calling out lasher

[sawoobley]

That doesn't make sense. Sorcerers have supernatural powers. Where are those supernatural powers supposed to come from if not their Egyptian gods? I think there's little doubt that polytheism predates monotheism, and Egyptian religion would qualify. If they have magical powers, are you suggesting that they are lesser divinities in and of themselves?

By the by, almost all Christian believe in angels as per the nativity story. Angelos is Greek for "messenger". Hermes was the 'messenger of the gods' in Hellenic paganism. Angels are lesser deities in and of themselves if you look at it that way, so really any Christian is a henotheist.

Satan.

[JonathanRhimes]

Satan.

LoL right, the Egyptian pantheon that predates Judaism and its concept of 'one super good supernatural being' and 'one super evil supernatural being' (two supernatural powers, one more powerful...so henotheism? Manichaeism?) had supernatural powers because of the supernatural influence of an evil supernatural force that was invented by a later religion. Makes sense.

Bear in mind, too, the old testament never says that other gods don't exist. The first commandment explicitly says not to worship other gods before Yahweh...it doesn't say "There is and has only ever been one god so worship him". If no other gods existed, why would this even matter? This entire notion that other gods don't exist was invented thousands of years later.

[whatisbro]

Even if conclusive proof of the birthdate of Zoroaster was found (none exists) and we all knew conclusively that Judaism predates Atonism and Zoroastrianism this wouldn't imply that Judaism is true. If "oldest/longest continuing religious tradition" is the criterion for determining the truth value of a religion then Hinduism beats all existent religions by far (even if Zoroastrianism is indeed 8,000 years old).

If there is supposed to be some type of compelling argument that any type of monotheism is inherently better/more convincing/more ethical than Hindu polytheism (or really any type of polytheism) I have yet to hear it. And there's really not even a debate that polytheism is more ancient, more 'original'.

I'm just addressing the claim that Judaism predated zoro. That's all. Oldest religion isn't my basis for my argument. Hinduism only seems more ethical because it's basically atheism except all the gods are symbolic. No conscious higher authority with rules. Other than karma.

[whatisbro]

Well, you did answer my first question, and most definitively....

I don't get what your saying. Clarify.

[JonathanRhimes]

I'm just addressing the claim that Judaism predated zoro. That's all. Oldest religion isn't my basis for my argument. Hinduism only seems more ethical because it's basically atheism except all the gods are symbolic. No conscious higher authority with rules. Other than karma.

Except you haven't addressed or proven the date of Zoroaster's birth...nobody has. And even if you did it wouldn't avail you anything.

[whatisbro]

no.

Well that's what another hinduer pretty much said. Doesn't Hinduism say that it is basically one symbolic god that manifests into other gods depending on the current situation of the universe? Or are they actual living conscious beings.

[whatisbro]

Except you haven't addressed or proven the date of Zoroaster's birth...nobody has. And even if you did it wouldn't avail you anything.

...

[lasher]

Bear in mind, too, the old testament never says that other gods don't exist.

Sure it does, this is just a sampling of literally dozens of passages:

Isaiah 43:10 "...understand that I alone am God, I have always been God; there can be no others"
Isaiah 44:6 "I am the Lord all powerful, the first and the last, the one and only God."

Isaiah 45:5-6, 21 "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other… Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me."

Then there's Elijah mocking the baal priests asking them where their god is, is he taking a crap or sleeping? was pretty lulzy.

Now certainly you can state these are results of a progression from henotheism to strict monotheism, but it isn't correct to say the OT no where denies the reality of other gods.

[sawoobley]

I'm pretty sure most Christians believe Satan has existed since the beginning of the world so why not? I don't accept the idea that Christianity or rather the teachings of God through Christ haven't existed since Adam was on the earth so your references to ancient belief systems is lost on me. The bible says there is only one God we should worship. We know there were other gods. People built them out of various substances but there is only one God worthy of worship and only one we call Father.

[JonathanRhimes]

Sure it does, this is just a sampling of literally dozens of passages:

Isaiah 43:10 "...understand that I alone am God, I have always been God; there can be no others"
Isaiah 44:6 "I am the Lord all powerful, the first and the last, the one and only God."

Isaiah 45:5-6, 21 "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other… Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me."

Then there's Elijah mocking the baal priests asking them where their god is, is he taking a crap or sleeping? was pretty lulzy.

Now certainly you can state these are results of a progression from henotheism to strict monotheism, but it isn't correct to say the OT no where denies the reality of other gods.

That might be possible if the Hindu gods weren't described waaaaaaaaay earlier than Judaism. I think the progression probably looks more like this:

Pre-lingual humans->Lingual humans->polytheists->henotheists

Even Hindus are predominantly henotheistic in that Brahma is supposed to be man of the house. And even if I dropped the point that Pharoah's priests had supernatural powers in that story and were worshipping the Egyptian pantheon, not Satan (a point I won't concede, as Satan was completely unknown to them) then Judaism and Christianity would still be henotheistic due to their own admission of the existence of lesser divinities (Satan/angels/demons).

[lasher]

That might be possible if the Hindu gods weren't described waaaaaaaaay earlier than Judaism. I think the progression probably looks more like this:

Pre-lingual humans->Lingual humans->polytheists->henotheists

Even Hindus are predominantly henotheistic in that Brahma is supposed to be man of the house. And even if I dropped the point that Pharoah's priests had supernatural powers in that story and were worshipping the Egyptian pantheon, not Satan (a point I won't concede, as Satan was completely unknown to them) then Judaism and Christianity would still be henotheistic due to their own admission of the existence of lesser divinities (Satan/angels/demons).

Sure your progression is possible, but the point was you claimed the OT no where says YHWH is the only real God. When in fact it does.

I find your definition of henotheism odd, but understand somewhat why you think it's correct. imo it isn't correct to consider created angels as "gods". Again though, I sorta see where you are coming from. Just disagree.

[JonathanRhimes]

I'm pretty sure most Christians believe Satan has existed since the beginning of the world so why not? I don't accept the idea that Christianity or rather the teachings of God through Christ haven't existed since Adam was on the earth so your references to ancient belief systems is lost on me. The bible says there is only one God we should worship. We know there were other gods. People built them out of various substances but there is only one God worthy of worship and only one we call Father.

It doesn't come as much surprise that you are uninterested in the history of various religions if you are denying the existence of human history/everything we know about evolution and biology. Your evidence that the first man was made out of clay comes from a book invented at most 5-6,000 years ago and that story isn't supported by history or the fossil record.

The idea that this religion comes along a few thousand years ago and claims to be the "first" and "best"...surely you can understand why it seems silly from the perspective of other cultures, some of whom have much older religions?

[whatisbro]

That might be possible if the Hindu gods weren't described waaaaaaaaay earlier than Judaism. I think the progression probably looks more like this:

Pre-lingual humans->Lingual humans->polytheists->henotheists

Even Hindus are predominantly henotheistic in that Brahma is supposed to be man of the house. And even if I dropped the point that Pharoah's priests had supernatural powers in that story and were worshipping the Egyptian pantheon, not Satan (a point I won't concede, as Satan was completely unknown to them) then Judaism and Christianity would still be henotheistic due to their own admission of the existence of lesser divinities (Satan/angels/demons).

1Corinth. 8:5
For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,f just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”

[JonathanRhimes]

Sure your progression is possible, but the point was you claimed the OT no where says YHWH is the only real God. When in fact it does.

If he was the only real god then Egyptian priests shouldn't have supernatural powers...which they do, according to the story. I'll concede that the stories contradict themselves, and certainly not just on this point.
The ten commandments were delivered after the Exodus story....so maybe that's when the story changed.

"`I am Jehovah thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of a house of servants. Thou hast no other Gods before Me.'"

This would have been a good time to say "No other Gods exist", if that was really the idea.

Moreover, Yahweh is described as jealous of the worship of other gods in several cases. There's no reason to be jealous if none of these exist (and indeed, no reason whatsoever to feel jealous/insecure about anything if you're perfectly moral and omnipotent)

[JonathanRhimes]

1Corinth. 8:5
For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,f just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”

I await your compelling evidence for why "monotheistic" henotheism is better/more truthful than Hindu henotheism.

[lasher]

If he was the only real god then Egyptian priests shouldn't have supernatural powers...which they do, according to the story. I'll concede that the stories contradict themselves, and certainly not just on this point.
The ten commandments were delivered after the Exodus story....so maybe that's when the story changed.

"`I am Jehovah thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of a house of servants. Thou hast no other Gods before Me.'"

This would have been a good time to say "No other Gods exist", if that was really the idea.

not sure what the disconnect here is, but I'll say it again. You claimed the OT never says God isn't the only God. It clearly does, and I showed you where.

[JonathanRhimes]

not sure what the disconnect here is, but I'll say it again. You claimed the OT never says God isn't the only God. It clearly does, and I showed you where.

I'll concede that it says this, while simultaneously describing the powers of other gods and describing this god being jealous when other gods are being worshipped. At best, it takes an inconsistent stance on this. But you're right, my statement that "the old testament never says this" was incorrect.

[sawoobley]

It doesn't come as much surprise that you are uninterested in the history of various religions if you are denying the existence of human history/everything we know about evolution and biology. Your evidence that the first man was made out of clay comes from a book invented at most 5-6,000 years ago and that story isn't supported by history or the fossil record.

The idea that this religion comes along a few thousand years ago and claims to be the "first" and "best"...surely you can understand why it seems silly from the perspective of other cultures, some of whom have much older religions?

I never said I was uninterested in other religions. What I was doing is disagreeing with your assumption that Christianity has only existed for a few thousand years. I was suggesting the premortal Jesus taught his gospel to his prophets since the days of Adam, Moses and Abraham. Just because it wasn't called Christianity doesn't mean it wasn't the teachings of Christ. What makes you think I deny everything about biology and evolution? I've studied both subjects in school. I don't believe Adam was literally made out of clay. TBH, at this point I have more questions then answers about the creation story from a scientific point of view which is why I focus on the weightier matters of the theological issues and moral implications. I don't accept the bible as a science textbook so I don't treat it like one.

[lasher]

I'll concede that it says this, while simultaneously describing the powers of other gods and describing this god being jealous when other gods are being worshipped. At best, it takes an inconsistent stance on this. But you're right, my statement that "the old testament never says this" was incorrect.

I'm somewhat of the opinion that there is a progression towards strict montheism from henotheism. This explains why you see more ambiguity early on, and then more jarringly strict monotheistic statements like in Isaiah, Ezra, Jeremiah, ezekial, etc.

I dunno tho, I'm not an expert on the OT in any way shape or form.

[JonathanRhimes]

I'm somewhat of the opinion that there is a progression towards strict montheism from henotheism. This explains why you see more ambiguity early on, and then more jarringly strict monotheistic statements like in Isaiah, Ezra, Jeremiah, ezekial, etc.

I dunno tho, I'm not an expert on the OT in any way shape or form.

I don't think that a strictly monotheistic system is possible without renouncing belief in Satan, angels, demons, intercessory powers of saints and Mary, and so on. Even the interrelationships within the trinity have henotheistic qualities with the father begetting the son.

[lasher]

I don't think that a strictly monotheistic system is possible without renouncing belief in Satan, angels, demons, intercessory powers of saints and Mary, and so on. Even the interrelationships within the trinity have henotheistic qualities with the father begetting the son.

I think we just disagree about what these terms mean. I don't understand monotheism to be a rejection of any supernatural reality other than God himself. And that isn't how monotheism has been traditionally understood in the literature on the matter, or throughout history.

[JonathanRhimes]

I never said I was uninterested in other religions. What I was doing is disagreeing with your assumption that Christianity has only existed for a few thousand years. I was suggesting the premortal Jesus taught his gospel to his prophets since the days of Adam, Moses and Abraham. Just because it wasn't called Christianity doesn't mean it wasn't the teachings of Christ. What makes you think I deny everything about biology and evolution? I've studied both subjects in school. I don't believe Adam was literally made out of clay. TBH, at this point I have more questions then answers about the creation story from a scientific point of view which is why I focus on the weightier matters of the theological issues and moral implications. I don't accept the bible as a science textbook so I don't treat it like one.

My apologies then. I just don't buy this narrative that everyone used to know who the real deity was but then they forgot/willfully rebelled just to be difficult. I think that the earliest humans didn't have religions, and that they were described later in the culturally relevant terms of their respective cultures. That said, none of that disproves the existence of any deity or deities. They might all exist, only one might exist, only some might exist, or maybe none exist whatsoever. I won't pretend to know the answer to that.

[JonathanRhimes]

I think we just disagree about what these terms mean. I don't understand monotheism to be a rejection of any supernatural reality other than God himself. And that isn't how monotheism has been traditionally understood in the literature on the matter, or throughout history.

I agree with you that Judaism and by extension Christianity have historically been understood as monotheistic religions. I just don't think that it's an accurate description of the entirety of those belief systems. To me a purely monotheistic system could only recognize the existence of one deity and would have to exclude "opposing" supernatural forces, other dimensions/extensions of self and all 'lesser' supernatural beings.

[apappas7787]

Lasher dropping knowledge on all you fools.

[lasher]

I agree with you that Judaism and by extension Christianity have historically been understood as monotheistic religions. I just don't think that it's an accurate description of the entirety of those belief systems. To me a purely monotheistic system could only recognize the existence of one deity and would have to exclude "opposing" supernatural forces, other dimensions/extensions of self and all 'lesser' supernatural beings.

Take this to its logical conclusion though. Does god creating man mean that we are talking about henotheism now? What's the difference between god creating man and god creating angels? Why is one henotheistic and one not? Man can rebel against god, just like certain angels did, what makes one "opposing" and the other not, and thus one henotheistic and the other not?

It seems on your definition, if carried all the way through, means monotheism is only accurate if God exists by himself with no other personal beings in existence.

[JonathanRhimes]

Take this to its logical conclusion though. Does god creating man mean that we are talking about henotheism now? What's the difference between god creating man and god creating angels? Why is one henotheistic and one not? Man can rebel against god, just like certain angels did, what makes one "opposing" and the other not, and thus one henotheistic and the other not?

It seems on your definition, if carried all the way through, means monotheism is only accurate if God exists by himself with no other personal beings in existence.

I think that the distinction needs to be about physical/natural properties versus extraphysical/supernatural properties. Angels can apparently assume different shapes and travel between different planes of existence...presumably they can travel between celestial and physical/natural realms. Many religions have an 'immortal soul' principle but in general they concede that angels have powers and abilities (and possibly intellect?) surpassing that of humans. I think that the abilities of angels is similar to that of minor deities in other henotheistic systems like Hermes/Mercury in Greek/Roman paganism. Calling one a god and one an angel is really a distinction in name only as both are immortal and both have abilities that surpass humans but are lesser than the head deity.

[tallguy29]

I think that the distinction needs to be about physical/natural properties versus extraphysical/supernatural properties. Angels can apparently assume different shapes and travel between different planes of existence...presumably they can travel between celestial and physical/natural realms. Many religions have an 'immortal soul' principle but in general they concede that angels have powers and abilities (and possibly intellect?) surpassing that of humans. I think that the abilities of angels is similar to that of minor deities in other henotheistic systems like Hermes/Mercury in Greek/Roman paganism. Calling one a god and one an angel is really a distinction in name only as both are immortal and both have abilities that surpass humans but are lesser than the head deity.

^^^^This

[detrimental]

Elitgar

You mad that the Western world has unified Atheists, Christians and Jews... While the Islamic world can't even unify Muslims? You mad that Christians, Jews, and Atheists have been living together for decades in harmony and prusuing the betterment of humanity while Muslims have been blowing each other to smithereens and killing Christians and threatening the removal of Jews whenever possible?

You mad that Christians and Jews are infinitely more likely to become atheist than they are Muslim?

You irate that not a single demographic on this Earth actually appreciates Islam to any great degree, roflz

Ye u mad

[eltigar]

Elitgar

You mad that the Western world has unified Atheists, Christians and Jews... While the Islamic world can't even unify Muslims? You mad that Christians, Jews, and Atheists have been living together for decades in harmony and prusuing the betterment of humanity while Muslims have been blowing each other to smithereens and killing Christians and threatening the removal of Jews whenever possible?

You mad that Christians and Jews are infinitely more likely to become atheist than they are Muslim?

You irate that not a single demographic on this Earth actually appreciates Islam to any great degree, roflz

Ye u mad

actually i just thought lasher is a cool guy and i would like him to become muslim.
as for you.....get fukked

[Neceseco]

eltigar, your spirituality is so vulgar and spiteful