What religion are you?

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm not sure how you determine what I am and am not considering. But yes, angels and God are spiritual beings.

Do the laws of logic exist? Are you considering what they are? Are they some ethereal stuff floating around? Do we have to know how to answer that to believe in them?

But your first sentence is pretty important. "Monotheism" isn't what who believed in or wrote about? And how do you know this?

From the bible. You didn't respond to my previous posts about that. Now you want me to repost?

 

[oyarde]

Other, none.. I've studied Buddhism probably the most so far, also Lao Tzu and Confucius. Recently I am starting to study Christianity, though I have no background in it at all and only know very little...if anyone has any good books to recommend, or wants to share which version of the bible they prefer, that'd be cool.

You may like The Art Of War. Maybe, some Heart Of Darkness .

 

[oyarde]

I think religion does more harm to the truth than good.

I tend to be a bit irreligious,, though I am a believer in Christ.

Spiritual principles are universal, Whether you believe or not and regardless of which religion you follow.

I am sure there are Christians in all the denominations,, just as I am sure there is error in doctrine in all of them.

We should not fight each other, but spread the simple message of Gods Love and the offer of Salvation.

The only ones who will be damned are those that reject God.. and that is by their own choice.

I used to think about the same , then I considered how bad man kind has been , even when they are mostly believers of some sort or something , then, I supposed , crap , they could be worse without it . Then the realization hit me that I had spent many times in places where none of these had reached , and certainly , while not perfect .They were better than others as a whole , for the most part , easily........

 

[oyarde]

Well...the question was what is your religion not what is your religion and why do you think its the only one that doesn't suck? However....inevitible.

I have been enough places, that though I personally believe in God, I am not at all certain he could be impressed with the action of mankind.....

 

[oyarde]

Well , some, well, all of my ancestors were at one time. i must admit, they had it much easier than I , I have to try and balance my natural pagan with my faith in Jesus. This is difficult at times. Cannot really say Godless though , some of them had some sort of god for just about everything .....

 

[oyarde]

I thought you were a godless savage.

My personal nature is more in tune with taking scalps , as you can guess, I have had to work very hard at this...

 

[erowe1]

From the bible. You didn't respond to my previous posts about that. Now you want me to repost?

I asked two questions:
1) Monotheism isn't what who believed in or wrote about?
2) How do you know?

I'll go back and look at your posts. But you've already conceded that Deuteronomy 32:8, which was the example I noticed, doesn't indicate that its author was not a monotheist. I doubt your other examples are better.

ETA: It looks like you were also talking about Psalm 82, "I said that you were gods." I didn't see any other examples. You just asserted that it's not talking about human beings, as though no argument for that is even needed. That isn't at all clear to me, since he's talking about people who judge the poor and fatherless unjustly, a common theme in the Old Testament that's always about human leaders. But let's say you're right. Let's say he was talking to literal "gods." Then, once again, it's clear from that psalm itself that these beings are beneath God Most High. He is still the God above them all (i.e. they are what Christians call angels). Nothing in that undermines monotheism either.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I asked two questions:
1) Monotheism isn't what who believed in or wrote about?
2) How do you know?

I'll go back and look at your posts. But you've already conceded that Deuteronomy 32:8, which was the example I noticed, doesn't indicate that its author was not a monotheist. I doubt your other examples are better.

ETA: It looks like you were also talking about Psalm 82, "I said that you were gods." I didn't see any other examples. You just asserted that it's not talking about human beings, as though no argument for that is even needed. That isn't at all clear to me, since he's talking about people who judge the poor and fatherless unjustly, a common theme in the Old Testament that's always about human leaders. But let's say you're right. Let's say he was talking to literal "gods." Then, once again, it's clear from that psalm itself that these beings are beneath God Most High. He is still the God above them all (i.e. they are what Christians call angels). Nothing in that undermines monotheism either.

Have you looked at what an angel is in the bible? There is a difference in the usage of terms. Translation of words sometimes obfuscate the original. Look at how translations are done. Angel is usually a messenger, gods or sons of gods, on the other hand different.

 

[oyarde]

69% has none or other.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Try out ISA if you want to do some research of translations (as well as other tools out there and pretty good forums)
http://www.scripture4all.org/

edit: ISA can load various "originals" and translations as addons. There are differences in "originals" which in themselves are not really originals but have been transcribed many times. So comparisons of "originals" are valuable.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

69% has none or other.

I see that as a good thing, at least in the sense of individual thinking as opposed to group think.
I chose none, but am still searching for the truth. I refuse to believe, at this time, that I was born in the right place at the right time (concerning the right religion/thought) and that much of the rest of the world was not.

 

[acptulsa]

That can go under None.

I disagree too. All belief is a matter of faith. 'None' is for agnostics.

 

[Sola_Fide]

And just what are the so called "angels"? What is a god? Think, man, think.

The judges of Israel were called "gods". There is no mystery to it. They were not divine, they were called gods because they carried out the judgement of God with the law of God. The text says "you will die like men". Divine beings dont die.

 

[acptulsa]

Divine beings dont die.

Marilyn Monroe did.

 

[erowe1]

Have you looked at what an angel is in the bible? There is a difference in the usage of terms. Translation of words sometimes obfuscate the original. Look at how translations are done. Angel is usually a messenger, gods or sons of gods, on the other hand different.

I'm not sure what you think you're saying. But if you mean that the existence of angels, or other beings called gods or sons of gods, in the Bible goes against monotheism, then that is not correct, for precisely the reasons I pointed out in the two examples you gave. In both of those examples it was clear that the beings called gods or sons of gods were of a lesser kind than the LORD, or God most high.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm not sure what you think you're saying. But if you mean that the existence of angels, or other beings called gods or sons of gods, in the Bible goes against monotheism, then that is not correct, for precisely the reasons I pointed out in the two examples you gave. In both of those examples it was clear that the beings called gods or sons of gods were of a lesser kind than the LORD, or God most high.

It is true that some called a certain one (perhaps unnamed) most high. And I agree that Psalm's 82 is a hard read, depending on how it is read.

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?

So, who was the writer talking to in verse 2? Who was the one that was the judge in verse 1? If you look at the original you can get a glimpse of how the first god mentioned was in reguards to the court or council or congregation, depending on the translation.

Have you taken a look at translation, it's history, which writings (and versions) were included when assembling? Did you take a look at ISA?

Here's an example from ISA (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer):

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The judges of Israel were called "gods". There is no mystery to it. They were not divine, they were called gods because they carried out the judgement of God with the law of God. The text says "you will die like men". Divine beings dont die.

Could you give me an example in the bible where any of the judges or angels were called "Elohim"?

edit: or eloah or el. In Canaanite, Elohim meant sons of El. The usage in the bible, or so they now say, Elohim can be singular or plural depending on the verb. (And when I say bible, I mean any of the texts used or found that are copies of those referred to as the writings collected together, no matter the English translation)

 

[erowe1]

It is true that some called a certain one (perhaps unnamed) most high. And I agree that Psalm's 82 is a hard read, depending on how it is read.



So, who was the writer talking to in verse 2? Who was the one that was the judge in verse 1? If you look at the original you can get a glimpse of how the first god mentioned was in reguards to the court or council or congregation, depending on the translation.

Have you taken a look at translation, it's history, which writings (and versions) were included when assembling? Did you take a look at ISA?

Here's an example from ISA (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer):

View attachment 1879

The problem is, none of your arguments support interpreting any of these passages as polytheistic. Even if your examples do refer to some kind of "gods" who are higher than human beings, they are still lower than God most high. Whether you call them angels or not, they occupy the place that angels do in Christian theology.

 

[catfeathers]

Restoration Movement Christian (Church of Christ, Christian Church). I don't go much anymore, just got out of the habit when I lived where there wasn't a church that I was comfortable attending.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The problem is, none of your arguments support interpreting any of these passages as polytheistic. Even if your examples do refer to some kind of "gods" who are higher than human beings, they are still lower than God most high. Whether you call them angels or not, they occupy the place that angels do in Christian theology.

I don't intend to argue this. I have given examples, you can call it what you want. "Let us make man...", etc...

ISA is a good tool if anyone is interested in researching.

I really would like to see more people looking at the basis (where it all comes from), instead of arguing daily over the outlying parts. I see arguments each day on the Religious Forum over technicalities. But little in the investigation of underlying fundamentals.

Here's my post, that started down the path:

I would recommend starting with the "virgin" birth "prophesy", and really reading what Isaiah said and how it was supposedly fulfilled right there in Isaiah. Usually, people don't read past the first part, and don't see that when Isaiah went into the prophetess...

An attempt to give a person a place to start about the fundamentals (in this case, consistency).

edit: There are many old things that are actively eating away at mankind, and this topic has been the most cancerous for the world as a whole.