Christianity's most inconsistent position

[Hank77]

So 'no other gods before me' is not literal?

Of coarse it's literal. Idolatry is real.

 

[cvanwey]

Of coarse it's literal. Idolatry is real.

You've misunderstood me. The passage states 'gods'. Is this meant to mean actual other 'gods', or material items we might worship, like 'gods'?

 

[NBB]

I don't feel you answered my questions. Let me put it in a different way.

Are human minds flawed?

If so, how are you able to determine your senses are valid?

When other opposing god believers state they receive contact from their opposing gods, how do you know they are mistaken?

********

Another follow up question, in direct response to your last response... Do you think other god/spirits exist, and interact with humans?

Yes we are flawed, but when spiritual things happen, one after another, very precise, specific, things that makes sense you better believe or you are just dumb. And i as other christians have experienced things the bible talks about (mostly spiritual).

Other religoins just lack the wide variety of experiences you can have being a christian. Most seems to be philosophies only, not a true relationship with God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God wasn't/isn't jealous of a god. God is jealous for people and against idolatry. If one puts the love of money before their love for God that's idolatry.
Paul uses 'jealousy' in the same sense in this verse.
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

How is it possible to be jealous for something without being jealous of the one who has what you want?

The flesh is weak, in some the faith is weak as well, and it only takes a few bad actors to turn the weak from the way that they should go.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The flesh is weak... in other words, the ancient Jews were tempted to worship other gods and they gave into the temptation.

So why is it you've never in your life been tempted to worship another deity?

 

[Hank77]

You've misunderstood me. The passage states 'gods'. Is this meant to mean actual other 'gods', or material items we might worship, like 'gods'?

There is only one God that literally exists.
But people have created gods to explain things they didn't understand, to use as an excuse to do the things they desire to do or not to do, etc. People created 'gods' do not literally exist.
People made statues, such as the golden calf, and then did the things their flesh desired while worshiping this statue. So you have a material thing being worshiped as a 'god', though they were actually worshiping their own desires.

 

[cvanwey]

But people have created gods to explain things they didn't understand

I feel this answers my question the best.

Thank you

 

[Hank77]

How is it possible to be jealous for something without being jealous of the one who has what you want?

Jealousy isn't always a negative thing. God is jealous/zealous for His people. ex. A parent can be jealous for their son who is addicted to a drug without be jealous of drug. The drug is nothing even though it has a hold over their son.

The flesh is weak... in other words, the ancient Jews were tempted to worship other gods and they gave into the temptation.

So why is it you've never in your life been tempted to worship another deity?

Well if I had grown up in say India where the Hindu have many deities I may have been drawn to that religion because I didn't know anything else. But when one becomes a Christian believer we are given a helper, the Holy Spirit of God, and He speaks to our conscience helping us to fight temptations.
Frankly I can't see what any other religion has to offer that is greater than Christianity. Yehovah gave His Son, and Jesus gave His very life, in a very violent manner, in order to reconcile all men to God the Father. What greater gift of love is there?

 

[Hank77]

I feel this answers my question the best.

Thank you

LOL, I was sure you would. It's easy to pick short statements out of context. It happens all the time.

 

[cvanwey]

LOL, I was sure you would. It's easy to pick short statements out of context. It happens all the time.

I couldn't resist. But seriously. Back in the time when such verses were written, monotheism was the minority. Isn't it instead possible that the author of such writings was literally referring to the word 'gods' as literally other gods?

 

[Hank77]

I couldn't resist. But seriously. Back in the time when such verses were written, monotheism was the minority. Isn't it instead possible that the author of such writings was literally referring to the word 'gods' as literally other gods?

No it's not possible because it was God who said those words and it is God who these words....
God is talking to Cyrus, a pagan king.
Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

 

[cvanwey]

No it's not possible because it was God who said those words and it is God who these words....
God is talking to Cyrus, a pagan king.
Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Here's where you and are going to differ in our conclusions quite drastically. So I now present a counter-claim. One in which I feel needs little elaboration.

Any and all text written to paper is done so by humans, with no aid from some divine source.

I feel confident in asserting this conclusion, because you would agree that any other opposing claimed holy text, written to paper, was done so by mere human beings alone. We also have millions of examples of all types and sorts of publications written by humans, and humans alone.

So my position is simple, and I will ask again...

'Back in the time when such verses were written, monotheism was the minority. Isn't it instead possible that the author of such writings was literally referring to the word 'gods' as literally other gods?'

The author of Isaiah is not the same author of the commandment I mentioned - (two different humans and their writings). So your example does not appear relevant.

 

[klutedavid]

I'm sure by now we all know that most atheists are lack-of-belief atheists and not there-definitely-is-no-God atheists. Despite this, many Christians saddle atheists with the positive claim that God does not exist so they can respond to their own strawman by saying that one cannot possibly inspect every crevice reality to make such a conclusion. Yet these same Christians positively assert that no God exists aside from the God of the Bible. How do they know this? Even if their God is assumed to exist, how does the existence of a supreme deity negate the existence of a lesser deity? How can it be said that Christians are even remotely reasonable on this issue? Or do Christians allow for the possibility that, say, Thor really does or did exist?

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist. (wikipedia)

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. (wikipedia)

In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. (wikipedia)

It is impossible to assert that God cannot exist, only a fool would make that assertion.

In fact, humanity has a rather rich history of divine revelation. We not only have been forcefully made aware of God's existence. But God has provided observational proof of His existence.

Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of bright blue, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from the waist down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him (Ezekiel 1:26-27)

We are not wanting to believe in a deity, we are forced to believe in God.

You can deny this direct revelation to mankind, but that is mental aberration.

 

[Hank77]

The author of Isaiah is not the same author of the commandment I mentioned - (two different humans and their writings). So your example does not appear relevant.

Well, it really doesn't matter who put the words on paper. All of the words were inspired by God Himself. But I sure that you are aware of that Christian doctrine. When a discussion gets to this point it gets really tedious and pointless, don't you think? I'll just be repeating what other posters have already said.
I hope someday that you come to know the one and only true God, so that you can enjoy life with Him. He's going to use you, if He chooses, just as He used Cyrus and the Pharisees, He doesn't need your permission. It's much more pleasant to be a friend of God rather than being at odds with Him.
Have a good weekend.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, it really doesn't matter who put the words on paper. All of the words were inspired by God Himself. But I sure that you are aware of that Christian doctrine. When a discussion gets to this point it gets really tedious and pointless, don't you think? I'll just be repeating what other posters have already said.
I hope someday that you come to know the one and only true God, so that you can enjoy life with Him. He's going to use you, if He chooses, just as He used Cyrus and the Pharisees, He doesn't need your permission. It's much more pleasant to be a friend of God rather than being at odds with Him.
Have a good weekend.

I agree, that it becomes 'pointless' when you merely lay out blank assertions, yes.

I agree, it becomes 'tedious' when you do not address my questions, yes.

It would appear you do not have an answer, so you are instead responding like you are. I must admit, this is why people, on the other side of the fence, get frustrated.

You do understand that a Hindu, asserting Vishnu towards you, without just cause, warrants the same affect as the one in which you are posing to me, right?

'I hope someday you'll see the light' That really adds to the conversation, doesn't it?

 

[dzheremi]

First, I never said or implied that Thor exists. I'm using him as an example. Your post seems to be about henotheism, which is not what I'm addressing. For most Christians, it's nothing but pure, absolute, monolithic monotheism, and they flatly deny the existence of other gods while criticising atheists for doing the same thing... even though atheists actually don't do that. At least no atheist I know of.

Sorry, I should've clarified that I meant the general you -- "If you (a person) want to say that this means that Thor exists, then fine, but that would you be you (the person who says that) saying that" (to clarify that I don't think by having such a stance any Christian would be making positive claims about the existence of Thor, or any particular non-Christian god).

As far as henotheism is concerned, sure, there are at least hints of henotheism in every kind of monotheism, because basically every religion that has ultimately grounded itself in some sort of monotheism has done so within a polytheistic society, so there has to be some kind of way to deal with the reality of the context in which you (again, general you), the monotheist, would be making that claim, since it's very inorganic even to the very societies in which the major forms of monotheism were formed. Hence Elijah the prophet mocks the worshipers of Baal, St. Paul preaches on "the uknown god" to the pagan Greeks, St. Justin Martyr preaches about "seeds of the Word" in pre-Christian religions, and so on.

I don't think for most Christians it really is "pure, absolute, monolithic monotheism", as you've put it. I think it probably depends on how you ask the question. If you ask most Christians "Are you a monotheist?" or "Is Christianity monotheistic?" they will answer yes, because that's the correct answer to both of those things from a traditional Christian perspective, but I think if you were to ask them "Do other religions have other gods?", they would say yes, or even more to the point "Are the gods of other religions the true God/the one God that you worship?", they would say no. Again, there's no real contradiction in any of this, because ultimately the Christian claim of monotheism is not about simple number, but about recognition.

This is a major, glaring point of difference between the traditional Christian stance on God and the modern stance of some particular influential churches (*cough*) on exactly this question, as some would have you believe that since there is only one God (true), then therefore the Allah of the Muslim, the YHWH of the Jew, the various avatars of the Hindu, and the whatever of the this and the that, must therefore be the same God, as a consequence of there being only one in reality -- some sort of sophism akin to the "one God, many paths" idea, which is not believed by Orthodox, traditionally-minded Catholics, probably most traditionally-minded Protestants, etc. (i.e., by a great many Christians).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Jealousy isn't always a negative thing. God is jealous/zealous for His people.

Not relevant. I wasn't critiquing jealousy as either good or bad.

ex. A parent can be jealous for their son who is addicted to a drug without be jealous of drug. The drug is nothing even though it has a hold over their son.

This makes no sense. Parents do not experience jealousy when their kids are doing drugs unless the parent wants to do drugs.

Well if I had grown up in say India where the Hindu have many deities I may have been drawn to that religion because I didn't know anything else. But when one becomes a Christian believer we are given a helper, the Holy Spirit of God, and He speaks to our conscience helping us to fight temptations.
Frankly I can't see what any other religion has to offer that is greater than Christianity. Yehovah gave His Son, and Jesus gave His very life, in a very violent manner, in order to reconcile all men to God the Father. What greater gift of love is there?

Not relevant. You've dodged my question. We can just be done. You seem to not want to answer and I'm not interested in reading rabbit trails.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist. (wikipedia)

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. (wikipedia)

Well stated.

In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. (wikipedia)

I don't understand why you included this as you already defined hard atheism above.

It is impossible to assert that God cannot exist, only a fool would make that assertion.

It's a bit harsh to say someone is a fool for saying that your God cannot possibly exist. Note that this claim would not necessarily make someone a hard atheist because it's argued that your God has contradictory properties. Such an atheist would typically still concede that Thor could exist.

But logic is, of course, a complete fabrication. We made it up. So I don't see why your God would be subject to logic. Your God should be able to make a square circle if he wanted to, although this would present theological problems. But that would be a bit off topic here.

In fact, humanity has a rather rich history of divine revelation. We not only have been forcefully made aware of God's existence. But God has provided observational proof of His existence.

Off topic... but what is this observational proof? Surely we can go off topic if you're prepared to settle the God debate once and for all.

Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of bright blue, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from the waist down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him (Ezekiel 1:26-27)

We are not wanting to believe in a deity, we are forced to believe in God.

You can deny this direct revelation to mankind, but that is mental aberration.

Ummm... ok...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sorry, I should've clarified that I meant the general you -- "If you (a person) want to say that this means that Thor exists, then fine, but that would you be you (the person who says that) saying that" (to clarify that I don't think by having such a stance any Christian would be making positive claims about the existence of Thor, or any particular non-Christian god).

As far as henotheism is concerned, sure, there are at least hints of henotheism in every kind of monotheism, because basically every religion that has ultimately grounded itself in some sort of monotheism has done so within a polytheistic society, so there has to be some kind of way to deal with the reality of the context in which you (again, general you), the monotheist, would be making that claim, since it's very inorganic even to the very societies in which the major forms of monotheism were formed. Hence Elijah the prophet mocks the worshipers of Baal, St. Paul preaches on "the uknown god" to the pagan Greeks, St. Justin Martyr preaches about "seeds of the Word" in pre-Christian religions, and so on.

I don't think for most Christians it really is "pure, absolute, monolithic monotheism", as you've put it. I think it probably depends on how you ask the question. If you ask most Christians "Are you a monotheist?" or "Is Christianity monotheistic?" they will answer yes, because that's the correct answer to both of those things from a traditional Christian perspective, but I think if you were to ask them "Do other religions have other gods?", they would say yes, or even more to the point "Are the gods of other religions the true God/the one God that you worship?", they would say no. Again, there's no real contradiction in any of this, because ultimately the Christian claim of monotheism is not about simple number, but about recognition.

This is a major, glaring point of difference between the traditional Christian stance on God and the modern stance of some particular influential churches (*cough*) on exactly this question, as some would have you believe that since there is only one God (true), then therefore the Allah of the Muslim, the YHWH of the Jew, the various avatars of the Hindu, and the whatever of the this and the that, must therefore be the same God, as a consequence of there being only one in reality -- some sort of sophism akin to the "one God, many paths" idea, which is not believed by Orthodox, traditionally-minded Catholics, probably most traditionally-minded Protestants, etc. (i.e., by a great many Christians).

Well, let's just cut right to the heart of the matter. Let's take Baal for example. Was he a real god unrelated to Jehovah, or was he one of Jehovah's fallen angels, or did he never exist apart from being an idea?

 

[klutedavid]

Well stated.

That was wikipedia, I just cut and paste.

I don't understand why you included this as you already defined hard atheism above.

Wikipedia added that simple definition of atheism.

It's a bit harsh to say someone is a fool for saying that your God cannot possibly exist.

Not harsh at all, no one can with any confidence, claim that a deity does not exist.
Certainly we cannot make assertions one way or the other.

Note that this claim would not necessarily make someone a hard atheist because it's argued that your God has contradictory properties.

An assertion that a God does not exist, is exactly what a hard atheist claims. See the definition of a hard atheist in the earlier post.

Whether a God has contradictory attributes is not what we are discussing.

Such an atheist would typically still concede that Thor could exist.

Thor could exist, what has that got to do with the conversation.

But logic is, of course, a complete fabrication. We made it up. So I don't see why your God would be subject to logic.

I do not claim ownership of God, so I would not call a God, 'my God'.

Your God should be able to make a square circle if he wanted to, although this would present theological problems. But that would be a bit off topic here.

A square circle is a paradox by definition. Not sure what your arguing here?

Off topic... but what is this observational proof? Surely we can go off topic if you're prepared to settle the God debate once and for all.

I don't need to settle any debate, that is not my concern. Everyone will find out sooner or later whether God exists anyway, we just need to be patient.

By the way, the knowledge of Jesus Christ is a revelation. One cannot deduce that Jesus is the Lord of Heaven and Earth, God's intervention is necessary.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes we are flawed, but when spiritual things happen, one after another, very precise, specific, things that makes sense you better believe or you are just dumb. And i as other christians have experienced things the bible talks about (mostly spiritual).

Other religoins just lack the wide variety of experiences you can have being a christian. Most seems to be philosophies only, not a true relationship with God.

This is nothing more than blank assertions, with absolutely no substance. So until you provide specifics, and also demonstrate how all opposing anecdotal claims are false, your response is nothing more than sheer fallacious banter.