L
Lokadottir
Guest
That varies across traditions and individuals. I am a hard polytheist so I believe the gods are all separate and I think the other gods exist but they don’t concern me.
- Status
T
thelifeofmac
Guest
Since I’m rather open-minded, I can’t see why separate sets of Gods couldn’t logically exist.
I subscribe to a notion of existential authenticity-- that is, that divinity will make itself known in a way that makes sense to a certain individual. Maybe that’s in multiple ways, different forms of the same truth, or in one singular form.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, so long as you call.
I think different faiths are different perspectives of the same thing.
I subscribe to a notion of existential authenticity-- that is, that divinity will make itself known in a way that makes sense to a certain individual. Maybe that’s in multiple ways, different forms of the same truth, or in one singular form.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, so long as you call.
I think different faiths are different perspectives of the same thing.
C
cmodrmac
Guest
Violations of the First commandment in my opinion occur when we put human constructions in place of God-such as money- fame -appearances -
Buddhism = no God
Hindu = many gods
Islam only = one God and Muhammed is His Messenger
Traditional Christianity = 1 God with 3 Persons
Jews = 1 God
New Age = we are all gods
LDS= we all become gods
Unitarians = whatever you think is fine
someone is wrong
Buddhism = no God
Hindu = many gods
Islam only = one God and Muhammed is His Messenger
Traditional Christianity = 1 God with 3 Persons
Jews = 1 God
New Age = we are all gods
LDS= we all become gods
Unitarians = whatever you think is fine
someone is wrong
T
thelifeofmac
Guest
Perfect example- my name is Sean, yet a large number of people know me as Mac, a shortening of my last name.
Sure, different people have different names for me, and have had different experiences with me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone knows me less than another, just differently.
Atheism, I have no defence for.
Sure, different people have different names for me, and have had different experiences with me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone knows me less than another, just differently.
Atheism, I have no defence for.
C
Contarini
Guest
A fiery hell is not mentioned in the passages to which you refer.
I do not believe that God commanded the slaughter of entire peoples. Clearly the ancient Hebrews had a tradition saying that their ancestors had engaged in such wholesale slaughter, though some scholars argue that this is rhetorical hyperbole common to ancient warfare accounts. At any rate, the Biblical authors draw on this tradition to make various theological points. From my perspective–and while some Catholics may be shocked by this, I do not believe it’s outside the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy–it is this theological meaning that is inspired by God (indeed, not even necessarily the theological points of the original human authors, but the theological meaning of the texts as interpreted through the cross and resurrection of Jesus).
When I say “the theological meaning” I’m not excluding history. Sometimes the theological meaning of the text requires us to believe something about history or science. Sometimes it doesn’t.
Joshua in particular actually focuses most heavily on the “exceptions” to the rule of slaughter. I’ve heard an interesting case made that Joshua isn’t really about holy war at all but about the inclusion of those whom one would expect to be excluded (Rahab and the Gibeonites, for instance).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
The first sentence seems to contradict what follows. If its all one divinity making itself known in different ways, then “separate sets of Gods don’t exist.”
You can’t have multiple Ultimate Causes. You can of course have multiple superhuman beings. I am a broken record on this, and I’m going to keep being one: we have to define “gods” before we can address the OP, and most people in this thread (Christians and pagans alike) seem unwilling to do so.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But where do they come from? What are they? Are they just species of beings more powerful or otherwise “greater” than us, who exist in different varieties in different places as other things do? How does one then interpret multiple cosmic creation myths? If they’re different mythological tellings of the same story, how does that square with the idea that different pantheons consist of entirely separate beings? (I.e., if Marduk and Odin are really separate beings, how could Marduk’s killing of Tiamat and Odin’s killing of Ymir be two different versions of the same event–indeed, how could they take place in the same universe without “bumping into each other” so to speak?)
Edwin
T
tonyfish58
Guest
cmodrmac - I would like to add to your observations, given that man has been involved in all these religions. Man as you know is very capable of changing the meaning of scriptures, the older they are the less of the original intent that remains and in some cases completely overrun by mans doctrinesBuddhism = no God
Hindu = many gods
Islam only = one God and Muhammed is His Messenger
Traditional Christianity = 1 God with 3 Persons
Jews = 1 God
Buddhism = One God - This Original intent or/and Meaning lost to mans interpretation of the text
Hindu = One God - This Original intent or/and Meaning lost to mans interpretation of the text
Jews = 1 God
Traditional Christianity = 1 God - Christ the Messenger, original intent lost when it was indoctrinated with with 3 Persons
Islam = One God and Muhammad is His Messenger
Babi - 1 God - Bab the messenger (Bab means Gate)
Baha’i = 1 God - Baha’u’llah the Messenger (Baha’u’llah means “Glory of God”)
Conclusion - One God, but man has made many more.
Regards Tony
T
thelifeofmac
Guest
It’s not as contradictory as you may think. I’ll offer a bit on elaboration on what I was trying to say.
I used a singular divinity for simplicity. I was referring to the vast expanse beyond the human mind. The divine could be a set, it could be singular. I’m not certain of anything.
I have no clue as to whether or not the forces that create and shape the universe are from one or many. I was saying that it’s possible that there are several sets of coexisting Gods, one god being known in many ways, or a number of potential errors in understanding along the way. Perhaps there is only one, and the others are false? I can’t say for sure.
Why does it have to be one force that created everything, and set it in motion? If a friend and I build a shed, for example, we were both responsible for its construction. Maybe I held a stronger or lesser role in it, but it doesn’t mean that I’m not part of the creative force, so to speak.
Again, keeping an open mind here.
And absolutely, I agree that the definitions are being dodged here.
Personally, I’d go on a limb and define a god as any entity that is beyond the limits of our understanding.
S
Skadi
Guest
Unlike my compatriot I am a Soft-Polytheist. I believe the gods are separate and individual entities, but that all life is ultimately comprised within a pantheistic, impersonal super entity.
But, ill answer your questions as they pertain to my pantheon.
- They are a race of incredibly powerful beings. Divided into two tribes, the Aesir and the Vanir.
- same as above.
- Almost no modern pagans take their creation myths literally. We see the stories as allegory.
- Thats realy the crux of it. Softer neo-pagan sorts like Wiccans and eclectic pagans often go with the idea that all dietys are cultural faces of divine archetypes. Harder pagans such as re-constructionists (Asatru/Germanic Is generally the most conservative branch of paganism) usually view them as separate entity’s entirely.
Personally Im somewhere in the middle. I do believe the gods are separate entity’s, but if there are many of them, and they are imperfect, then it would make sense they would fall into certain archetypical categories just as other life does. Every culture has its rebels, its moralists, its father figures, its heroic warriors, its motherly caretakers.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
I can roll with that! The problem is Christians believe a diety must be perfect and all powerful. Pagans (as far as I know) do not. But I think yours fits the bill for both!
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes and you should also. The scripture tells us there is only ONE TRUE GOD. But it also tells us there are false gods.
If there were not God would not have warned us.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Such a definition would seem, minimally, unhelpful and most certainly, only serves to muddy the water. By your definition, any unknown or advanced alien species and even, perhaps, highly evolved mammals, such as whales or elephants - which are not completely understood and, therefore, for the moment are “beyond the limits of our understanding” - could be classed as “gods” until when or if they are fully understood.
Traditionally understood, “gods” have supernatural powers; powers over nature which are not reducible to mere manipulation of causal properties. They are said to supervene in the natural order, not simply intervene by natural means.
Granting that “gods,” by definition are supernatural deities or beings with the capacity for supernatural activity, activity not reliant upon natural causal means, the question remains whether such beings do, in fact, exist. Furthermore, it remains a most important question whether God as the supreme Being, or as defined by classical theism, as THE necessary and sufficient Creator of all that exists, does indeed exist.
Some corollary questions re: gods would be:
What is the relationship between the Supreme Creator God and these other gods?
Why would any human choose to honour or worship these other gods and eschew worship due the Supreme Creator?
What evidence or support from metaphysics does one rely upon to even posit the existence of such beings when, on the face of it, at least, there is no such evidence?
Arguments like that from the fine tuning of the universe or the Kalam cosmological argument, among the thirty + arguments all seem to point at one Supreme Being, at least, for the reason that needlessly multiplying explanations is unwarranted.
Furthermore, the classical definition of God as omnipotent (power without limit) entails that the existence of more than one omnipotent being is logically impossible, since the power of one would be a necessary limit on the other’s power.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have asked the same question, and the response from the pagans here has been, “I don’t believe in a Creator god.”
Oh. Okay. Then where did all this stuff come from?
Then you get responses that sound like pantheism to me… the source of all is an impersonal “force”, etc., etc.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
It’s like I’m in Theory of Knowledge whenever you post man.
How about we add of a metaphysical nature. (kinda excludes Jesus but not entirely as he is now in metaphysical-ness so
)
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Scripture does not warn against false gods because they have any power or existence, but rather because worship of powerless or non-existent entities is detrimental to one’s spiritual health. This actually says nothing about whether such gods actually exist, only that it is foolish to spend any time, energy or worship on them.
Many of the events in the Old Testament related to false gods specifically demonstrate that these conceived deities are powerless, and, by implication, non-existent. The real danger was in giving in to the practice of worshiping these false gods which would lead the Israelites away from following the one true God.
Paul, however, does speak of “principalities and powers” though not as “false gods” but rather as forces for evil.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is important to learn to swim or, at least, tread water if you want to move into places where you don’t feel the touch of solid earth under your feet.
The metaphysical nature of Jesus is grounded in historical fact with a great deal of corroboration from philosophy and Scripture studies. Even atheist New Testament scholars such as Bart Ehrman or the Jesus Seminar do not deny the historicity of Jesus and the empty tomb. From there, the early Church fathers, a 2000 year long tradition of Church teaching and people like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and NT Wright, today, demonstrate that the most credible explanation for the empty tomb and rise of early Christianity is that Jesus was raised from the dead.How about we add of a metaphysical nature. (kinda excludes Jesus but not entirely as he is now in metaphysical-ness so
You might want to visit coldcasechristianity.com to see that the evidence from history was enough to convince a hard-nosed cold case detective from Los Angeles that the “metaphysical” claims of Christianity about Jesus are seriously credible.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
Show off
I was just referring to the incarnation. Not about to deny your God or what you consider him to be!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I’ve done my share of floundering and sputtering water, and still do.Show off
So was I. The resurrection, if it occurred, is evidence that Jesus’ claims concerning divinity (“The Father and I are one.” “Before Abraham ever was I am.” Etc.) were true.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
Just discovered I’ve seen that word ONLY when it was used wrong.
spiritual nature I meant SPIRITUAL NATUREcurls up into a ball of shame
- Status