Is Christianity really Monotheistic?

[AvalonXQ]

I think in understanding the Christian view on gods, it's useful to consider the following passage:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manâ€"and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

How is a "god" defined?  Well, in Biblical terms, a "god" is defined primarily by its relationship to other intelligent creatures.  In that way, the term is similar to "king" or "father" or "president" -- it defines an office, an established station, rather than a type of entity.  Understood in this way, then, the Biblical references both to the Existor (captial-g God) and to "gods" makes sense.  The Existor is the only one who qualifies as God; the only actual god.  But there are many other beings, man-made and otherwise, that people have wrongly treated as gods.  And, as Paul mentions above, that's what man has done in worshiping the creature rather than the Creator.
I don't think the Bible does a good job of explaining whether any other genuine supernatural beings of any kind were ever behind some of the false religions mentioned.  Still, it does clearly state that, whether there was anything there are not, it should not be treated as a god.
The fact that some, but not all, commands in the Old Testament focus on people's behavior towards false gods, without universally denying their existence in all cases, does not a contradiction make.

[LoneMateria]

How is a "god" defined?  Well, in Biblical terms, a "god" is defined primarily by its relationship to other intelligent creatures.  In that way, the term is similar to "king" or "father" or "president" -- it defines an office, an established station, rather than a type of entity.

Thats interpretation, what makes your interpretation right?

Understood in this way, then, the Biblical references both to the Existor (captial-g God) and to "gods" makes sense.  The Existor is the only one who qualifies as God; the only actual god.  But there are many other beings, man-made and otherwise, that people have wrongly treated as gods.  And, as Paul mentions above, that's what man has done in worshiping the creature rather than the Creator.

First off Chrome says Existor is a misspelled word and dictionary.com confirms it's made up.  When I use the capital 'G' in God i'm referring to a specific god.  Specifically the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god.  Now if Paul claims there is only God and everyone not worshiping that God is worshiping a false god then the burden of proof is on him or in this case on you to demonstrate why every other god is not a god (Copying and pasting holy scriptures won't get you anywhere with me).  However what you're saying doesn't go with scripture when God claims he will punish the Pharaoh's and their gods.

I don't think the Bible does a good job of explaining whether any other genuine supernatural beings of any kind were ever behind some of the false religions mentioned.  Still, it does clearly state that, whether there was anything there are not, it should not be treated as a god.

We are almost in full agreement here.  The jealous, spiteful, monster called God doesn't like competition and often times orders images and worshipers and their infant children destroyed because he has ego and social issues but it doesn't specify if he only does this to idols or other gods.  However one sentence pops out contradicting they should not be treated as gods.  Exodus 22:28 don't revile the gods. It sounds like they are saying the gods are better then you show some respect until your god looses his cool and wants all of their worshipers dead.

The fact that some, but not all, commands in the Old Testament focus on people's behavior towards false gods, without universally denying their existence in all cases, does not a contradiction make.

You see the thing is the bible says God executes his judgement against other gods, they might not be as powerful as him, but the bible still acknowledges their existence.  Exodus 12:12, 18:21, Numbers 33:4, Deuteronomy 10:17 and so on.  All it says is God is stronger then them (might makes right?) but they still exist.

[AvalonXQ]

Thats interpretation, what makes your interpretation right?

I think what you meant to ask was, "What evidence do you have to back up this interpretation?"  Answer: it's how the term is used constantly.  The God of Isreal, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I shall be their God, my lord and my God -- hundreds of times in the Bible, all clearly talking about "god" in exactly the same way we'd use terms like "father" or "king", and with the same relationship/office implications.

First off Chrome says Existor is a misspelled word and dictionary.com confirms it's made up.  When I use the capital 'G' in God i'm referring to a specific god.  Specifically the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god.  

"The Existor" is an English transliteration for YHWH, the capital-G God of the Bible (which I thought I made clear in my last post).  I prefer to use the name to clarify who the heck I'm talking about.  I'm aware that it's use isn't very widespread, hence the clarification.

The fact that some, but not all, commands in the Old Testament focus on people's behavior towards false gods, without universally denying their existence in all cases, does not a contradiction make.

You see the thing is the bible says God executes his judgement against other gods, they might not be as powerful as him, but the bible still acknowledges their existence.  Exodus 12:12, 18:21, Numbers 33:4, Deuteronomy 10:17 and so on.  All it says is God is stronger then them (might makes right?) but they still exist.

I don't agree.  None of the references you've brought forward, nor any others I've seen, make it clear whether or not any of the "false gods" were ever legitimate supernatural beings.  It says that the Existor "brought judgment on the gods of Egypt", and that the Existor is "God of gods and Lord of lords".  Which means... what, exactly?  It's not at all clear to me.  It's certainly not a slam-dunk admission that any other god ever really existed according to scripture.

[LoneMateria]

I think what you meant to ask was, "What evidence do you have to back up this interpretation?"  Answer: it's how the term is used constantly.  The God of Isreal, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I shall be their God, my lord and my God -- hundreds of times in the Bible, all clearly talking about "god" in exactly the same way we'd use terms like "father" or "king", and with the same relationship/office implications.

Again interpretation.  So your interpretation makes it right?

"The Existor" is an English transliteration for YHWH, the capital-G God of the Bible (which I thought I made clear in my last post).  I prefer to use the name to clarify who the heck I'm talking about.  I'm aware that it's use isn't very widespread, hence the clarification.

Because i'm an ass I did a Google search.  I've already said using the capital "G" in God refers to the specific god of the Jews/Christian/Muslims.  Lets use that for our discussion rather then "The Existor".

I don't agree.  None of the references you've brought forward, nor any others I've seen, make it clear whether or not any of the "false gods" were ever legitimate supernatural beings.  It says that the Existor "brought judgment on the gods of Egypt", and that the Existor is "God of gods and Lord of lords".  Which means... what, exactly?  It's not at all clear to me.  It's certainly not a slam-dunk admission that any other god ever really existed according to scripture.

Really?  So God decides to punish idols?  Does that make sense?  Wait a minute before I get roped into playing your game how do we know God is a legitimate supernatural being?  How do we know that God is not some abstract concept used to rally the barbarians who destroyed cities, killed babies and raped children? (what a moral high ground)  When it says God got angry in the bible maybe it meant the people flying under his flag got angry and wanted these people destroyed and their gods forgotten about.  

"God brought judgment on the gods of Egypt", and "God is the God of gods" doesn't need to be interpretated just read it.  To me it means the Christian God is going to punish the Egyptian gods because he is stronger then them.  You are the Christian what does it mean to you?

I never said it was a slam-dunk admission that any other god every really existed, i'm an atheist I don't believe any gods ever existed.  I'm saying the bible acknowledges other gods existing and that Christians claiming only one true god are ignoring parts of scripture for their own convenience (no big surprise there).  The people who wrote the bible lived (mostly) during Pagan times when Jupiter, Venus and Cupid were commonly accepted.  They probably believed there were many gods however God was superior to them all.  I can see that being the case and later in history when polytheism was unheard of that it was eventually shifted to only one god.

[AvalonXQ]

I think what you meant to ask was, "What evidence do you have to back up this interpretation?"  Answer: it's how the term is used constantly.  The God of Isreal, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I shall be their God, my lord and my God -- hundreds of times in the Bible, all clearly talking about "god" in exactly the same way we'd use terms like "father" or "king", and with the same relationship/office implications.

Again interpretation.  So your interpretation makes it right?

I've explained why I believe the term means what I say it means.  If you have an alternate interpretation that you believe is better supported by the text, present it.

If you don't like my use of an English word to name Him, let's use YHWH instead.  I find using capital-g God confuses the issue.

I'm saying the bible acknowledges other gods existing

Again, I don't agree this is true.  The Bible acknowledges other gods were worshipped.  Not that they were real.  In fact, it quite often gives examples of gods that were shown to be not real.  The notion of man-made gods, gods that were not real, is shown best in the scripture that I submitted above, in the trial of Baal by Elijah, and several other times in the scripture.  In fact, this is what is usually understood by the idea that YHWH judged a people and their gods -- he showed the people to be wicked and their gods to be false.

and that Christians claiming only one true god are ignoring parts of scripture for their own convenience (no big surprise there).

... or they have a different understanding of what those parts of scripture actually mean.  For instance, interpreting "Elohei Elohim" to imply the actual existence of other true dieties that -- what are you implying, worshipped YHWH themselves? -- is quite a stretch.

[Reginus]

edit: @LoneMateria

I suppose you're right when you say it basicaly comes down to interpretation. Now, if this is true, then why are you suggesting that we are ignorring what scripture says, when we have read it and simply have a different interpretation of it compaired to your's?

[AvalonXQ]

I suppose you're right when you say it basicaly comes down to interpretation. Now, if this is true, then why are you suggesting that we are ignorring what scripture says, when we have read it and simply have a different interpretation of it compaired to your's?

I'm quite open to the possibility that you just have a different perspective.  However, from what I've seen so far, it seems like you haven't really read and studied it to try to arrive at a genuine understanding of what the text legitimately means.  It seems more like you're trying to pick apart phrases from the English translations of certain verses to arrive at a contradiction or uncomfortable truth, regardless of the actual meaning of the text.
However, again, if what you've arrived at is simply a different interpretation that is actively supported by the text, then so be it.
I do believe that there is a single, clear, meaning to scripture.  But I also believe that I may not always be right as to what it is.

In fact, when I first saw this thread, I was hoping that it was a discussion about YHWH, Jesus, and the Spirit -- which I believe is a much better argument that Christianity isn't monotheistic.  After all, the concept of the Trinity is not itself found in Scripture.

[Recusant]

...None of the references you've brought forward, nor any others I've seen, make it clear whether or not any of the "false gods" were ever legitimate supernatural beings. It says that the Existor "brought judgment on the gods of Egypt", and that the Existor is "God of gods and Lord of lords". Which means... what, exactly? It's not at all clear to me. It's certainly not a slam-dunk admission that any other god ever really existed according to scripture.

1)  Welcome to Happy Atheist Forum, AvalonXQ. ) reading of them would tend to support the idea of other gods existing, and being vanquished by YHVH.  The problem is that even in the New Testament, in 2 Peter 2:15 for instance, at least one other god is spoken of as if he exists, even being given a personality (speaking of "Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.")  How can something which is supposedly, according to your interpretation, acknowledged to not even exist still "love the wages of unrighteousness?"  With all of this I'm not for one second implying that modern Jews or Christians believe that there is more than one god, only that back in the Bronze Age when the Jewish mythology was being constructed, they did believe that other people's gods existed, and that YHVH would put the big hurt on all of them.

By the way, thanks for your attempt at adding to the litany of cognomens for YHVH, but I have always felt that the tetragrammaton itself is quite sufficient.  Yours brings to mind President Bush II; "I'm the decider," with a kind of self satisfied smirk implied.  I find that image somewhat nauseating, so I'll have to forgo adopting your terminology even though the ridicule it implies is (to me) attractive. There is no "W" sound in the original Hebrew, so I prefer "V," but other than that we're on the same page here, I think. Speaking of pages, I found this one to be an entertaining read, though in my opinion it's not directly relevant to the issue of the existence of deities other than the god of Abraham as portrayed in the Old Testament.

[Reginus]

I suppose you're right when you say it basicaly comes down to interpretation. Now, if this is true, then why are you suggesting that we are ignorring what scripture says, when we have read it and simply have a different interpretation of it compaired to your's?

I'm quite open to the possibility that you just have a different perspective.  However, from what I've seen so far, it seems like you haven't really read and studied it to try to arrive at a genuine understanding of what the text legitimately means.  It seems more like you're trying to pick apart phrases from the English translations of certain verses to arrive at a contradiction or uncomfortable truth, regardless of the actual meaning of the text.
However, again, if what you've arrived at is simply a different interpretation that is actively supported by the text, then so be it.
I do believe that there is a single, clear, meaning to scripture.  But I also believe that I may not always be right as to what it is.

In fact, when I first saw this thread, I was hoping that it was a discussion about YHWH, Jesus, and the Spirit -- which I believe is a much better argument that Christianity isn't monotheistic.  After all, the concept of the Trinity is not itself found in Scripture.

Ahahahahaha, I apologize Avalon, as I was directing my response towards LoneMateria. I suppose I should have made that more clear.

[Arctonyx]

edit: @LoneMateria

I suppose you're right when you say it basicaly comes down to interpretation. Now, if this is true, then why are you suggesting that we are ignorring what scripture says, when we have read it and simply have a different interpretation of it compaired to your's?

Because it's a good example of how scripture gets it wrong on so many levels. Would a law that was so vague that almost anyone could be thrown in jail for any amount of time depending on a judges whim be a good idea? No, texts that claim to impart knowledge, understanding, law and other things need to be clear, concise and most importantly free from interpretation. Otherwise that text can not really impart any kind of knowledge, understanding, law or anything really. Because what is the point of something claiming to impart knowledge when 2 similar people can arrive at 2 wildly different conclusions?

[LoneMateria]

First off thank you Recusant you articulated my view better then I could have.  And thank you Arctonyx, I wasn't going to answer like that you made me think about why we need more clear definitions.  Reginus i'll answer yours further down i'm going to try and take this in order so grab a cup of coffee, or a soft drink (you're too young to have coffee ;-p) this will probably be a long post.

I've explained why I believe the term means what I say it means.  If you have an alternate interpretation that you believe is better supported by the text, present it.

If you don't like my use of an English word to name Him, let's use YHWH instead.  I find using capital-g God confuses the issue.

First off i'll take up the YHWH since it seems to be clearer then my convention.  Now I seemed to not make my point clearly and for that I apologize.  I'm trying to say this is all a point of interpretation.  However when you are trying to say something exists because the holy book says so and something does not exist because the holy book says so then the words become important not the interpretation.  I'm sure I can find Christians today who claim your interpretation is wrong for one reason or another, and that is based on their interpretation.  I've rejected both claims that you are right based on your interpretations and instead look at the words of the book you both use.

Now I don't need an alternative interpretation for the texts for a simple reason.  People can interpret the text of the bible to mean damn near anything.  One person can read the bible and then because of it go help sick children in another country, and another person can read it and blow up an abortion clinic or shoot an abortion doctor in his church.  Anyones particular interpretation of the book is unimpressive to me so instead lets look at the actual wording.

... or they have a different understanding of what those parts of scripture actually mean.  For instance, interpreting "Elohei Elohim" to imply the actual existence of other true dieties that -- what are you implying, worshipped YHWH themselves? -- is quite a stretch.

Um... what I do know of Hebrew is this, the word Elohim is plural.  I don't need any specific or person interpretation to see a plural word and know its referring to more then one (in this case gods), which implies their existence.

Wow Recusant really shortened up my post I guess this wont be as long as I thought it would.  Alright now on to Reginus.

edit: @LoneMateria

I suppose you're right when you say it basicaly comes down to interpretation. Now, if this is true, then why are you suggesting that we are ignorring what scripture says, when we have read it and simply have a different interpretation of it compaired to your's?

Like I stated above when you have multiple and conflicting views and interpretations of a book you can no longer rely on those and have to look at the words of the book.  I don't hold any specific view point prior to reading Joshua 24:2 that I have to align my view point with.  I simply read it as is, Joshua gathered the people of Israel and during his story mentioned that their fathers once served other gods.  That implies their existence, he didn't use another term to say these weren't gods, he didn't use idols, or the word false before gods.  I don't need to interpret that any special way I just read it as is.

[Reginus]

Like I stated above when you have multiple and conflicting views and interpretations of a book you can no longer rely on those and have to look at the words of the book.  I don't hold any specific view point prior to reading Joshua 24:2 that I have to align my view point with.  I simply read it as is, Joshua gathered the people of Israel and during his story mentioned that their fathers once served other gods.  That implies their existence, he didn't use another term to say these weren't gods, he didn't use idols, or the word false before gods.  I don't need to interpret that any special way I just read it as is.

I think we may have hit a stalemate. You think that it's impossible to worship/serve a god that doesn't exist. I think it is very much possible.

[Recusant]

...Recusant really shortened up my post...

Ah, sorry for horning in on your thread like that.  I had trouble resisting, as you can tell.  I've always enjoyed conversing with intelligent coherent theists who are able to think rather than merely climb into a fortress of dogma, and AvalonXQ seems to fit the bill, though there is a heavy vein of dogmatism in his argument. (I guess it's near impossible to avoid that when stating a Christian perspective.) I want to make it clear that I think you were doing fine before I stuck my oar in:  I'm quite willing to stand aside and you can carry on, LoneMateria.  

[LoneMateria]

...Recusant really shortened up my post...

Ah, sorry for horning in on your thread like that.  I had trouble resisting, as you can tell.  I've always enjoyed conversing with intelligent coherent theists who are able to think rather than merely climb into a fortress of dogma, and AvalonXQ seems to fit the bill, though there is a heavy vein of dogmatism in his argument. (I guess it's near impossible to avoid that when stating a Christian perspective.) I want to make it clear that I think you were doing fine before I stuck my oar in:  I'm quite willing to stand aside and you can carry on, LoneMateria.   lol I enjoyed your post. You were able to articulate my views better then me.  And you covered everything I would have covered plus some.  I enjoyed reading your post.  Please keep it up.  I just thought i'd have some ridiculously long post, you saved me a lot of work which was great.  

I think we may have hit a stalemate. You think that it's impossible to worship/serve a god that doesn't exist. I think it is very much possible.

um... i'm an atheist.  I think people worship gods that don't exists.  I can't use the word serve because the reality is they are just doing what they want in the name of that god.  All i've been trying to say is that the bible acknowledges other gods existing.  With references to other gods in your holy book i'm pointing out that in order to say there is one god you either have to be dishonest, if you didn't read it you can't claim your book says there is only one god, or you have to do some major mental gymnastics to get around it.  We probably are stalemated here since I consider the point of stalemate when we've regressed the conversation as far back as possible but no one has changed their view.

[iNow]

We probably are stalemated here since I consider the point of stalemate when we've regressed the conversation as far back as possible but no one has changed their view.

You never know what kind of impact you are having on those who are sitting on the sidelines and viewing the thread as spectators.  You may not be able to change the mind of your opponent, but that does not mean you are not changing minds.