A Christian challenge

[KarenNC]

These stories told of the Hellenic gods, although I agree that they may not be literally true, illustrate the nature of these gods, how they relate to humans and how we relate to them. That, to me, is the purpose of myths and legends concerning the divine.

So far we are in agreement.

**So I am not judging them by their actions but by their nature, as revealed by the beliefs held about them by their original adherents. If you believe that these gods are different in nature than they are presented by the ancients, then how do you know that they are how you perceive them and not how those who initiated the worship of these gods perceived them? Would you really be worshipping Hellenic gods or gods that you created for yourself and gave the names of Hellenic gods to in order to legitimize this? I’m not assuming that you actually do this, just staing that it would be problematic if you did. **

As problematic as Christians having a very different understanding of their God than the Jews, when they believe it to be the same God and that their religion is the fulfillment of the prophecies made by the God of the Jews to the Jews? I don’t see that Christians have much room to talk about whether deities are able to or do have different relationships with different groups of people.

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that you believe that I believe my Gods are different in nature than the ancient Hellenes believed?

You can choose to see the myths about Zeus and Hera as being symbolic of sexual relationships in general, but to me it seems much more obvious that stories told about specific people (or gods in this case) reveal aspects of those specific people or gods. If these stories reveal nothing about the gods themselves, then how did the Greeks know who they were worshipping or for what purpose?

I don’t believe I ever claimed that they did not reveal aspects of the Gods, just that the myths are not meant solely to be read literally. I also do not believe that the myths necessarily reveal the totality of the Gods–human understanding is limited.

**Biblical stories reveal aspects of God and our relationship with Him. They reveal a God who is merciful and just - showing His mercy to those who seek it, and justice to those who harden their hearts. Killing people who disobey Him or mistreat His prophets can be seen as an act of mercy, because that keeps them from continuing down that road and committing further sins. There is life after death, and those people were probably better off going to the afterlife than sticking around the earth causing trouble for those who were seeking to do God’s Will. **

Killing 42 children for calling a prophet “Baldy” is an act of mercy? Demanding that your follower sacrifice his son to you, then saying “just a test, never mind” is the embodiment of Love?

Everything in the Bible is the story of human salvation, and everything told in it contributes to this salvation. And if you believe that sin is just a Christian invention, take a look around, at fallen human nature, and you’ll see the results of sin.

Note that I said that the concept of “original sin” is solely Christian. Even the Jews do not draw the conclusion of original sin from the same evidence that Christians claim to use. I do not know of any religion that disputes that man is not perfect and capable of great inhumanity to his fellow creatures.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Okay this I have been going from site to site asking and have not gotten a single answer, this challange isn’t anything bad, its just a question

can you prove…without using the Bible, that paganism and anyother relgion is wrong?

blessed be,
cody

That’s an inadequate approach - any value Christianity has, it has as something good itself: not because of what is not good in other religions or philosophies. The point is not that Wicca (say) is false, but that Christianity gives access to what is true. To stop being involved with Wicca does not make someone a Christian; it means only that they stopped being involved with Wicca: it’s an end, without a beginning - to start being a Christian (say) does make one a Christian: that is a beginning.​

 

[Morning_Star15]

As problematic as Christians having a very different understanding of their God than the Jews, when they believe it to be the same God and that their religion is the fulfillment of the prophecies made by the God of the Jews to the Jews? I don’t see that Christians have much room to talk about whether deities are able to or do have different relationships with different groups of people.

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that you believe that I believe my Gods are different in nature than the ancient Hellenes believed?

**I never said you do, I was asking whether you do, as a question. **

I don’t believe I ever claimed that they did not reveal aspects of the Gods, just that the myths are not meant solely to be read literally. I also do not believe that the myths necessarily reveal the totality of the Gods–human understanding is limited.

**Biblical stories reveal aspects of God and our relationship with Him. They reveal a God who is merciful and just - showing His mercy to those who seek it, and justice to those who harden their hearts. Killing people who disobey Him or mistreat His prophets can be seen as an act of mercy, because that keeps them from continuing down that road and committing further sins. There is life after death, and those people were probably better off going to the afterlife than sticking around the earth causing trouble for those who were seeking to do God’s Will. **

Killing 42 children for calling a prophet “Baldy” is an act of mercy? Demanding that your follower sacrifice his son to you, then saying “just a test, never mind” is the embodiment of Love?

**How do you know what those children’s fate was after they died? Everyone dies at one point or another, God deemed that this was the best time for them to die (probably before they went on to call God’s prophet worse things than “Baldy” and making the situation worse for themselves, or catching some slow and lingering illness - who knows how they would have died otherwise). Who are we to judge whether someone died at the right time or for the right reason?

I don’t know why you see Abraham NOT sacrificing Isaac as problematic - He spared the child, didn’t He? God gave Abraham a son against all odds, wasn’t that an act of love? God was testing to see if Abraham was willing to give this incredible gift back to Him, a sacrifice that God in the end didn’t require. Would you have thought it better if Isaac had fallen off a cliff and died instead before God asked Abraham for him? **

Everything in the Bible is the story of human salvation, and everything told in it contributes to this salvation. And if you believe that sin is just a Christian invention, take a look around, at fallen human nature, and you’ll see the results of sin.

Note that I said that the concept of “original sin” is solely Christian. Even the Jews do not draw the conclusion of original sin from the same evidence that Christians claim to use. I do not know of any religion that disputes that man is not perfect and capable of great inhumanity to his fellow creatures.

 

[Bennie_P]

My religion is not about negating the political stands of anyone else. It is not about being “not-Christian.” It is not about politics. It is about my relationship with my Gods. Period.

The original question was “it’s modern people infusing political ideology to reinvent ancient pagan gods and goddesses in a form more to their liking. It in no way resembles the gods in questions, the religions as they were actually practiced, and in short is merely dishonest modern invention.”

Therefore, does it not make much more sense to ask whether my stances on such are in line with those of the ancient Greeks than those of Jews or Christians? Actually, my opinions on those issues are the same as they were when I was still trying to fit into a Christian mold, so to some extent, yes, I admit that I am not of the exact same opinion on these matters as an ancient Athenian, for example…

So does that mean you once consider yourself a Christian?

But because you couldn’t fit your opinions into a “Christian mold”
it would be possible to believe, eventhough you are not exaclty in the same mind set as an acient Athenian, that it is easier for you to have a relationship with a god or gods were you can relate your opinions to them as you chose as opposed to following a moral code set by them?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is risky to apply the standards of human behavior to the Gods. What of a God who casually allows to be destroyed with His blessing the life a man who has done nothing but extreme good in God’s eyes, taking away his livelihood and killing his children and animals for the purpose of proving a point to one of God’s underlings (essentially to settle a bet)?

To bet implies doubt - God did not doubt Job’s integrity​

Who sends a bear to maul 42 children for calling His prophet “Baldy?”

1. There is a question whether they were children - na’ar can be used of children & grown ups, much like French garçon. The incident is a pendant to the episode of the passing of Elijah, & should be read as continuous with it: the Elijah cycle of stories is full of incidents which parody & satirise the cult of Baal, & the anger of Elisha is understandable, if the reference to his baldness implied that he was a follower of Baal - there was an Israelite prohibition against certain kinds of hair-cutting, for cultic reasons.

2. The God of Israel was thought of as responsible for good & evil by some of the OT writers - IOW, for everything. So the human agents tended to be overshadowed by the Divine Agent. This is expressed mythically in Babylonia by saying that the evil demon Lamashtu was the daughter of the supreme god Anu - that is, she came from him. Talk about God’s responsibility & agency cannot be conveyed directly - it has to be conveyed by constructions (of concepts, or stories, or sacred stories, or the like) which are about it; because God does not exist in the world* in the same mode* as we do.

3. As to this matter of divine morality generally - perhaps the difference between divine and human morality is a means of expressing the “holiness” of gods; Zeus’ rape of Ganymede would presumably not find many imitators in human society: Athenaeus tells a couple of stories (remarkably like the Sodom story in Gen. 19) about divine anger against two cities which engaged in rape against their neighbours. IOW, gods are “other than” men, & their morals reflect this.

Who curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season for his convenience (when He created the fig tree and the season)? Who impregnates another’s betrothed wife, but condemns to death by His own revealed law any human who would do the same? Who specifically causes a ruler to refuse to do as God desires then kills the firstborn of the king and all his subjects and destroys them for not doing what God desires? There are unflattering words that would be applied to a human who did any of these things. Are we to understand and judge the actions of the Christian God by human standards? No, or at least I have never encountered that particular theology.

Neither are the Hellenic Gods bound by human morals and ethics. There is not even an *imitatio dei *teaching in Hellenism as there is in Christianity. In fact, to consider that we could be like the Gods is hubris and a specific religious prohibition. The Gods are not behavioral or moral pattern-cards for humanity. They are Gods. One of the most famous of the Delphic Maxims is “Know Thyself”–know who you are and your place in the universe, that you are humans and not Gods.

It is one thing to presume to ascend to them (like Bellerophon on Pegasus) - another, to be taken up by them (as Ixion was; for a while). God comes down to us first - which is what makes it possible to go up to Him. In fact, we are “in Christ” - He is our Place (this is ultimately a Jewish idea). We are human, & we are sinners - there is no hubris in saying that. The other objections can come later​

As to whether you would find a Pagan God who died to save humanity from sin, well, one needs to look at who decided what sin was (in this case, as I understand it, primarily original sin) and that humanity then needed to be “saved” from it. It was not the Pagan Gods. That particular piece of theology belongs solely to the Christians–they didn’t get it from the Jews, either. No theology of original sin = no need for a Savior to save us from the consequences of original sin.

(cont)

 

[KarenNC]

How do you know what those children’s fate was after they died? Everyone dies at one point or another, God deemed that this was the best time for them to die (probably before they went on to call God’s prophet worse things than “Baldy” and making the situation worse for themselves, or catching some slow and lingering illness - who knows how they would have died otherwise). Who are we to judge whether someone died at the right time or for the right reason?

Who are we to say, then, by that argument, that children being sacrificed to Moloch or some other god was a bad thing? Those children may have grown up to be mass murderers, etc Maybe that was the best way for them to die. Maybe all those Canaanite Gods were actually being merciful.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

**I don’t know why you see Abraham NOT sacrificing Isaac as problematic - He spared the child, didn’t He? God gave Abraham a son against all odds, wasn’t that an act of love? God was testing to see if Abraham was willing to give this incredible gift back to Him, a sacrifice that God in the end didn’t require. Would you have thought it better if Isaac had fallen off a cliff and died instead before God asked Abraham for him? **

I see God asking for the sacrifice in the first place as problematic. There would have otherwise not been that situation to have to spare Isaac from. Same argument I have against original sin. If one gets to set all the rules and the situation that resulted in original sin and is in total control of every aspect of existence, not much of a trick to then “save” someone from the consequences one set up for the situation one created.

 

[KarenNC]

So does that mean you once consider yourself a Christian?

But because you couldn’t fit your opinions into a “Christian mold”
it would be possible to believe, eventhough you are not exaclty in the same mind set as an acient Athenian, that it is easier for you to have a relationship with a god or gods were you can relate your opinions to them as you chose as opposed to following a moral code set by them?

Yes, I was raised as a Christian and strove mightily to make my experiences with other deities (relationships that I have had since I was 10 years old and decades before I had ever heard or conceived of something like Neopaganism) fit into some form of Christian experience for many years. It was to no avail. I simply cannot deny that I have experienced relationships with more than one God, so I cannot honestly call myself a monotheist. That pretty much lets Christianity out for me.

Are you honestly claiming that no one other than Christians have or ever have had a moral code?

 

[Bennie_P]

Yes, I was raised as a Christian and strove mightily to make my experiences with other deities (relationships that I have had since I was 10 years old and decades before I had ever heard or conceived of something like Neopaganism) fit into some form of Christian experience for many years. It was to no avail. I simply cannot deny that I have experienced relationships with more than one God, so I cannot honestly call myself a monotheist. That pretty much lets Christianity out for me.

Are you honestly claiming that no one other than Christians have or ever have had a moral code?

No.

a quote "Then my good freind, we must consider at all what many will say of us, but only the expert in justice and injustice, and what he will say, the one, and truth herself. So first of all you were wrong at the beginning, when you began by saying that we must consider the opinion of the many on the just and the beautiful and the good and their opposites. “But look here.” someone might say. “the many are able to put us to death.” end quote

What is your opinion of this statement? Based on your belief system.

 

[KarenNC]

**[To bet implies doubt - God did not doubt Job’s integrity **

Why does it necessarily imply doubt by both parties? Satan certainly doubted Job’s response to suffering, and God essentially replies “Bet you can’t make him doubt or deny me.” I would be much more likely to take a bet on something that I knew was a sure thing and I don’t claim to be omniscient.

… Talk about God’s responsibility & agency cannot be conveyed directly - it has to be conveyed by constructions (of concepts, or stories, or sacred stories, or the like) which are about it; because God does not exist in the world* in the same mode* as we do.

1. As to this matter of divine morality generally - perhaps the difference between divine and human morality is a means of expressing the “holiness” of gods; Zeus’ rape of Ganymede would presumably not find many imitators in human society: Athenaeus tells a couple of stories (remarkably like the Sodom story in Gen. 19) about divine anger against two cities which engaged in rape against their neighbours. IOW, gods are “other than” men, & their morals reflect this. **

Yes.

**It is one thing to presume to ascend to them (like Bellerophon on Pegasus) - another, to be taken up by them (as Ixion was; for a while). God comes down to us first - which is what makes it possible to go up to Him. In fact, we are “in Christ” - He is our Place (this is ultimately a Jewish idea). We are human, & we are sinners - there is no hubris in saying that. The other objections can come later **

I don’t see any hubris in saying that. My point was, as you pointed out, that the behavior of the Gods in sacred story should not be taken as an example or directive for humans to behave in the same manner.

 

[Chancellare]

That’s between the ants and the Gods. Depends on the ant’s life situation. I don’t know of anyone who claims to have a worship relationship with every possible God that might exist.

I’ll borrow a post from my husband’s blog (executivepagan.wordpress.com) (since he’s already written this answer )

"So what’s up with all those Gods, anyway?

For a non-believer raised in our monotheism-dominant culture, real live polytheism can be a stumper. I’ve seen the above question phrased a hundred different ways - and surprisingly often, the second question is something like “How do you decide which ones to worship? Do you just pray to whoever you feel like that day, or draw names out of a hat, or what?” If the person asking is Catholic, I usually answer by asking how they decide which saints to pray to… and they usually get it. Everyone else gets a version of this. (NB: The use of “us” and “we” below refers specifically to my family.)

First and foremost, we honor Hestia. As the hymn says, “Hestia, in the high dwellings of all, both deathless gods and men who walk on earth, you have gained an everlasting abode and highest honor: glorious is your portion and your right. For without you mortals hold no banquet, where one does not duly pour sweet wine in offering to Hestia both first and last.” (Homeric Hymn XXIX, tx. Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Loeb Classical Library vol. 57. Copied from the Perseus Project website.)

As a married couple, we honor Hera - we’re currently looking for just the right items to establish a shrine for Her.

All of us have a special devotion to Athena - there’s not a specific external reason for this, it’s purely an offering of the heart. Our daughter in particular seems to be developing quite the relationship with Her. My wife and I both do various types of crafts, and so sometimes will remember Her in that way as well. Last year we made a pilgrimage to the Nashville Parthenon, and it was an amazing experience. It may not have been intended as a temple when it was built, but She has plainly made it Her own.

I have already mentioned Hermes, whom I honor as my professional Patronnote that we also honor Hermes when we travel–K]; we also have an Ancestor shrine, where we light candles and also make offerings to Hades and Persephone.

We don’t really have ongoing relationships with the other Gods, for the most part, but can certainly pray to them as need or opportunity arises. When we go to the beach, for instance, we always take some wine and pour a libation into the ocean to thank Poseidon for His hospitality.

I think it’s important to note that, contrary to what most monotheists seem to think, most of these prayers are not petitionary; we really don’t ask the Gods for all that much, other than to remember us with kindness for our past offerings to Them, and to be present to us in our lives. Sometimes, prayer is as simple as lighting a candle at a shrine and just resting in their Presence; in fact, that can be the most powerful prayer of all."

To the extent that in a system with no Absolute Truth but only situational and free choices such that it depends on who is the God available at your disposal at any given time and in which way you know to worship, it looks like your system follows this arrangement. Is this the case with you?

 

[Morning_Star15]

How do you know what those children’s fate was after they died? Everyone dies at one point or another, God deemed that this was the best time for them to die (probably before they went on to call God’s prophet worse things than “Baldy” and making the situation worse for themselves, or catching some slow and lingering illness - who knows how they would have died otherwise). Who are we to judge whether someone died at the right time or for the right reason?

Who are we to say, then, by that argument, that children being sacrificed to Moloch or some other god was a bad thing? Those children may have grown up to be mass murderers, etc Maybe that was the best way for them to die. Maybe all those Canaanite Gods were actually being merciful.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

It was humans who decided to sacrifice to Moloch or whatever other god - who’s to say that was a divine decision?

**I don’t know why you see Abraham NOT sacrificing Isaac as problematic - He spared the child, didn’t He? God gave Abraham a son against all odds, wasn’t that an act of love? God was testing to see if Abraham was willing to give this incredible gift back to Him, a sacrifice that God in the end didn’t require. Would you have thought it better if Isaac had fallen off a cliff and died instead before God asked Abraham for him? **

I see God asking for the sacrifice in the first place as problematic. There would have otherwise not been that situation to have to spare Isaac from. Same argument I have against original sin. If one gets to set all the rules and the situation that resulted in original sin and is in total control of every aspect of existence, not much of a trick to then “save” someone from the consequences one set up for the situation one created.

So you have a problem with God giving us free will, then? That’s the “setup” that God arranged - we had the choice of staying faithful to God or turning away from Him and in so doing making ourselves miserable. God didn’t force us to make the wrong choice, we did so ourselves using our free will. God loved us enough to not make us robots, to let us be free to make our own choices, even if those choices would be disastrous.

But God, knowing from the beginning that we would make a bad decision and reject Him, decided to create us anyway and with free will to make that decision, because He didn’t want us to be His slaves. He also set things up so that we would have another chance to be reconciled with Him after we turned away from Him, by sending Christ to bridge the gap our sin created by dying on the Cross and rising again from the dead.

As for Abraham and Isaac, God asked Abraham for the sacrifice knowing full well that He wouldn’t follow through with it - He never had any bad intention towards either Abraham or Isaac, He was just testing Abraham’s faith.

This is the problem with the secular viewpoint on this matter: a lot of people seem to think that they’re entitled to healthy children who will live long lives, have happy marriages, good jobs, and give them great grandkids. They see this as a right or an entitlement that they have because they happen to be able to reproduce. What the Abraham and Issac story illustrates very well is that children are a gift from God - we don’t deserve to receive them, and we don’t deserve to choose how they’ll turn out or how long they’ll live (although we can of course play a role in this, in the end God decides). God gave Abraham a son against all odds, and then said, “it’s time for your son to come back to me.” Abraham didn’t grumble about how unfair God was in taking back what ultimately belonged to Him, since God creates us and we come from Him and go back to Him, but accepted God’s Will in the matter. God rewarded him for his obedience to His Will by establishing a covenant with Him, and promising that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars.

 

[KarenNC]

No.

a quote "Then my good freind, we must consider at all what many will say of us, but only the expert in justice and injustice, and what he will say, the one, and truth herself. So first of all you were wrong at the beginning, when you began by saying that we must consider the opinion of the many on the just and the beautiful and the good and their opposites. “But look here.” someone might say. “the many are able to put us to death.” end quote

What is your opinion of this statement? Based on your belief system.

That context might help me to answer your question. I believe it is from Plato’s Crito, though there is a fairly important omission–(my emphasis added):

"Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. Well, someone will say, “But the many can kill us.”
classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

My understanding of the thrust of Socrates’ argument (as put forth by Plato) in this is that it is the responsibility of a just and honorable man to either fully honor the laws of the community to which he has subjected himself willingly, including in punishment, or to remove himself to another community if he cannot in good conscience do so. That it is better to die knowing one has lived as justly and honorably as possible than to preserve life by being dishonorable.

 

[Bennie_P]

That context might help me to answer your question. I believe it is from Plato’s Crito, though there is a fairly important omission–(my emphasis added):

"Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. Well, someone will say, “But the many can kill us.”
classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

My understanding of the thrust of Socrates’ argument (as put forth by Plato) in this is that it is the responsibility of a just and honorable man to either fully honor the laws of the community to which he has subjected himself willingly, including in punishment, or to remove himself to another community if he cannot in good conscience do so. That it is better to die knowing one has lived as justly and honorably as possible than to preserve life by being dishonorable.

And what part do you consider that I omitted?

I used the translation of W.H.D. Rouse, Therefore I omitted nothing from that translation of the excerpt.

I believe you missed a very important point of the diologue. Socrates saw it dishonorable to leave his community not only where he lived by his free choice, but of his birth. Other points that can be reaped from the dialogue, that it is never right to do wrong, and it always wrong to do wrong, despite the opinions of many whom would destroy the community for their selfish choices. Another point in the rest of the dialogue is the effect it would have on his children and family if he choose to leave the community just to satisfy himself.

There I see is a sense of morality applied.

So why did you leave the Christian community? Was it a Catholic community?

 

[KarenNC]

And what part do you consider that I omitted?

The word “not” in the first sentence (“we must **not **regard”), which is not a hard typo to make, but an important word nonetheless. Is it not there in the Rouse translation?

**I believe you missed a very important point of the diologue. Socrates saw it dishonorable to leave his community not only where he lived by his free choice, but of his birth. **

I wondered if that was where you were headed. Not quite. There is no dishonor in leaving a community with which one cannot agree, in fact it is the honest and honorable thing to do. It is the leaving only to evade punishment under the laws that you agreed to accept that is dishonorable.

Consider a further excerpt from the same:
“For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.”

I left the Christian religion of my own free will precisely for that reason–that I could not honorably present myself as being a part of that “contract” if you will. I was under no censure at all from the Christian community of which I was a part. It was not to evade punishment. In the end, I admitted to myself that I could not believe in the basic premise of the religion and never really had.

Another point in the rest of the dialogue is the effect it would have on his children and family if he choose to leave the community just to satisfy himself.

Not “if he chose to leave the community just to satisfy himself.” It is the effect of his escape from prison, an attempt to evade the punishment that the state to which he freely chose to subject himself has pronounced upon him, that is being addressed. In short, it is the flouting of the laws to which he willingly agreed to subject himself, and from which he had every opportunity to dissociate, once he finds those laws problematic to him that is being put forth as dishonorable. If he has agreed that the laws are just and fair, has willingly reaped the benefit from them for 70 years by staying for his entire adult life in the community, and agreed that the punishments that are included in the laws are fair and just to others, then he would be dishonorable to suddenly say that they were not so when applied to him. He has missed his opportunity to seek another land at this point.

If he continues to accept that the community is appropriate for him, any change must be done lawfully and within the system already established, not by evading them.
“he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just:”

**So why did you leave the Christian community? Was it a Catholic community? **

No, it was not Catholic. I was raised Presbyterian, my family left that and went Assembly of God when I was in college, I left that, did nothing for two years, then was part of the Episcopal Church for several years. Throughout all of this, I wrestled with the knowledge that I did not have an orthodox understanding at all of Christianity, either in terms of the nature of God nor the “one true way,” from at minimum the time I was 10 years old (possibly before, but I cannot say with any certainty). I strove and tried, hoping and praying earnestly that belief would follow if I simply continued with the forms hard enough, or studied long and widely and deeply enough, exploring the variety within the Christian tradition, but it did not. By my early 30’s I finally acknowledged that I was being hypocritical to continue to mouth words I could not find any way to believe and to present myself as something I was not and I finally left for good. It took several years of deep searching and examination after all the years of pretence to realize where I actually belonged.

We actually did explore the possibility of trying to return to a very liberal Christian Church when our child was born, as it would have been much easier socially and with extended family if we could have found any possible way to present ourselves as Christians. In the end, we realized that to lie even indirectly about our own beliefs for social convenience was exactly the opposite of what we wanted to teach our child. It would have been dishonest and dishonorable and bowing to the opinion of the many.

 

[Bennie_P]

And what part do you consider that I omitted?

The word “not” in the first sentence (“we must **not **regard”), which is not a hard typo to make, but an important word nonetheless. Is it not there in the Rouse translation?

You are correct, I did make a typo and omitted the word “not”. I appoligize for my sloppy typing.

I’m so sorry, that you have not been able to find what you are searching for.

Do you have a belief in providence? Such as by the difinition of the care, guardianship, and control exercised by a deity; divine direction?

 

[KarenNC]

It was humans who decided to sacrifice to Moloch or whatever other god - who’s to say that was a divine decision?

Having not studied the religion associated with Moloch particularly, I cannot say for sure, but it is not usually the case that humans would simply decide to sacrifice, especially on an ongoing basis, without having some idea that such a sacrifice is desired by the god to whom the sacrifice is offered. One could just as easily say that Abraham decided to sacrifice Isaac—Abraham is the only source one has for it being a request of God. Is one to accept the word of one person that his God told him to perform a human sacrifice, but then say that all other people who claim that their Gods tell them to perform human sacrifices are simply making it up?

**So you have a problem with God giving us free will, then? That’s the “setup” that God arranged - we had the choice of staying faithful to God or turning away from Him and in so doing making ourselves miserable. God didn’t force us to make the wrong choice, we did so ourselves using our free will. God loved us enough to not make us robots, to let us be free to make our own choices, even if those choices would be disastrous.

But God, knowing from the beginning that we would make a bad decision and reject Him, decided to create us anyway and with free will to make that decision, because He didn’t want us to be His slaves. He also set things up so that we would have another chance to be reconciled with Him after we turned away from Him, by sending Christ to bridge the gap our sin created by dying on the Cross and rising again from the dead. **

So God, despite being omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent, chose to create beings in such a way and set them in such a situation under such rules that He knew, without a shadow of doubt or uncertainty, that a large portion of them would choose a course of action for which He would decide (by His own standards) that it was worth damning them to eternal torment? Infinite punishment for finite sin? Evidently that level of punishment meets His desires in some fashion.

That He would decide that then He would give them, several thousand years later, a second chance, but would only reveal this second chance to a tiny minority of the world’s population and in such terms as to be so ambiguous that the people to whom He supposedly gave prophecies about this second chance would not be able to clearly see it as such? This is the action that demonstrates ultimate Love?

**As for Abraham and Isaac, God asked Abraham for the sacrifice knowing full well that He wouldn’t follow through with it - He never had any bad intention towards either Abraham or Isaac, He was just testing Abraham’s faith. **

Why would an omniscient God need to test anyone’s faith? To whom did He need to prove it? It continues to surprise me that folks will level all sorts of accusations against my Gods for evidence of what they term capricious behavior, but the same behavior in their own God is not interpreted in that manner.

This is the problem with the secular viewpoint on this matter: a lot of people seem to think that they’re entitled to healthy children who will live long lives, have happy marriages, good jobs, and give them great grandkids. They see this as a right or an entitlement that they have because they happen to be able to reproduce. What the Abraham and Issac story illustrates very well is that children are a gift from God - we don’t deserve to receive them, and we don’t deserve to choose how they’ll turn out or how long they’ll live (although we can of course play a role in this, in the end God decides). God gave Abraham a son against all odds, and then said, “it’s time for your son to come back to me.” Abraham didn’t grumble about how unfair God was in taking back what ultimately belonged to Him, since God creates us and we come from Him and go back to Him, but accepted God’s Will in the matter. God rewarded him for his obedience to His Will by establishing a covenant with Him, and promising that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars.

And in this case you are examining the story mythically, rather than literally, the same way in which I examine the sacred stories of my tradition.

There is, however, a great deal of difference between “it’s time for your son to come back to me” and “kill your son to prove how much you are willing to obey Me.”

 

[KarenNC]

To the extent that in a system with no Absolute Truth but only situational and free choices such that it depends on who is the God available at your disposal at any given time and in which way you know to worship, it looks like your system follows this arrangement. Is this the case with you?

It is not exactly a case of “spin the wheel and see which God I will pray to today” any more than I believe that Catholics do that with praying to the saints for assistance. One enters into a relationship with a particular God or Gods for a reason, whether that is due to one’s life situation or to an experience of the God calling you in some way for some reason. I would certainly never phrase it in terms of a God “being at my disposal” --not unless I wanted to be guilty of the greatest hubris.

As a Hellenic, well, “revivalist” might be a better term than “reconstructionist” for my practice, in order to learn more about the ways in which others have worshipped the particular Gods. I feel this is the best place to start, but. as in Reform Judaism, I do not feel this is the place to also end. I am not an ancient Athenian, my society, my knowledge, my worldview, even my climate and seasonal cycles are all different. I seek to worship the Gods in a manner consistent with the reality in which I live, not as an exercise in historic reconstruction. If a religion is not living and relevant to the life of the worshipper, it’s not much of a religion, is it?

Take, for instance, Poseidon. I do not have a specific relationship with Him, as my life does not intersect His sphere of concern on a regular basis. I do not live near the sea, do not draw my living from it, do not live in an area prone to earthquakes, am not involved in dealing with horses, so the intersections are limited to things like going to the beach for the weekend. When I do so, I pour libations to Him as a gesture of appreciation for His hospitality, but offerings to Him are not part of our normal, everyday worship.

A way in which we can be seen to depart from merely copying the ancients in our understanding of the Gods is that my daughter has a special affinity for Athena. There is nothing in the literature that would lead me to assume that such would develop. Artemis is the usual Goddess associated with childhood and young girls. We have not consciously encouraged such a relationship with Athena, but from the time she was very small (2-3 years old), Athena has been her primary focus. Events have occurred that lead me to believe this is not a one-sided relationship and I do not stand in its way.

 

[KarenNC]

Do you have a belief in providence? Such as by the difinition of the care, guardianship, and control exercised by a deity; divine direction?

I believe that such is possible in a relationship with a deity, certainly, and that the possibility of such is increased by the amount of energy one puts into developing that relationship, but not that that is the constant expectation. I do not believe humanity to be the primary focus of the attention of the Gods, whether we are speaking of all of humanity or just of me specifically.

 

[Keikiolu]

I am presuming that, contrary to the original question you quoted, that you are seeking my view on these, so here goes… again

Is God just another god, or is He God?

Presuming that the Christian God exists (and I have no compelling reason to say that He does not exist in some form), then He is one of many Gods.

OK. We disagree.

My question to you then is how an all powerful God can exist when He could be de-created by a “rival” all powerful God?

Why is it not important for non-monotheists to explain the creation of the universe?

The universe exists, how and why it got here is less important than dealing with things as they are. I would presume that there are likely non-monotheists who are concerned with this, but I am not one of them.

That’s a sensible answer.

My particular problem with that is that it’s indicative of a system of thought which focuses only on the immediate, and the immediate can be defined in such a way that any action can be justified as “ok”.

Is your “religion” as valid as any other non-monotheistic “religion”?

If you mean do I find them interchangable, no, they do not all do an equally effective job of reflecting the spiritual reality that I have experienced. If you mean do I think that other non-monotheistic religions can be valid, certainly their followers report that they are so. I am not sure why anyone would continue to follow a religion they did not find valid. I didn’t.

Good. So as long as a non-monotheistic, and probably theistic, religion is effective, then it is valid to you.

Your test is one of effectiveness.

You’re more concerned with effectiveness than truth. That’s not my way, but to each his own…

**If a religion claims that their god, or God, is the only god, or only God, is that religion automatically invalid? **

I would say that it certainly makes them much less accurate descriptions of the spiritual reality that I have experienced. Are they valid (do they do what they claim to do, are they effective)? You will have to ask their followers. I do not find them so.

Your focus is on effectiveness. The gods are all about “specific manipulations” to achieve goals. God is about the goals themselves.

You judge the world entirely as it relates to how effectively you can manipulate it.

From where do you get the goals for which you want to be effective toward gaining?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Bennie_P]

I believe that such is possible in a relationship with a deity, certainly, and that the possibility of such is increased by the amount of energy one puts into developing that relationship, but not that that is the constant expectation.** I do not believe humanity to be the primary focus of the attention of the Gods**, whether we are speaking of all of humanity or just of me specifically.

What is the focus of the gods, in your belief system?