Do you belive other gods exist?

[Darryl1958]

The First Commandment says that we should have no other gods before/besides God.

So do we as Catholics or even if you are not Catholic do you believe that other gods exist or not?

There are multiple definitions of who the gods are. We can worship spiritual entities as gods, such as Satanists do. We can worship other people as gods. Alexander the Great was so worshiped, as were the pharoahs. We can worship inanimate objects as gods, such as the Hebrews did in the desert. We can appeal to non-existent forces and believe in figments of our imagination as well, such as people who partake in magic and soothsaying do.

We can worship saints, such as Mary. We can even worship our secular goals as gods, such as the pursuit of fame, wealth, and power.

In a manner of speaking, each of these exist, and to the extent that they are worshipped, or adored above and beyond the worship that is reserved for the Lord on High, they are false gods.
The error does not lie in recognizing their existence. The error lies in the relationships we have with them.

 

[KimberlyCat]

That doesn’t answer the question. God and “gods” are not the same at all.

Neither is this relevant to the question.

“Gods” in the polytheistic sense are simply beings more powerful and perhaps in some way more “spiritual” than humans. Christians certainly do believe, traditionally, that such beings exist–angels and demons.

That, of course, doesn’t mean that the “gods” of pagan religions necessarily correspond to actual beings. But the possibility certainly can’t be ruled out. Early Christians thought that these gods were demons. Possibly some are/were, but the moral and spiritual status of most polytheistic systems seems more complicated than that to me.

So either we have to believe that there is considerable error in how polytheists conceive of their gods (whatever might or might not be the nature of the beings, if any, who originally lay behind the myths), or we have to be open to the possibility that there are superhuman beings whose moral status is more ambiguous than that of traditional angels or traditional demons–more, in fact, like ours.

I myself see no theological reason why this couldn’t be the case. The traditional view is that when angels sinned, their superior natures caused them to sin with finality and completeness, so that they became as thoroughly evil as created beings can be and are no longer capable of moral good or of repentance.

And that may be true of angels–i.e., of beings who enjoyed the presence of God. But isn’t it conceivable that there might be beings more powerful and intelligent than us, but lacking the kind of direct knowledge of God possessed by what we call “angels”? More analogous, in fact, to us when it comes to their relationship with God and their capacity to “fall” without becoming entirely evil?

I’m not saying that such beings do exist, necessarily (though I admit to a certain fondness for the idea–the universe would be a more interesting place if they did, and I’m inclined to think that the universe is a very interesting place indeed), only that their existence would not contradict any revealed truth of which I’m aware.

Edwin

Your questioned asked if YOU believe in one God. Yes I believe in one God which is what my answer was.

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting.

But the commandment does not say that there ARE no other gods

God is the one true God. But even the Bible acknowledges other gods, some by name.

So then who are Ra Baal,
Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, Gaia etc.

Are they all representations of the one True God or are they demons.
Or are they non existent?

Some of them are certainly spiritual entities that are real enough.

Are they sentient, though? Could they receive worship, even if one were to give it? Likely not, which is why it would not be appropriate to worship them.

 

[chero23]

I think that if someone answers yes, your doubting about the true God and his presence. So no I don’t believe or think that theirs other Gods

 

[gazelam]

I am somewhat knowledgeable of the Mormon doctrine. I am also quite familiar with *hairesthai *, whereupon someone chooses parts of Scripture to support a viewpoint that is in striking contradiction with the deposit of faith taken as a whole.

The similarity between the two doctrines is not just in the “subordination of the Son to the Father” but in the error that makes the divine person of the Son inferior to the divine person of the Father.

Thanks for clarifying a bit what makes a belief “Arian-ish”. Not sure whether a little child is inferior to its parent. One has become mature already and the other will become mature in the future. The child will eventually become like the parent, but at the present moment the parent has more ability than the child. The LDS view is that by the moment of His resurrection Christ possessed the same divine attributes as God the Father.

It is a Mormonic tenet that “the difference between Jesus and other offspring of Elohim is one of degree, not of kind. Human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh.” This makes the Father greater than the Son in nature, and makes the Son equal in nature to men and to angels (I won’t even get into this one).

As I stated above the LDS view is that there was a difference between the Father and the Son prior to Christ’s resurrection, but not after. The only differ post-resurrection would be one of rank. Not sure how this puts Christ and man on an equal footing. Man has no ability to atone for sins and no man has power over death. Yet in spite of the inequality, Paul promised the righteous that they’ll receive an inheritance equal to that of Christ!! (Romans 8:17)

Jesus demonstrating that He possesses the divine nature when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (refuting the idea that “all others who have lived have always existed”).

I see this verse more as “Before Abraham was [born], I am.” Several (not all) Bible translations are along the same lines:
biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm
biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm

IMHO Jesus is telling the listeners that he was the one guiding the Old Testament prophets. He wasn’t confirming that Abraham didn’t exist prior to birth.

That would run counter to Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV)* Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.*

and also John 9:2, 3 (KJV)

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Jesus said nothing to counter the belief that the man born blind lived before he was born.

John further makes this point by stating: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” And Genesis states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” First was God, **then **all creation. Creation was not coeternal with God - God is Uncreated Creator of all creation. And all creation came to be through Christ, light and life, who “was with God and was God”.

LDS would interpret John 1:1 like this “In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word (Christ) was with God (the Father), and the Word (Christ) was God (the Son). Through him (God the Son) all things were made; without him (Christ) nothing was made that has been made.”

Theologians are divided as to whether Genesis 1:1 refers to creation out of nothing or creation out of chaotic matter. After all, Genesis 2:7 says that God formed man from the dust of the ground.

 

[gazelam]

I was not trying to offend you or to demean your community by comparing it with the Arian heresy. I do however consider it important in my journey to understand where does a teaching come from. I believe we must hold on to the tradition as we received it. I can trace back my teachings in the Depositum Fidei, and I exhort all Christians to do the same. This argument is not, as you said, something early Christians believed, but an early heresy that the early Church firmly and vehemently confronted and condemned. But if we reject the teaching authority, then my words and your words have equal value, and so those of those who call themselves Christian and yet teach that Christ was and is an angel, et cetera. Clearly it cannot be so: the Spirit of truth must abide someplace.

No offense taken.

All else is creation, creatures, specks of dust who came to be by His will, are sustained by His love, and are totally and entirely unnecessary to Him. Angels come in many kinds, some incredibly mighty, others less powerful - but even the mightiest angel, yes, even the most terrible demon, is a mere nothing forced to bend his knee and cover his face when a man lifts up the Eucharist and proclaims: “Ecce Agnus Dei”. So don’t make such a big deal of the angelic powers, who in their greatness fall infinitely short of the title of “gods”, but not too short of the title of “dust” that rightfully belongs to man.

Paul refers to us as “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29),. Offspring grow up to be like its parents.

Take care.

 

[Contarini]

Your questioned asked if YOU believe in one God. Yes I believe in one God which is what my answer was.

No, the question asked if you believe that “other gods” exist.

Obviously there’s some linguistic confusion around the term “gods.” If the question is “other beings to whom it is proper to offer the worship called by the Fathers ‘latria,’” then the answer would obviously be “no” for any Christian.

If the question is “are there other Ultimate Principles” the answer would obviously be “no” for any rational person who believes in the law of non-contradiction.

But the OP appeared to be asking instead either “are there other superhuman beings” or “are there real beings who correspond in some way to the beings mistakenly worshiped by pagans.”

The answer to the first question is clearly “yes,” and the answer the early Christians would have given to the second would also be “yes.”

If we answer “yes” to the second question, then the further question would be, “are such beings adequately described by our theological category of ‘demons’”?

And that’s the question to which I don’t claim to know the answer for sure. It seems clear to me that pagan religions are not wholly corrupt and evil–that when many pagans worship a god (whether a lesser being worshiped as an intermediary with the High God, or as a personal being who presides over some aspect of a fundamentally chaotic and/or impersonal universe, or as a manifestation of some aspect of the one Ultimate Reality) they are interacting with qualities and experiences that have significant elements of both moral and aesthetic goodness.

But those elements might have nothing to do with any real superhuman being. There might be no such being “behind” the worship, or only a demonic being.

My private speculation is that there may be “superhuman” beings who were entrusted by the One God with some kind of governance of the world, and who “fell” away from a full knowledge of God without being entirely beyond redemption in the way that what we call “demons” are. God is so far beyond the “gods” that it’s not inconceivable to imagine beings of vastly superhuman power and intelligence still failing to understand God’s purposes. In fact, there’s a good bit of language in Paul that says exactly that–the question is whether he is speaking only of what we call “angels and demons” or whether he may be talking about some other kinds of beings (also whether he’s talking about anything that could be called “personal” beings).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Was trying to avoid this topic, but reading your “fallen angels” comment got me thinking about it. “Fallen angels” posing as Gods - the whole Enoch thing about the watchers, lying with women, creating a demonic race whose blood still flows in human blood today, the original fallen angels posing as gods and supernatural beings to throw humans off course, etc. I am sure you are familiar…Is this what you are referring to when you say “fallen angels”? just curious…

Not really, no. The orthodox Christian theological tradition moved away from this very anthropomorphic way of thinking about demons. I’m not sure it was entirely correct to do so, but of course I submit myself to the judgment of the Church if it turns out that the matter has indeed been conclusively settled in favor of St. Thomas Aquinas’s angelology and demonology. I’m starting with a basically Thomistic approach as the default, and asking whether there might be room for other understandings as well.

There would be troubling implications to the view that some human beings are literally descendants of fallen angels. This would seem to compromise their humanity. However, as C. S. Lewis reminds us in That Hideous Strength, medieval literature does suggest that “airish wights” might not be wholly evil and that one supposed “son of a demon” (Merlin) might be basically a benevolent figure and a pious Christian.

How much weight one should put on any of this I don’t know.

What we do know is that ultimately what matters about any being is whether he or she or it is in union with the True God and directing others toward God. Moral character matters a lot more than power. Idolatry, as I see it, is basically worshiping power–worshiping a being who will use power to help you in some way, rather than worshiping the true God and honoring the servants of that God.

And we also know that all human beings are capable of redemption, and in the unlikely chance that Aquinas is wrong and demons really can literally beget children who are also human, those children would still have free will (as in Lewis’s view of Merlin).

Edwin

 

[Darryl1958]

…

Paul refers to us as “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29),. Offspring grow up to be like its parents.

Take care.

Jesus has a great discussion of it too, culminating in John 10:34:

Jesus answered them, “I told you* and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify to me.n
26
But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.o
27
My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.p
29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,* and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.q
30

• The Father and I are one.”r
  31
  The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him.s
  32
  Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?”
  33
  The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.”t
  34
  *** Jesus answered them,u “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?**
  35
  If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,
  36
  can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated* and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?v
  37
  If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me;
  38
  but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize [and understand] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”w
  39
  [Then] they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power.

What Jesus is referring to is Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

I
God takes a stand in the divine council,
gives judgment in the midst of the gods.a
2
“How long will you judge unjustly
and favor the cause of the wicked?b
Selah
3
“Defend the lowly and fatherless;
render justice to the afflicted and needy.
4
Rescue the lowly and poor;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”c
II
5
*The gods neither know nor understand,
wandering about in darkness,
and all the world’s foundations shake.
6
I declare: “Gods though you be,d
offspring of the Most High all of you,
7
Yet like any mortal you shall die;
like any prince you shall fall.”
8
Arise, O God, judge the earth,
for yours are all the nations.

The Bible is rather nuanced in its monotheism for sure.

 

[Contarini]

As an ex pagan who came into the Roman Catholic Church this past Easter vigil, I will vouch for the fact that the entities which pagans worship are not gods in even the small g sense, but are agents of the enemy working to corrupt souls and bar them from going to heaven.

Your experience, logically, can only establish the effect of worshiping those entities on you. It can’t establish what they are. And it can’t establish anything about anyone’s experience except your own.

I don’t doubt that there are demonic elements in paganism.

But historically, it’s pretty clear that Christians have done things in name of the One God that could only be the product either of their own errors or of demonic inspiration. When Charlemagne forced the Saxons to convert to Christianity at the point of the sword, I believe he fell prey to demonic deception. But it would be wrong to conclude from this that the Being whom Christians worship is demonic, or even that Charlemagne’s own religion was simply demon-worship.

For those who have been into pagan belief systems, who find the truth and repent in a conversion to Catholicism, sometimes you discover that the Enemy and his minions aren’t so happy about losing you. Kinda makes you feel all nice and wanted… NOT. Entertaining ideas that there may be other gods even with a lower cased g and not “the” ultimate Godhead, is precarious ground.

Yes, but so is saying “paganism is demonic.” I respect your experience, but you need to respect mine as well. And my experience (and the evidence of history as I’ve studied it) is that there are immense spiritual dangers involved in Christian “exclusivism.”

There are immense spiritual dangers either way. Hence, we should be governed not by fear of danger but by love of truth. There is no escape from danger. We should not demonize other religions out of the fear of being deceived by demons, and we should not water our faith down out of fear of being “arrogant” or “triumphalist.” We should simply tell the truth as fully as we see it. I respect and honor you for doing so. My own perspective is necessarily different, but I value yours. There is only one Truth, but it’s easier for each of us to grasp that part of the Truth that is nearest our own experience.

I’ve heard that Satan likes to begin a conquest by first inspiring doubt

I’ve heard this too, but have little reason to believe it. In my experience, the reverse is far more likely to be the case. Certainty is far more corrupting than doubt, because if you are certain of your own beliefs, you close yourself to any truth you have not yet seen.

Edwin

 

[Reuben_J]

“Gods” in the polytheistic sense are simply beings more powerful and perhaps in some way more “spiritual” than humans. Christians certainly do believe, traditionally, that such beings exist–angels and demons.

That, of course, doesn’t mean that the “gods” of pagan religions necessarily correspond to actual beings. But the possibility certainly can’t be ruled out. Early Christians thought that these gods were demons. Possibly some are/were, but the moral and spiritual status of most polytheistic systems seems more complicated than that to me.

So either we have to believe that there is considerable error in how polytheists conceive of their gods (whatever might or might not be the nature of the beings, if any, who originally lay behind the myths), or we have to be open to the possibility that there are superhuman beings whose moral status is more ambiguous than that of traditional angels or traditional demons–more, in fact, like ours.

I myself see no theological reason why this couldn’t be the case. The traditional view is that when angels sinned, their superior natures caused them to sin with finality and completeness, so that they became as thoroughly evil as created beings can be and are no longer capable of moral good or of repentance.

And that may be true of angels–i.e., of beings who enjoyed the presence of God. But isn’t it conceivable that there might be beings more powerful and intelligent than us, but lacking the kind of direct knowledge of God possessed by what we call “angels”? More analogous, in fact, to us when it comes to their relationship with God and their capacity to “fall” without becoming entirely evil?

I’m not saying that such beings do exist, necessarily (though I admit to a certain fondness for the idea–the universe would be a more interesting place if they did, and I’m inclined to think that the universe is a very interesting place indeed), only that their existence would not contradict any revealed truth of which I’m aware.

Edwin

If I have to do this I would explain it through the Christian perspective or rather through my personal ability in the Christian perspective which probably is not very much. It is true in polytheism that the many gods are not just about good and evil. There are many gods who are responsible for doing good and there are gods who do the opposite – to punish and to destroy, not unlike our God in some ways.

From the Christian perspective there is only one God, the other supernatural beings are angels/fallen angels. If I am to account for the good gods in polytheism is that this must come from God. God can manifest in everyone though imperfectly. Polytheism simply categorizes and separate the good manifestation of God in their lives into different gods. There are of course the manifestations of the Evil One and these are obviously not God.

 

[livingwordunity]

The ones that pagans worshiped as “gods” were either myth and nonexistent, or some or all of them could have been demons. But either way, they have no power compared to the one true God.

“Of a truth, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone; therefore they were destroyed.” - 2 Kings 19:17-18

 

[LivingWaters7]

Thanks for clarifying a bit what makes a belief “Arian-ish”. Not sure whether a little child is inferior to its parent. One has become mature already and the other will become mature in the future. The child will eventually become like the parent, but at the present moment the parent has more ability than the child. The LDS view is that by the moment of His resurrection Christ possessed the same divine attributes as God the Father.

Would this mean that prior to the Resurrection, Christ was not fully divine, or did not possess “the same divine attributes as God the Father”?

As I stated above the LDS view is that there was a difference between the Father and the Son prior to Christ’s resurrection, but not after. The only differ post-resurrection would be one of rank. Not sure how this puts Christ and man on an equal footing. Man has no ability to atone for sins and no man has power over death. Yet in spite of the inequality, Paul promised the righteous that they’ll receive an inheritance equal to that of Christ!! (Romans 8:17)

Yes, the doctrine of deification/theosis is very much present in Catholicism.

I see this verse more as “Before Abraham was [born], I am.” Several (not all) Bible translations are along the same lines:
biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm
biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm

IMHO Jesus is telling the listeners that he was the one guiding the Old Testament prophets. He wasn’t confirming that Abraham didn’t exist prior to birth.

That would run counter to Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV)* Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.*

The traditional understanding of this is that it is referring to the omniscience of God.

and also John 9:2, 3 (KJV)

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Jesus said nothing to counter the belief that the man born blind lived before he was born.

That of course is not the only interpretation:

biblehub.com/john/9-2.htm

Further, it would have to be demonstrated that a belief in a pre-mortal existence for man was the belief held by the Jews at that time.

LDS would interpret John 1:1 like this “In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word (Christ) was with God (the Father), and the Word (Christ) was God (the Son). Through him (God the Son) all things were made; without him (Christ) nothing was made that has been made.”

Theologians are divided as to whether Genesis 1:1 refers to creation out of nothing or creation out of chaotic matter. After all, Genesis 2:7 says that God formed man from the dust of the ground.

Those that believe in creation ex nihilo are okay with God forming man from the dust of the ground (if that is interpreted literally). The creation ex nihilo part would be that the dust itself was created from nothing.

 

[adawgj]

No i do not

 

[LivingWaters7]

LDS belief in a nutshell is that God the Father has always existed, Jesus Christ has always existed, and that all others who have lived or will live on the Earth have always existed. LDS belief is that there is no creation ex-nihilo. The elements (atoms, etc.) are also eternal. So any similarity between LDS belief and Arianism may be in that the Son is subordinate to the Father (if that is a component of Arianism). Christ said as much in John 14:28 (…my Father is greater than I) and John 6:38 (For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.)

I hope this helps…

I responded to this issue somewhat in another thread. I think the foundational issue in these discussions is to understand that Trinitarians fully believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, they aren’t each other (as the Athanasian Creed teaches), they aren’t faces or manifestations of one person, etc. Far too often the Trinity is confused with the Modalism heresy.

The issue isn’t just subordination, since Trinitarians do accept a form of subordination within the Trinity (for example, Trinitarians believe that the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and/through the Son, while the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds, and is the “fount” of Divinity within the Trinity.).

What Trinitarians reject is a subordination of divinity, where the Son and the Holy Ghost are somehow “less” divine than the Father. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all fully God, fully Divine. They have eternally existed in the relationship they are in, i.e. the Trinity. They haven’t just always existed, but they have always existed as the unity of the Trinity.

The LDS view on God isn’t Arianism per se, but it does find similarities with the Arian view. Most importantly, there is the belief that the Son was created by the Father at some point. Yes, LDS do believe that we all have an eternal “intelligence” that was never created, and matter is co-eternal with God. However, LDS believe that we were all begotten spirit sons and daughters of God the Father and Heavenly Mother. This includes the Son and the Holy Ghost. So, the Father and Mother gave us some sort of existence as their begotten spiritual children, and in a sense, we were created by them. As mentioned, this view is very different from how traditional Christians view God, and would not be compatible with the Trinitarian view, which, while accepting three distinct Persons, as well as a form of subordination within the Trinity (but not subordination of Divinity or “substance”), does not accept that the Son and Holy Ghost had to be spiritually born at some point.

So, in that sense, the LDS view is somewhat similar to Arianism (and certainly not the same as the view held by the early Church Fathers).

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
**
There is indeed indication that the intelligence dwelling in each person is coeternal with God. It always existed and never was created or made (D&C 93:29). In due time that intelligence was given a spirit body, becoming the spirit child of God the Eternal Father and his beloved companion, the Mother in Heaven. This spirit, inhabited by the eternal intelligence, took the form of its creators and is in their image (Ballard, p. 140).

To the Prophet Joseph Smith it was revealed that we are all literal spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents. **

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Premortal_Life

ONLY BEGOTTEN. Jesus Christ is the only being begotten by the Father in mortality. His full title is “the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.” Since Mormons believe all humans were spiritually begotten by the Father before creation, “Only Begotten” is understood as being limited to mortality.

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Firstborn_of_God
**
Fundamental to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the concept that all human beings were born as spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents before any were born as mortals to earthly parents. Latter-day Saints believe that the eldest and firstborn spirit child of God is Jehovah and that it was he who was later born with a physical body to mary as Jesus Christ. That is, Jehovah of the Old Testament became Jesus Christ of the New Testament when he was born into mortality. **
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jesus_Christ#Jesus_Christ:_Firstborn_in_the_Spirit

 

[LivingWaters7]

Here’s something I posted in another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=826421&page=3 (see #45).

It was common in the earlier days of the church for Jesus to be referred to as the second God. By way of background, we Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate divine beings/Gods. We also believe that Christ still subjects himself to the Father’s will. This believe is distinct from the doctrine of the Trinity. Below are some quotes from Early Church Fathers showing that the belief that the Father and the Son are two distinct gods was common anciently. I hope this helps.

I think that it’s always helpful to go back to the actual sources of proof-texts, since sometimes, they don’t really support the claim that the person is making. Firstly, it is important to realize that Trinitarians are completely okay with saying that the Son is in “second place” or is the “second” whatever. He is after all referred to as the second member/Person of the Blessed Trinity. I also think it is important to understand the context in which the various quotes come from, such as who the ECF in question was talking to or addressing (i.e. Jews, Gnostics), and why they would employ certain terminology. See this article for many reasons why quotes such as the ones given do not really support the LDS nor JW views of God:

Were Early Christians Trinitarians?

When we go back to the sources, such as Clement’s Stromata (read it here: newadvent.org/fathers/0210.htm), we see that they don’t support uniquely LDS views on God at all (and indeed, they were distinctly orthodox in belief and practice). They certainly didn’t believe that God the Father was once a mortal man that progressed to Godhood (nor is such speculation even possible in their theology), nor that God the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother. When arguing with Jews or Gnostics, it is not surprising that some may have referred to Christ as a “second God”. However they certainly did not believe that the Father created or spiritually begot the Son (which is not the same as believing that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father), which I think is the main issue. It isn’t that the Son is “numerically distinct” from the Father, nor that they are one in purpose, love, intent, etc (which Trinitarians accept). It is whether they are also of the same nature, and if they are, and it is God’s nature to be eternal (and simply “to be”), then God has eternally existed as a Family (for more on that, see Dr. Scott Hahn’s book First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and the Trinity), as the Trinity, and the Father did not need to beget the Son at some point, just like He did all of us, with the Son merely being the first.

 

[marydaze]

,Idolatry, as I see it, is basically worshiping power–worshiping a being who will use power to help you in some way, rather than worshiping the true God and honoring the servants of that God.

…

I agree with you on this, regardless of whether you believe there are actual beings out there that exist that are demonic, or whether you believe that “gods” serve a purpose or are just figments of the imagination. The RREASON I agree with you, is that, for example, in Wioca, wroship or evoking, especially invoking, of a certain god or goddess usually serves a purpose: financial gain, personal confidence-gaining, love, power, knowledge, etc. It involves using free will to get whatever it is you desire - this involves idolizing power - if you get what you want when you want it because you will it there is a certain power to that. The “will of god” is not belived in. Wiccans might belive in spiritual purpose, but morality is basically guided by you get back what you put out. In other words, do whatever you want, but beware of the consequences. Good and bad, or rather, good or evil, do not exist in the sense a Christian sees it as existing. On the other hand woshipping the true God involves picking a side and doing the perfect will of God, who loves us.

 

[Contarini]

I agree with you on this, regardless of whether you believe there are actual beings out there that exist that are demonic, or whether you believe that “gods” serve a purpose or are just figments of the imagination. The RREASON I agree with you, is that, for example, in Wioca, wroship or evoking, especially invoking, of a certain god or goddess usually serves a purpose: financial gain, personal confidence-gaining, love, power, knowledge, etc. It involves using free will to get whatever it is you desire - this involves idolizing power - if you get what you want when you want it because you will it there is a certain power to that. The “will of god” is not belived in. Wiccans might belive in spiritual purpose, but morality is basically guided by you get back what you put out. In other words, do whatever you want, but beware of the consequences. Good and bad, or rather, good or evil, do not exist in the sense a Christian sees it as existing. On the other hand woshipping the true God involves picking a side and doing the perfect will of God, who loves us.

The Wiccans I’ve talked to–admittedly not many–do not seem particularly interested in power, except insofar as they want a religion that is more individualistic and generally “empowering” (particularly for women) than traditional Christianity. That certainly can be an idolatrous and demonic desire, although it may also be a healthy reaction to the demonic elements in historic Christianity.

Mostly, Wiccans seem interested in having a spiritual connection to the natural world and the cycles of life.

Edwin

 

[Lokadottir]

One statue, I thought was the pieta…of Mary with Christ after he was crucified. I was horrified to see it was NOT the Virgin Mary but death that had Christ in his arms! Good grief! We have statues of this popular death cult in Mexico where death is on top of the world.

I thought Christians didn’t fear death?
As someone who is forging a relationship with the Goddess Hel (or should be, I add this disclaimer because I gotta be honest I don’t always make time) honoring death is not that scary.
I also think the fact that you thought it was the pieta is very telling. Santa Muerta is actually associated with protection and healing as well as being a guide to the afterlife.
Why should you fear death when you have soul insurance?

 

[Contarini]

I thought Christians didn’t fear death?
As someone who is forging a relationship with the Goddess Hel (or should be, I add this disclaimer because I gotta be honest I don’t always make time) honoring death is not that scary.
I also think the fact that you thought it was the pieta is very telling. Santa Muerta is actually associated with protection and healing as well as being a guide to the afterlife.
Why should you fear death when you have soul insurance?

Christianity is not soul insurance.