and some not so powerful beings. Just like there are both elephants and ants.

I think that the presumption that all members of the spirit realm are either angels or demons comes from the belief that ALL knowledge is contained in the Bible. I mean, it's one thing to think that the scriptures are inspired by God, it's another to add the additional theology that claims we have the exact number of inspired books, and that by putting all 66 of them together, they somehow manage to give us a perfect picture of all things spiritual!

 

[Tobias]

(large pictures)

Real quicky G, do you think you could edit down some of these picture sizes? It's blowing up my screen! I can't read anything on the page without having to scroll back and forth and back and forth on each line.

Thanks!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Real quicky G,

Try now...

 

[Zstar]

Sure there are other concepts of 'god' or 'Gods' and 'God' or 'gods' - to me it makes sense there is 'One Supreme Being'. How many does it take to light a fuse though and began the process the expanding universe we find ourself in?

The process we find ourselves in I'm sure God understands our confusion. That's part of getting it, figuring it out - the only forces I'm familiar with are a Life-Giver and a Life Destroyer in my concept : the rest might claim Godhood or be exalted to it but these Others underline everything so the term is more fitting to me.

Have I got it all figured out?

No.

Just my opinion on the matter, take or leave it.

The concept I find of in the Bible of the god of Abraham who appeared after he slayed a bunch of animals - sounds like a feast not worship to me, later the 'priests' eat the burnt fat. Sounds like something we would come up with not a billion year old Being - however it's my responsibility to believe in Jesus Christ (no matter how the texts may be distorted) so I work on solving what makes sense to me personally about this and finding Him through the eyes of the Magi from a Zoroastrian point of view.

 

[Tobias]

On what it is that you're noting, thank you for taking the time to note what you did. It is actually something I've noted to others for some time when it comes to the complexities of the spiritual realm - as it concerns the existence of other gods. On the subject, I am reminded of how
Christ seemed to make clear distinction between how "gods" are used as a term in reference to higher beings and reference to men when using Psalm 82 to speak of himself being Divine based on what the Law said. And as it concerns what Jesus noted in John 10 on "gods", indeed it was not beyond Jewish thought to think that other gods/beings existed. It was actually the minority who worshiped only YHWH. In earliest Judaism, I don't doubt that the people believed in all of the claimed gods of the nations, but they were told to restrict their worship to YHWH. Not that the other gods didn't exist, but that it was improper for them to worship these other deities, since it was YHWH who delivered them from Egypt. If it had been Kemosh who extended his hand and redeemed the people from Egypt, they would have worshiped him instead.

It was not until a later stage in the religious development of the people of Israel that the gods of the other nations turned from "weaker gods" into "no gods at all - only images". The whole point of the Exodus was that YHWH was strong enough to defeat the gods of the Egyptians and to take his people out of their land. If there were no gods in Egypt, what was the point of YHWH showing off? It wouldn't have required much at all, since no one could have offered resistance to him...and in the beginnng, the beings backing Egypt could duplicate some of what God did such as turning staffs into snakes or making blood--though they were still inferior since Moses's staff/snake ate theirs and they could not reverse the plague of blood at all. They could only keep adding more blood. At one point, they realized that God was superior in all ways to the "false gods."

In the mind of the ancient Hebrew people, the "gods" of other nations were real deities. YHWH received Israel as his inheritance, but other gods received other peoples. This is mentioned in Deut 32:8-99, where the nations are apportioned to the sons of the Gods (see the LXX and DSS on these verses, which read ἀγγέλων θεοῦ and בני אל [or בני אלים], respectively, instead of the MT בני ישרא&#1500.

בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם
יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני אלים\ישראל
כי חלק יהו-ה עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו
​

When Elyon apportioned the nations, when he separated the sons of man, he established the borders of the peoples by the number of the sons of the gods/Israel, and YHWH's portion was his people,* Yaakov the region of his inheritance.
We see here Elyon apportioning the peoples according to the number of the children of the gods, and each God received a portion among the sons of man. YHWH received Israel as his own inheritance. [The dividing of the nations according to the MT was "by the number of the sons of Israel", which is assumed to be the 70 who went down into Egypt along with Jacob and his household. This is what led to the mistaken belief that there are only 70 nations in the world.]



As it concerns the issue that GOD's in control ultimately/the only one to be worshipped, one can go online/look up for more on what was mentioned earlier on the concept of Monolatry...and for some extra info, here are some excellent resources you can investigate for yourself if choosing to go online/look them up under the following titles:

• "Jewish Encyclopedia: Monolatry" ()
• "Google Books - Idolatry By Moshe Halbertal, Avishai Margalit"
• "Monotheism & Christology | Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth"http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/the-defense-of-an-essential/monotheism-christology/( )
• "Hywel Clifford and Monotheism in Deutero-Isaiah « Daniel O McClellan ..." ( )
• "The Birth and Evolution of Judaism: National Monolatry and Monotheism"
• "The Ten Commandments: A History of Monotheism in Miniature - Ancient Hebrew Poetry"
• "Moses and Monotheism: Scholars debate whether the Israelites recognized only one God or worshipped only one God " ( )

As one kat said best on the issue:

The belief that only YHVH is an independently effective divine power is de facto monotheistic. It reduces all other supernatural beings to the level of angels, spirits, and the like. Since biblical Hebrew generally continued to use words for "gods" (elim and elohim) to refer to those supernatural beings, whose existence was not denied, we cannot speak of monotheism in the etymological sense of the word but only in the practical, de facto sense just described.
As Albright put it, "Mosaic monotheism, like that of the following centuries (at least down to the seventh century [B.C.E.]) was…practical and implicit rather than intellectual and explicit…The Israelites felt, thought, and acted like monotheists."
​

Monolatry dealt with those in positions of rulership and Paul even noted that. There was a dualistic thought of the ways in which "god" was seen. For as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 demonstrates, Paul explicitly grants that there are "so-called gods" in heaven and earth such as the pagans recognized in Greek and Roman mythology. In addition, he mentions the many "gods" (again, a desigination of something) and "Lords" (rulers) who are called such in scripture (Deuteronomy 10:16-18/Deuteronomy 10 ,Psalm 136:1-3/Psalm 136 ), and who in the widest sense represent rulers in the universe who're SUBORDINATE to God ( Colossians 1:15-17 , Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:13-15, etc ).
Galatians 4:7-9 also comes to mind, as it concerns the pursuit of devoting oneself to legalism as something that's essentially paganism/worship of "gods...

In pagan culture, those "gods"===especially within Greek culture==were seen as independent/all-powerful as if they were SUPREME Gods to be worshipped. What Paul is teaching is that the "so-called gods" of the pagans are unreal in the sense that they're deified/held as those to be worshipped...and that the real "gods" and "lords", whatever they may be, are all subordinate to the only one supreme God whom alone we recognize.

This is why understanding Hebraic language is so key, as whenever people hear the phrase "there is no god but me", there'll be error if failing to recognize that saying such does not mean that there're no other "rulers/mighty ones" or those in positions of authority in existence----but solely in the sense of others who're worthy of worship or independent in/of themselves.

As seen in verse 6 of I Corinthians 8, the Father is the source (ex hou) of all creation, and Jesus Christ is the dynamic One through whom (di' hou ) creation came into existence. As for the Christian, he lives for God who is the source of alll and has power for so living through Jesus Christ. Consequently, as Paul implies, there should be no concern with idols or meat sacrificed to idols---which is Pauls' larger theme if going throughout the book fully...

For in verse 4, the main thing to remember is that what was occuring was that people were afraid of eating meat offered to idols and Paul had to make clear that the idols before which the meat was sacrificed and the god it represented were actually nothing--that is, nothing as to personal reality and power. Deuteronomy 6:4 , 1 Kings 18:38-, Isaiah 45:4-6 ).

If considering the concept of Psalm 82/The Divine Council, it'd make sense if it was referencing those fallen heavenly beings that fell from their places of authority----beings in which the scriptures say men are foolish for even trying to slander them/speak flippantly on them-----for if they did not do their job and sought to do their own thing, Psalm 82 would be a good description of how the Lord cursed them....

II Peter 2:11
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
​

(

Jude 1:7-10
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.


​

Another option, of course, is Henotheism. What Henotheism focuses on is saying that there are other gods...and that while one may choose to worship one, there's nothing wrong with worshipping another if one wants to. That is not the same as saying other gods exist but ONLY One is worthy of Worship/Supreme (which is what's known as Monolatry....the system that early Hebrew culture/believers advocated). Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god (denying that other gods are worthy of worship), while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances, although they usually will worship only one throughout their life (barring some sort of conversion). Some things labeled "henotheism" are not within the same realm as other systems...although the labels may not be the most accurate. For more, one can go online/consider the following (if searching under this specific label):

• "HEBREW HENOTHEISM" ( //www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm )

Each one of your posts is pretty involved G, so hopefully you won't mind if i take them one at a time, when I get the time to address them?


I am aware that there is a study of scripture that tries to identify what the Hebrews believed, how it developed, and where it ended up at the time Christianity began. I'm just not sure that the Jews knew everything! It seems to me that monotheism was their answer to the problem of their people worshiping other gods. That it developed as a religious fence to try to keep people from committing "sin". Kind of like how dancing was considered a sin not too long ago, because the preachers were sure it led to fornication.

The POINT was to worship God alone. That was the command of God. And as usual, theology is built to justify WHY God has asked such a thing.

As for henotheism... perhaps that is a good solution, but for what? Nobody seems to know what it means. Ask two people who claim they are henotheists, get three different answers. lol

I find that theology is built backwards from experience. It requires that first we must make up our minds as to whether we believe in One God or many, then we spend a lifetime working on spiritual relationships. Who's to say that, in the end, we don't run into more of them than what we'd guessed at the start?

Walking a spiritual path we learn to do good deeds and overcome obstacles. And if we are lucky, in a couple of decades we might just happen to figure out one of the basic, fundamental questions that everyone else seems to be able to check off on the Standard Religious Placement Test before they even get started.

 

[JackofSpades]

This is in fact what most people encounter when they do manage to sense the spiritual realm. That there are some powerful beings, and some not so powerful beings.

I think most common thing people say when they get contacted by spiritual reality or spiritual beings is "this is very different than what I was told / what I thought".

For me, greatest surprise has been the nature of god himself. Or more accurately: nature of being I'm used to refer to as "god".

As christian I used to seek for experience-based relationship with god, and in some years I indeed found such relationship with someone/something. But I'm not sure that is christian god, and ever since I have been struggling with where to fit these experiences, in christian theology or elsewhere. So far, there have been no satisfying answer for me.

It seems to me that this "thou shalt not sin or thou shalt be cast in lake of fire" - styled christian god seems like twisted, fear-based image of this wonderful divine being that has made contact with me. Or then I have managed to make accidentally contact with someone else.

 

[JackofSpades]

Real quicky G, do you think you could edit down some of these picture sizes? It's blowing up my screen! I can't read anything on the page without having to scroll back and forth and back and forth on each line.

Just in case you didn't know there is tool for that kind of problem:

http://www.christianforums.com/profile/foes/

There you can add someone to your ignore- list, so posts by them aren't shown. I always ignore users who overpost textwalls or pictures, so I won't miss other users posts.

Ignoring is not permament so it can be used temporarily too, for example reading this thread and then allowing him again.

 

[Tobias]

I think most common thing people say when they get contacted by spiritual reality or spiritual beings is "this is very different than what I was told / what I thought".

For me, greatest surprise has been the nature of god himself. Or more accurately: nature of being I'm used to refer to as "god".

As christian I used to seek for experience-based relationship with god, and in some years I indeed found such relationship with someone/something. But I'm not sure that is christian god, and ever since I have been struggling with where to fit these experiences, in christian theology or elsewhere. So far, there have been no satisfying answer for me.

It seems to me that this "thou shalt not sin or thou shalt be cast in lake of fire" - styled christian god seems like twisted, fear-based image of this wonderful divine being that has made contact with me. Or then I have managed to make accidentally contact with someone else.

I think this is something we all have to deal with, Jack. The reality of the entity we encounter, verses all the things people have said about him over the ages.

For many years I kept my eyes open, just waiting for the moment that he might turn on me and reveal himself as the Devil. That's what all the nay-sayers... say, right? That anything or anyone we encounter is capable of being the Devil, because he can appear as an angel of light. Not to mention, if we give any credit to the billions of people who are NOT Christians, then we need to remember that deceiving spirits can be really really convincing; and keep you going you entire lifetime.

Generally though, I've found that these fears are based upon people's lack of reasoning for the many *false* denominations and other religions. The reason they think other denominations are false, is because of doctrine. And pretty much the same goes for other religions. We have no explanation as to why God would touch someone else who doesn't believe the way we do... so we label that entity as a demon and blindly move on.


I guess I've moved on, and abandoned that kind of reasoning. I got tired of fearing the near-omnipotent version of Satan that we've created to fill our needs! Instead placing control back into the hands of God, trusting that He has a purpose for things being the way that they are. Or at least, a divine response to the universe-as-it-stands.


I see a God who did not abandon the entirety of Mankind while He worked with Israel. It only stands to reason that if indeed He is the God of the whole Earth, then He would have shown up occasionally throughout history -- outside of Judea. Where He would most likely have been known along side of their pagan deities! Remember, Abraham called Him "El", which was the name of a pagan god that everybody knew. Chief of the pantheon, and worshiped in pagan rituals.

I also suppose that a number of the pagan gods are not *evil* in their own right. That they were first angels that appeared to assist man, but were worshiped and petitioned as gods after they had left the scene. Think about it, people today bow before statues of Mary and Michael the Archangel in churches around the globe. It is only because the Church teaches that they should not be worshiped that most people refrain from doing so.

But what if that were not the case? What if people lost themselves in rituals to the saints, bringing offerings and doing all sorts of things that people think *might* work to get their prayers answered? I think the actions of the people would be *wrong* before God, but Mary and Co. would not be to blame for what Man does to worship them!

We imagine a world where every single pagan god is a demon; and God tried His best to save mankind but seems to have failed for the large majority of the population. Because in most churches, the number of *real* Christians is significantly less than the worldwide statistics might lead us to believe.

This is the result of doctrines that prompt us to praise Him using every favorable characteristic we can ever think of, but then we turn around and limit His reach down to something our teeny tiny faith can handle!

 

[JackofSpades]

We have no explanation as to why God would touch someone else who doesn't believe the way we do... so we label that entity as a demon and blindly move on.

Maybe in theological universe, god of the gaps is accompanied by devil of the gaps? In long run that kind of habit for superficial judgement will eventually create very dualistic and unwieldy view of the world, barely recognizable for those who actually go to that world and walk in it.

For many years I kept my eyes open, just waiting for the moment that he might turn on me and reveal himself as the Devil.

Been there done that. I had my own period of that kind of doubts. But my problem has since changed from "is this the god im supposed to contact" to "now that I assume he wasn't, what do I do next?"

After figuring out that I can't anymore shoehorn myself into any version of christianity, it seems that religious eclectism is reasonable way for me. Only problem with it is absence of social side, but even if I had no fellow disciples in my very own self-made religion, I can always have some moments of chatting with open-minded people of different faiths.

I think this is something we all have to deal with, Jack. The reality of the entity we encounter, verses all the things people have said about him over the ages.

You know, for me there is little bit of irony in it. Quest to know god has led me out of the very religion that told me in a first place to go for that quest.

Spiritual journeys and learning processes sometimes go wierdly. My problem (or "problem") have not been that I didn't find anything, but rather I found something very unexpected.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just in case you didn't know there is tool for that kind of problem:

http://www.christianforums.com/profile/foes/

There you can add someone to your ignore- list, so posts by them aren't shown. I always ignore users who overpost textwalls or pictures, so I won't miss other users posts.

Ignoring is not permament so it can be used temporarily too, for example reading this thread and then allowing him again.

There's actually a simpler way of addressing those issues - and that's re-sizing or editing on the screen one uses. I've had to do that several times when seeing someone had either too big a font for my screen (as I use a lap-top and sometimes wide-screen computer) or I couldn't get to everything - especially when seeing the reality of dealing with differing types of people and knowing that some are visual learners (i.e. imagery is necessary/part of their learning and thus it'd be disrespectful not remembering that) or others prefer wide-screen (due to age, as it can be too small for them to read). Others are always coming from differing angles and it can be rather petty claiming anything is "overpost textwalls" when the reality is that they cannot process as much or have their own limits which are not thsoe of others and there's better ways to do things than blaming others.

 

[Tobias]

There's actually a simpler way of addressing those issues - and that's re-sizing or editing on the screen one uses. I've had to do that several times when seeing someone had either too big a font for my screen (as I use a lap-top and sometimes wide-screen computer) or I couldn't get to everything - especially when seeing the reality of dealing with differing types of people and knowing that some are visual learners (i.e. imagery is necessary/part of their learning and thus it'd be disrespectful not remembering that) or others prefer wide-screen (due to age, as it can be too small for them to read). Others are always coming from differing angles and it can be rather petty claiming anything is "overpost textwalls" when the reality is that they cannot process as much or have their own limits which are not thsoe of others and there's better ways to do things than blaming others.

Well, thank you for taking care of it.

I know I could have changed my aspect ratio or something, but then the writing gets too small to see. So then I'd have to change it back again as soon as I left the page. And then, for each and every time I come back to read something else on this page, it would be a matter of changing it back and forth!

This happens so rarely on CF... it's just easier to sit back and complain to the other person rather than take steps to fix it from my end. he he.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Each one of your posts is pretty involved G, so hopefully you won't mind if i take them one at a time, when I get the time to address them?

Tobias, I don't have a problem with that. I never expected one to get to all of them at once - and to be truthful, I've had the same dynamic reading some of your postings elsewhere

I am aware that there is a study of scripture that tries to identify what the Hebrews believed, how it developed, and where it ended up at the time Christianity began. I'm just not sure that the Jews knew everything! It seems to me that monotheism was their answer to the problem of their people worshiping other gods. That it developed as a religious fence to try to keep people from committing "sin". Kind of like how dancing was considered a sin not too long ago, because the preachers were sure it led to fornication.

The POINT was to worship God alone. That was the command of God. And as usual, theology is built to justify WHY God has asked such a thing.

Biblically, as it concerns monotheism, the main thing inherent in it is that only one being is worthy of Worship - and it never was the case that the Hebrews ever went to explicit monotheism that ignored the existence of other beings who were worshipped. They were - as said before - de-facto monotheist due to seeing God alone as worthy of worship, even as they had already acknowledged the existence of other beings. And as Moses himself was the one who already said "The Lord Our God, the Lord is One" while ALSO saying "Who among the gods is like you?", it was never an "either or" scenario of "There must be ONE God - or ALL Gods." It was always about the Lord being Unique above all else.

So we cannot go beyond that point in assuming theology was built automatically to justify the issue - it was a natural development of what God already said.

As for henotheism... perhaps that is a good solution, but for what? Nobody seems to know what it means. Ask two people who claim they are henotheists, get three different answers. lol

Henotheism isn't something that has never been defined in academia - if asking scholars on the matter - as it simply means that ONE God is worshiped even though there are others in existence whom people chose to worship. In a Henotheistic system, the dominant God has a role that is won through strength and there is potential for another being to dethrone him or her and then become the new God worshipped - and in a Biblical sense, the system would only work if God alone was on the same level as all other gods.....but because he isn't, there's no competition and thus monolatry is more accurate.

I find that theology is built backwards from experience. It requires that first we must make up our minds as to whether we believe in One God or many, then we spend a lifetime working on spiritual relationships. Who's to say that, in the end, we don't run into more of them than what we'd guessed at the start?

It depends on how one grew up, really - for some people already understanding combinations of systems. They understood systems such as theism - the fact that there WAS a Creator of some kind - but from there it was multi-developed. The system of Theism for others was a mixture of polytheism and monotheism - believing in many beings but knowing that one alone was worthy of worship (even as others had roles to play) - or a mixture of Panentheism and monotheism (i.e. God exists outside of the physical universe and the cosmos exist entirely within Him, including all beings deemed "gods", and he is keeping it all going just as our immune system exists within us) or seeing God from a Hindu perspective (such as saying he was all that existed before spreading himself out in order to give life to the world) or a Buddhist perspective or some other combination. (

But as it concerns being Biblical, one can't really claim that to be their focus if already making up their mind on what they want to believe - and then not dealing with the text on its turns. Yes, I could say it's all make-believe what the Bible says and God's really like the Wizard of Oz. But at that point, there'd be no point in really being concerned for the Bible or wondering on it

Walking a spiritual path we learn to do good deeds and overcome obstacles. And if we are lucky, in a couple of decades we might just happen to figure out one of the basic, fundamental questions that everyone else seems to be able to check off on the Standard Religious Placement Test before they even get started.

Everyone's on a different level of journey and understanding.

 

[ananda]

Most Christians don't believe other gods exist, but I do. So let me try to explain:

To the ants, I could be known as the fearsome god of death and destruction. I may not be omnipresent, but with one hand I can strike down an ant on my bookshelf, while at the same time kill another one with my other hand 5 ft away on the other side of my desk! At other times though, I am the god of provision, dropping wonderful tasty treats on the floor and on my keyboard ( ) as I snack on junk food while sitting at my computer.

To most Christians, other gods are either imaginary or are simply demons pretending to be something they are not.

But back to my analogy with the ants, a Christian ant could recognize that I exist without feeling the need to worship me. Pagan ants might think they could appease me through worship or by making sacrifices to me. A Christian ant might feel superior, knowing that these efforts are useless. Also in being aware that there is a God who created everything including even me, and that if He takes an interest in the situation then I have to obey Him too. But still, I have the power of life or death over any ant that comes near my space.

Does this make me a god? That depends I suppose on how we define the word "god". If pagan ants have been worshiping me for generations, and have named me, built temples, and written all sorts of mythology about me... then yes, I guess I would be the being they know as a god. I am most certainly not just a figment of their imagination! But if the One True God has chosen to reveal Himself to them, then there really is no comparison between me and Him.

So anyway, when I say I believe that pagan gods exist, I simply mean that I am aware that some of them are actual entities, and that people in the past (and a few in the present) have worshiped them. I can even imagine that these entities have interacted with humans, and maybe even tried to do some benevolent, altruistic things for them. I do not see where the Bible backs up popular Christian doctrine, which states that all "other" gods are demons in league with Satan, and all part of a worldwide scheme to deceive people and deprive us of our right to Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Other gods are simply the powers that be, and God has asked that we do not worship them, or place their desires for us over what He has to say.

The cosmology you described seems to fit pretty well with Buddhism.

In Buddhism, there are multiple levels of heavens, each filled with beings far superior in strength, beauty, power, life, glory, etc. than those in the lower ones. As you pointed out, an ant or other animals might consider us gods, just as we might consider a being from one of these exalted heavens a god.

The beings of the higher realms do not generally interact with us because they are involved in the sense pleasures of their own planes of existence, just like most of mankind do not generally interact with ants for the same reason.

 

[gord44]

Just in case you didn't know there is tool for that kind of problem:

http://www.christianforums.com/profile/foes/

There you can add someone to your ignore- list, so posts by them aren't shown. I always ignore users who overpost textwalls or pictures, so I won't miss other users posts.

Ignoring is not permament so it can be used temporarily too, for example reading this thread and then allowing him again.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Tobias]

Tobias, I don't have a problem with that. I never expected one to get to all of them at once - and to be truthful, I've had the same dynamic reading some of your postings elsewhere
Biblically, as it concerns monotheism, the main thing inherent in it is that only one being is worthy of Worship - and it never was the case that the Hebrews ever went to explicit monotheism that ignored the existence of other beings who were worshipped. They were - as said before - de-facto monotheist due to seeing God alone as worthy of worship, even as they had already acknowledged the existence of other beings. And as Moses himself was the one who already said "The Lord Our God, the Lord is One" while ALSO saying "Who among the gods is like you?", it was never an "either or" scenario of "There must be ONE God - or ALL Gods." It was always about the Lord being Unique above all else.

So we cannot go beyond that point in assuming theology was built automatically to justify the issue - it was a natural development of what God already said.
Henotheism isn't something that has never been defined in academia - if asking scholars on the matter - as it simply means that ONE God is worshiped even though there are others in existence whom people chose to worship. In a Henotheistic system, the dominant God has a role that is won through strength and there is potential for another being to dethrone him or her and then become the new God worshipped - and in a Biblical sense, the system would only work if God alone was on the same level as all other gods.....but because he isn't, there's no competition and thus monolatry is more accurate.

It depends on how one grew up, really - for some people already understanding combinations of systems. They understood systems such as theism - the fact that there WAS a Creator of some kind - but from there it was multi-developed. The system of Theism for others was a mixture of polytheism and monotheism - believing in many beings but knowing that one alone was worthy of worship (even as others had roles to play) - or a mixture of Panentheism and monotheism (i.e. God exists outside of the physical universe and the cosmos exist entirely within Him, including all beings deemed "gods", and he is keeping it all going just as our immune system exists within us) or seeing God from a Hindu perspective (such as saying he was all that existed before spreading himself out in order to give life to the world) or a Buddhist perspective or some other combination. (

But as it concerns being Biblical, one can't really claim that to be their focus if already making up their mind on what they want to believe - and then not dealing with the text on its turns. Yes, I could say it's all make-believe what the Bible says and God's really like the Wizard of Oz. But at that point, there'd be no point in really being concerned for the Bible or wondering on it
Everyone's on a different level of journey and understanding.

Ok, so that's a completely different definition of henotheism than any I've heard before! All gods are somewhat equal, but one is chosen to be the leader? Kind of like Zeus and his brothers Hades and Poseidon, who drew lots after defeating the Titans to see who would rule the heavens?

I used to say that I'm a henotheist. Though not quite the same as the "official" definition -- just within that framework. Then over the past few years the definition seems to have changed.

(Like I said, the word is useless if it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who hears it!)


One big issue I deal with has to do with orthodoxy. How important is it for a mystic to stay within the confines of his religion? What happens if he doesn't?

For centuries the Church kept the mystics on a short leash. "Either agree with us, or die!" I'm sure more than a few wondered how to sync the revelations they were experiencing in their personal life with the doctrines of the Church.

Now we have the thousands of denominations of protestantism. What does orthodox doctrine look like? I was raised Evangelical/Charismatic. I had the hardest time dealing with it when I connected to some of the saints in heaven. I thought I was "talking to the dead." And that there was no place for it in Christianity period. Then I encountered the Catholic doctrine of "The Communion of the Saints" and realized that there is indeed a "Christian" doctrine which explains my experiences, just not one from my denomination!


I'm not entirely sure that waiting for the "correct doctrine" before you proceed is the right thing to do. I've been taught to "Judge everything you hear the Spirit saying by the Word." Meaning of course, the Bible. I guess the theory here is that there are many false voices, but everything you hear from God will "line up with the Bible". Whatever THAT is supposed to mean! (Doctrines that 'line up with the Bible' are generally the ones that your preacher personally favors...)

But I look at the Prophets who were asked to go around naked, and the Apostles who had to disobey what they knew of the scriptures (and the teachings of the Pharisees) to follow the "Son of God". I think, a lot of times, scriptural support doesn't reveal itself till years after the fact. If at all! Yet people can sense the Spirit in operation, and realize that our one true allegiance is first and foremost to obey God -- no matter how He chooses to speak to us!

 

[Tobias]

The cosmology you described seems to fit pretty well with Buddhism.

In Buddhism, there are multiple levels of heavens, each filled with beings far superior in strength, beauty, power, life, glory, etc. than those in the lower ones. As you pointed out, an ant or other animals might consider us gods, just as we might consider a being from one of these exalted heavens a god.

The beings of the higher realms do not generally interact with us because they are involved in the sense pleasures of their own planes of existence, just like most of mankind do not generally interact with ants for the same reason.

This is a theory I've been wondering about. And whether it could apply to the "Angel of the Lord" issue that the Bible speaks of.

Angel of the Lord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As in, could the Angel of the Lord simply be a representative from one of the lower levels, because God Himself is too awesome and unknowable? And if that's the case, could the God we know and think of on an anthropomorphized level simply be the angel... who we call "God" but is really just a lower aspect of someone or something greater?