Happy Atheist Forum

So lately I've been going through the skeptics annotated bible.  For those of you who never heard of it it has the whole bible, koran, and the book of mormon separated by books and chapters and everything that they find wrong is highlighted with a certain color and a brief explanation is given on the side.  Its atheism kickass!

Anyway so I was just looking though and I was in Exodus 23 and the explanation lead me to this (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html) page.  My buddy and I had a conversation a while back about whether the bible supports monotheism or not.  He said it did, but I didn't have this reference handy and he was able to write off my examples as "the trinity".  Anyway what do you guys think?

Is someone with multiple personalities one person?  

I've always equated the trinity with the three sides of a single triangle  

Edit: I read the link, and I am fairly sure that the passages are not litteraly referring to "other gods", but rather to idols of man.

Quote from: "Reginus"I've always equated the trinity with the three sides of a single triangle  

Edit: I read the link, and I am fairly sure that the passages are not litteraly referring to "other gods", but rather to idols of man.

I'd agree with you if the wording was different, but like in Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.  the wording to me suggests polytheism.  Just like the wording in 1Chronicles 16:25 suggests polytheism to me.  I don't see how they refer to idols since the bible mentions those separately.  Just like in Jeremiah 46:25 when it says God will punish the Pharaohs with their gods.  To me it suggests that God will whip them all at once.  But still Polytheism.

The incoherent bible at its worst -_-

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I'd agree with you if the wording was different, but like in Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.  the wording to me suggests polytheism.  Just like the wording in 1Chronicles 16:25 suggests polytheism to me.  I don't see how they refer to idols since the bible mentions those separately.  Just like in Jeremiah 46:25 when it says God will punish the Pharaohs with their gods.  To me it suggests that God will whip them all at once.  But still Polytheism.

The incoherent bible at its worst -_-

If you say to me "The god you believe in is ridiculous", you are not suggesting that the god I believe in actualy exists and is litteraly funny or stupid looking, but you are saying that my belief is ridiculous. From my point of view, the "gods" the bible refers to, are simply imaginary idols of the pharasees. Jeremiah 46:25 makes perfect sense to me in this context, as the idols will surely die with the Pharaohs.

.... actualy, on second thought, there's a chance that in some cases the bible is refering to the devil or demons.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc367%2FWillravel%2FHolytrinity.jpg&hash=c69e50173a482fdb274e8007e6ff5deac8e1a9a0)
It's quite simple. Jesus was not talking to himself on the cross. Christianity is polytheistic.

So ... lets see if I understand what you are saying.  That it doesn't matter what the bible actually says here, you are going to interpret them as idols regardless of the words?  Am I right?  Or are you saying that all the gods of the bible are idols including the main one and that you don't believe it exists just like Ra, Athena, Thor and so on?  By the way you are trying to do some fancy footwork there, maybe take a step back and see the simpler solution might be the right one.

Also i'm pretty sure they mention the devil and demons by name in the bible so that last statement doesn't sit well with me.  It would make no sense to mention the devil by name in one context and refer to him as someone else's god in another.

Awesome response Will.  Never thought of it like that. (Though I have a sneaky feeling some would argue ... pointlessly)

Quote from: "LoneMateria"So ... lets see if I understand what you are saying.  That it doesn't matter what the bible actually says here, you are going to interpret them as idols regardless of the words?  Am I right?  Or are you saying that all the gods of the bible are idols including the main one and that you don't believe it exists just like Ra, Athena, Thor and so on?  By the way you are trying to do some fancy footwork there, maybe take a step back and see the simpler solution might be the right one.

Also i'm pretty sure they mention the devil and demons by name in the bible so that last statement doesn't sit well with me.  It would make no sense to mention the devil by name in one context and refer to him as someone else's god in another.

Awesome response Will.  Never thought of it like that. (Though I have a sneaky feeling some would argue ... pointlessly)

Doesn't it feel futile sometimes when you realize logic is futile when you argue with theism? Superstition, the bane of logic.

QuoteDoesn't it feel futile sometimes when you realize logic is futile when you argue with theism? Superstition, the bane of logic.

Against Reginus I don't feel logic if futile.  I honestly feel most people want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things, Reginus included.  Hopefully by pointing out where his logic isn't sound it will cause him to revise his outlook on the subject.  Granted it feels futile arguing with a few people, my best friend, for example, is a YEC and believes in the infallibility of the bible (has actually read it) and is a very reasonable person otherwise.  He has these beliefs which were indoctronated (which I've finally gotten him to admit) to him as a child, but he refuses to let go.  I still argue with him and say stuff in the hopes of him thinking about it for himself one day and breaking free.  Whether he does or not is up to him, hopefully by having these debates I plant the seeds (so to speak) for knowledge to grow.  

Also I don't believe superstition is the bane of logic.  Logic and critical thinking is the cure to superstition.  I know when I go to a casino and sit down at a slot machine that the odds are stacked against me, no amount of rubbing my head, or tapping on the screen or sitting with my legs crossed, standing, or any of the other countless superstitions will help me win.  I try to have some fun and walk away with the same amount of cash I came with (more is better obviously).  I know that the people who made the slot machines made them to be fun, addicting, and a losing proposition.  Just like in Black Jack.  There is a perfect strategy to the game but even if you play the perfect strategy you will overall lose to the house.  No good luck charms will fix this.  The more you know the less superstition you need.  Eventually we won't need any.

As Reginus has pointed out, when saying something like "Don't worship other gods" there could be an ambiguity as to whether the god is real, as the god in question does not have to exist for people to worship it (ain't that the truth). The bible has been so tweaked, translated twisted over the years, this, in my oppinion is a plausible defence. If there was a passage along the lines "The other god pleaded with the LORD for his life" or " The FSM fled from the righteous anger of the LORD" then we would be in the money, but we don't see it, at least not in that list.

I also don't think referring to god as "us" or "we" is acceptable as a polytheistic argument either, due to aforementioned translation issues. I don't think there is quite enough evidence to say that the early bible writers believed in multiple gods definitively.

Quote from: "SSY"As Reginus has pointed out, when saying something like "Don't worship other gods" there could be an ambiguity as to whether the god is real, as the god in question does not have to exist for people to worship it (ain't that the truth). The bible has been so tweaked, translated twisted over the years, this, in my oppinion is a plausible defence. If there was a passage along the lines "The other god pleaded with the LORD for his life" or " The FSM fled from the righteous anger of the LORD" then we would be in the money, but we don't see it, at least not in that list.

I also don't think referring to god as "us" or "we" is acceptable as a polytheistic argument either, due to aforementioned translation issues. I don't think there is quite enough evidence to say that the early bible writers believed in multiple gods definitively.

Soo ... for the first part are you just playing Christians advocate?  I understand the point you made where the god doesn't have to exist to be worshiped.  However I feel there is a step thats missed (especially by Christians) to say, "We have our god but every other reference to a god in the bible is just really idols".  Then again assertions are common in defending the bible.  But like in Deuteronomy 10:17 it says that God is the God of gods.  Does that suggest he is lead idol or that there are other gods (I may have a false dichotomy here)?  Exodus 22:28 don't revile the gods (plural).  Obviously I don't expect you to go down the list and explain how that could be considered an idol, but I don't see how these are considered Idols and I just chose 2 that were close to each other on the list.  But if this is a big interpretation game how can one interpretation be right and all the rest be wrong?  Anyway tangent >.<

My buddy used the "us" and "we" reference to mean the trinity.  I don't see it as a translation issue (especially considering Christianity came out when Paganism was big, saying my god is better then all your gods was probably common) I see this more as an interpretation issue.  People choose to interpret 1 god though it seems as if the bible (which they believe) says there are many gods.  I don't understand how people can write off or interpret away pieces they don't like of their own holy book.

Just to point out, I am arguing the position there is not evidence to clearly say the bible is polytheistic, especially when taken with all the other references to being only one god.

Maybe they are using god is a similar sense to how we use, we frequently say things like " How does God justify killing everyone?" "God seems very cruel" "Can God be both all powerful and all knowing", we, of course, don't believe, but we use for the sake of convenience.

Quote from: "SSY"Just to point out, I am arguing the position there is not evidence to clearly say the bible is polytheistic, especially when taken with all the other references to being only one god.

Maybe they are using god is a similar sense to how we use, we frequently say things like " How does God justify killing everyone?" "God seems very cruel" "Can God be both all powerful and all knowing", we, of course, don't believe, but we use for the sake of convenience.

Okay, I was a little confused on your position.  But if you are going to argue that then i'm going to say there isn't enough evidence to say the bible is clearly monotheistic as well, especially with multiple references to other gods.

I don't agree with your second statement because its a point of interpretation.  It's one thing to say well maybe this story is metaphor and these laws are metaphor.  You run into the problem of how to separate the message from metaphor.  To me it becomes far more plausible (especially because these were written during polytheistic times) that instead of recognizing only one god and saying there is no more you say we worship only one god, and hes the best and strongest of the gods but there are many others.  Thats how I see that writing in there.  But to take it and spin it to say that its referring to idols puts the view at odds with what is actually said.  Also I fail to see how this escapes people who view the bible as the literal, infallible word of God.  If your god is the, "God of gods" then that should suggest there are others gods yours is just stronger.

From my personal perspective having the bible say there is one god or there are one million gods is pointless.  I, of course, don't believe in any of them.  I honestly want to use this on my buddy and pull him out of his comfort zone, if I can shift his attention from the common belief.  By using the words of the bible I hope to demonstrate its errancy in the most simplest of matters.  You know get him to think about it (thinking should get the ball rolling).

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "SSY"Just to point out, I am arguing the position there is not evidence to clearly say the bible is polytheistic, especially when taken with all the other references to being only one god.

Maybe they are using god is a similar sense to how we use, we frequently say things like " How does God justify killing everyone?" "God seems very cruel" "Can God be both all powerful and all knowing", we, of course, don't believe, but we use for the sake of convenience.

Okay, I was a little confused on your position.  But if you are going to argue that then i'm going to say there isn't enough evidence to say the bible is clearly monotheistic as well, especially with multiple references to other gods.

I don't agree with your second statement because its a point of interpretation.  It's one thing to say well maybe this story is metaphor and these laws are metaphor.  You run into the problem of how to separate the message from metaphor.  To me it becomes far more plausible (especially because these were written during polytheistic times) that instead of recognizing only one god and saying there is no more you say we worship only one god, and hes the best and strongest of the gods but there are many others.  Thats how I see that writing in there.  But to take it and spin it to say that its referring to idols puts the view at odds with what is actually said.  Also I fail to see how this escapes people who view the bible as the literal, infallible word of God.  If your god is the, "God of gods" then that should suggest there are others gods yours is just stronger.

From my personal perspective having the bible say there is one god or there are one million gods is pointless.  I, of course, don't believe in any of them.  I honestly want to use this on my buddy and pull him out of his comfort zone, if I can shift his attention from the common belief.  By using the words of the bible I hope to demonstrate its errancy in the most simplest of matters.  You know get him to think about it (thinking should get the ball rolling).

That's great, both our positions can exist mutually, everyone is right!.  

Quote from: "SSY"That's great, both our positions can exist mutually, everyone is right!.  

Sure can!  I hope I can make a good case for my buddy next time I see him.  I'm sure he will make stuff up to why my examples aren't polytheism.  Thats why I was examining the wording so that i could find some examples that couldn't be hand waved away.

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

Quote from: "Romans 1:18-24"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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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?

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "AvalonXQ""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".

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

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?

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"...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. :P ) 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 (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html) 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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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?

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?

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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"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.

Quote from: "AvalonXQ"... 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

Quote from: "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.  

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "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.  

Quote from: "Reginus"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.  

Quote from: "iNow"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.  

Well to any of you spectators feel free to ask questions or if you want a point clarified just ask.  I'll do my best to answer and clarify anything I've said.

I think of Mr.  Manhattan in Watchmen when I think of the trinity. If you watched it, he is having sex with his girlfriend and splits to two people while having sex to add in extra fun and, at the same time, he has another one of himself to work. So I think it can be monotheistic; however, Christians talk about Jesus so much and Jesus is the way to God (God is supposedly the way to God?) and Jesus is the son who is the way to his father, etc., that the way they put it, it seems like Jesus is a separate entity that is the path to a greater entity. So it can be, but they way they teach it, it isn't really monotheistic.

What I don't understand is why God made these rules that he knew his creation would break and has to sacrifice himself to himself (and don't forget all the suffering he endure on Earth and going to hell for three days) to forgive his creations for breaking the rules he created?

Quote from: "Munchkin Goddess"I think of Mr.  Manhattan in Watchmen when I think of the trinity. If you watched it, he is having sex with his girlfriend and splits to two people while having sex to add in extra fun and, at the same time, he has another one of himself to work. So I think it can be monotheistic; however, Christians talk about Jesus so much and Jesus is the way to God (God is supposedly the way to God?) and Jesus is the son who is the way to his father, etc., that the way they put it, it seems like Jesus is a separate entity that is the path to a greater entity. So it can be, but they way they teach it, it isn't really monotheistic.

What I don't understand is why God made these rules that he knew his creation would break and has to sacrifice himself to himself (and don't forget all the suffering he endure on Earth and going to hell for three days) to forgive his creations for breaking the rules he created?

A massive fallacy on the writers' part?

Quote from: "Munchkin Goddess"What I don't understand is why God made these rules

Romans 13:10:
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Galatians 5:14:
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Quote from: "Munchkin Goddess"...that he knew his creation would break

With free will comes the obvious option of disobeying.

Quote from: "Munchkin Goddess"...and has to sacrifice himself to himself (and don't forget all the suffering he endure on Earth and going to hell for three days) to forgive his creations for breaking the rules he created?

If you think of it as a punishment someone gets from committing a crime, then it doesn't make any sense. However, if you think of sin as a debt that has to be repayed, it makes a lot more sense.

regardless of whether or not the bible refers to polytheism when it uses the word "god," there is definitely a devil in the bible, and no matter how you slice it, that's another god. not only that, but if you believe in this shit, then this devil is giving God a run for his money (that is until God throws a temper tantrum when he looses at the game he invented and finally flexes his muscle. kinda seems like the devil is a better strategist, but God wins in the end because he's stronger).